@Anonymous wrote:@RevelateAnother thing to consider is this. On the scorecard reassigned there’s different weightings for everything, including the inquiries, so I don’t know if I would expect the number to be exactly the same because they’re running through different algorithms (different scorecards) and weighing things differently. That said that’s a very large gain for hitting one year AOYRA on a clean thick aged scorecard. Is there anything else that could’ve caused an additional point gain possibly?
The inquiry fading, and seemingly something got conflated because I lost fewer points when the Amex landed than I gained for my last cards ticking over a year.
It should have been either the same amount if there's no change in the year, or it should've been greater if there is change throughout the year. Instead it was less, and that I can't explain unless something else got conflated in the datapoint.
@Revelate wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Revelate wrote:So, conflated.
I went past 1 year AOYRA and got non-trivial points on FICO 8 and movement everywhere else. Pretty expected.
Here's the funny thing, I just had the Amex Hilton report, and I lost fewer points. Haven't done the full data capture yet but I saw the highlight: FICO 8 -21... which is flatly different than before. Somewhere I gained 7 points.
The only thing I can think of, is I had an inquiry from 4/2/19. I didn't see a score change on 4/2 or 4/3 but yesterday when the Amex landed I didn't lose all the points I'd gained. I haven't strenuously tested inquiries on EX but do these get excluded by month as well or somehow Date + 1 year + 2 days? That's the only thing I can think of... for that matter I had another inquiry 4/28/19, both credit cards from national banks (Chase, Citi) so I don't think there's anything weird like the CU funkiness I saw on some EX scores, these should both count full monty. 7 points sounds like inquiries too TBH.
I know conclusively EQ FICO 5 it wasn't by month, and I'm pretty sure not on TU FICO 4 either, but I have less useful data on that front for FICO 8 and no longer have access to my old Scorewatch data.
I also need to go back to when my mortgage inquiry counted, but something be strange here and I'd welcome thoughts.
Jeez even weirder: FICO 2 went 772 -> 780 and now -> 788 as of today. New accounts factor in the presence of inquiries to one of TT's posts?
On what do you base your belief that age of newest revolving account is different than age of newest account? As near as I can tell a new installment account drags me down the same as a new revolving account.
Because a year and a half ago I opened two installment lines and my EX FICO 8 stayed around 820-830; as soon as I opened up a new credit card in April of last year I got sent down to ~800 and stayed there until a few days ago.
Also I'd have to go back and check the industry options but pretty certain there was a reason code shift in the revolving age reason code and then after data from both Cassie and Birdman it seemed pretty conclusive frankly that it was AOYRA and not AOYA.
Thanks.
To me, that doesn't seem conclusive.
@Anonymous wrote:
@SouthJamaicaI was just re-reading the post and I was thinking about where you lost those couple points for an installment loan and it didn’t seem that you crossed an aging threshold. I was wondering do you also calculate the average age of your installment loans? That metric is also pointed to in some negative reason codes, so I just thought I would mention that and ask.
No I don't. Sorry.
Question: Are "negative reason codes" different than "front end fluff", or are they a category of "front end fluff"?
@Anonymous wrote:
@dragontears wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@dragontearsMy conclusion is not based on one data point, but I have no interest in debating the matter. As a matter fact, the conclusion resolved and resolves many previously unexplainable data points. We can agree to disagree, but there are even negative reason codes that point to the age of revolving accounts. That’s pretty explicit.
Additionally, we lack even one data point contradicting it. Fico scoring is for the most part divided into installment and revolving. HELOCS and chargecards are not installment loans, but rather than change the name again to average age of non-loan accounts for example, AAORA is simply the term we’re using to keep life easy.
I’ll leave it at that. We can agree to disagree.Let's be honest here, we lack definitive data to "prove" your theory just as we lack data to "disprove" it. You are obviously convinced and are not willing to consider any other options.
I have personally seen negative reason codes for age of revolving accounts, but the code I get is "age of revolving accounts is short". Are you saying that there is a code that states "recently opened revolving account" or "age of most recent revolving account"? If so please provide a reference as that is something that I have not seen and I like learning new things.
I had originally planned to start paying for monitoring once I was ready to aquire a new mortgage just to help test this theory but it seems like any contradicting data will be dismissed.
@dragontears I guess it depends on how much data is required to meet YOUR burden of proof. Data from myself AND others supports this conclusion and it has explained many other things. There is no data yet to contradict it, but I welcome all data points.
Yes I am convinced, but my mind has been changed about many things I've been convinced of before, so if there is sufficient credible data that comes forward to disprove it and explain it in another way, my mind is open. But until then, yes I am convinced.
No, I am not saying there's a negative reason code that states exactly "newly opened revolving account." If that were the case, it wouldn't of taken this many years to figure this out. Fico is going to obscure things to protect proprietary secrets, that's why we have to reverse engineer.
It's taken many years to connect many negative reason codes to their metrics due to this obscurity. However there are negative reason codes that refer to various ages of revolving accounts, as well as various ages of installment accounts, as well as various ages of accounts generically. In fact, the entire algorithm is weighted more towards revolving accounts than it is installment accounts, as we see with utilization.
I am on mobile where I cannot strip metadata (if there's a way somebody please tell me), so I won't insert a picture at the moment, but you're already aware of reason codes that reference ages of revolving accounts which is my point. I don't recall the exact language at the moment, I know it refers to oldest and average, but the negative reason code for a new revolver under 12 months of age simply states new account if I recall correctly.
IIRC (it's been a little while, you can go back and read my threads if you'd like to know the exact details), I lost that code upon my youngest revolver becoming 12 months of age. A few days later when my new loan reported I still did not get that reason code nor did I lose my "AOYA" points. But when I had a new revolver report a week or 2 later, suddenly the new account negative reason code is back and I lost my "AOYA" points. I'm welcome to hear any alternate theory?
Whether you would like to get monitoring and contribute data points or not is totally up to you. If so, we definitely appreciate it and will consider them. If not that's your choice. I just don't wanna go around in circles.
Well as long as 'your mind 'has been changed by many things' and you're 'welcome to hear any alternate theories' then there's always hope 
I'm not saying no to your hypotheses, btw, I'm just thinking of them as hypotheses rather than as facts. Partly because my own experiences -- admittedly much less rigorously examined and not even fully remembered -- seem to cut against them.
Keep up your pioneering self-micro-testing Someday we'll figure FICO out..... not.