EX ticked to 850 - 3 possible reasons why:

[Anonymous]

My EX FICO Score 8 has been steady at 847 since June.  Completely bulletproof.  It doesn't matter if I have 2 of 9 accounts (1 revolver, 1 installment loan) with a balance or 9 of 9 accounts; never budges from 847. 

I did a CCT pull this morning and noticed my score ticked up to 850.  The change can only be from one of three things, the age of accounts factors that increased by 1 month on 9/1/18:

AAoA:  81 months --> 82 months (~6.8 years).

AoOA:  209 months --> 210 months (17.5 years now).

AoYA:  15 months --> 16 months

Tough to say here with 3 variables, but I'd more or less rule out AoYA.  I'm not convinced that there's any change realized between 12 months and 23 months when it comes to AoYA.  Perhaps something may be gained at 24 months?  Anyway, I think it has to be AAoA or AoOA.

I'm personally leaning slightly more toward AAoA here reaching 82 months rather than AoOA reaching 210 months.  Other than a gut feeling, I have no reason why I feel that way.  Any opinions here on either of these two points being a threshold for a gain?  Perhaps someone else has a data point on their file from the same point in time for either of these factors?

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

My EX FICO Score 8 has been steady at 847 since June.  Completely bulletproof.  It doesn't matter if I have 2 of 9 accounts (1 revolver, 1 installment loan) with a balance or 9 of 9 accounts; never budges from 847. 

I did a CCT pull this morning and noticed my score ticked up to 850.  The change can only be from one of three things, the age of accounts factors that increased by 1 month on 9/1/18:

AAoA:  81 months --> 82 months (~6.8 years).

AoOA:  209 months --> 210 months (17.5 years now).

AoYA:  15 months --> 16 months

Tough to say here with 3 variables, but I'd more or less rule out AoYA.  I'm not convinced that there's any change realized between 12 months and 23 months when it comes to AoYA.  Perhaps something may be gained at 24 months?  Anyway, I think it has to be AAoA or AoOA.

I'm personally leaning slightly more toward AAoA here reaching 82 months rather than AoOA reaching 210 months.  Other than a gut feeling, I have no reason why I feel that way.  Any opinions here on either of these two points being a threshold for a gain?  Perhaps someone else has a data point on their file from the same point in time for either of these factors?

---

I know it's off topic, but....    congratulations

[Anonymous]

---

---

I know it's off topic, but....    congratulations

---

Come on SJ, that's not the response I was looking for.  Thanks though buddy

The reason why I'm leaning toward AAoA here a bit is because there has been some buzz over the years that 94 months (~7.8 years) may be the top threshold for AAoA in terms of scoring.  I guess I figured that exactly 12 months less, 82 months, could potentially be another point.  On one hand that makes a little sense to me, but then I have my own personal data which somewhat shoots that down.  On my own profile on EX I know for certain that 78 months (6.5 years) was a definite threshold, yielding a 4 point change.  I had the opportunity to get a very solid data point on this, as earlier this year I had my AAoA reach 78 months, +4, then an old account fell off bringing it back down to 75 months, -4, then I pulled my scores again a day or two after arriving back at 78 months, +4.  It would just seem strange to me that if 78 months is a threshold that 82 months only 4 months later could be another good for a +3.  Who knows, though.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Odds are in favor of AAoA. As mentioned in other posts increments for AAoA are months - not years. There is a tendency to package AAoA thresholds in whole years but, CBIS scoring models explicitly use months. I think Fico may as well.

Sure AoOA could be a possibility but, likelihood is much less IMO.

AoYA  in a pipe dream but not the real world.

Of course there is the possibility of something else like a change in utilization or # cards reporting that is affecting score but has yet to show on a report. I sometimes wonder if scores could be pulled from a different database than account summaries.

[Anonymous]

TT, while I'm leaning toward AAoA as well, don't you find it a bit suspect that a threshold would exist at both 78 and 82 months on a file?  You'd think if 4 months is enough to yield 3-4 point gains that close together that we'd see far more reported thresholds no?  Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way.

I am 100% positive that utilization changes or number of accounts with a balance were not a factor here.  Even if they somehow were, I already proved that on EX my profile was bulletproof from 2 of 9 accounts all the way to 9 of 9 accounts with my score staying at 847 the entire time.  I also pulled my scores from CCT 2 days before August ended (847 still on EX) which really isolates the next pull to only see something age of accounts related with the changing of the month.

[Thomas_Thumb]

The bigger question is: What happened to your Fico 8 score associated with the other two CRAs?

I assume they have the same AoOA & perhaps AoYA but, may or may not have the same AAoA. If those scores didnot react in a similar fashion, I'd rule out AoOA as a possibility.

Side note: There are reason codes that suggest Fico looks at installment loans seperately from revolving accounts from an aging perspective.

[Thomas_Thumb]

The below Fico reason code summary table is for mortgage Ficos. Note the differences among CRAs.

It may provide some insights on other things to look.

https://crecreditservices.com/resources/education/fico-score-factor-codes/

NIU = Not in use for this scoring model
IS .. = Industry Specific Option

***	Experian	Equifax	Transunion
Reason Code	(Alpha/Numeric) (Fico II)	(Beacon 5.0)	(FICO Classic 98/04)
Amount owed on accounts is too high	A/01	01	01
Level of delinquency on accounts	B/02	02	02
Too few bank revolving accounts	C/03	NIU	NIU
Proportion of loan balances to loan amounts is too high	I/33	33	03
Too many bank or national revolving accounts	D/04	04	NIU
Lack of recent installment loan information	Y/32	32	04
Too many accounts with balances	E/05	05	05
Too many consumer finance company accounts	F/06	06	06
Account payment history is too new to rate	G/07	07	07
Too many inquiries in the last 12 months	H/08	08	08
Too many accounts recently opened	J/09	09	09
Proportion of balance to credit limits is too high on bank revolving or other revolving accounts	K/10	10	10
Amount owed on revolving accounts is too high	L/11	11	11
Length of time revolving accounts have been established	M/12	12	12
Time since delinquency too recent or unknown	N/13	13	13
Length of time accounts have been established	O/14	14	14
Lack of recent bank revolving information	P/15	15	15
Lack of recent revolving account information	Q/16	16	16
No recent non-mortgage balance information	R/17	17	17
Number of accounts with delinquency	S/18	18	18
Too few accounts currently paid as agreed	T/19	19	27
Date of last inquiry too recent	NIU	NIU	19
Time since derogatory public record or collection too short	V/20	20	20
Amount past due on accounts	W/I	21	21
Serious delinquency. Derogatory public record or collection	X/22	22	22
Number of bank or national revolving accounts with balances	23	23	NIU
No recent revolving balances	U/I	24	24
Length of time installment loans have been established	IS	IS	NIU
Number of revolving accounts	IS	IS	NIU
Number of bank or other revolving accounts	IS	IS	NIU
Too few accounts currently paid as agreed	T/27	19	27
Number of established accounts	IS	28	28
No recent bankcard balances	29	NIU	29
Date of last inquiry too recent	NIU	NIU	19
Time since most recent account opening is too short	Z/30	30	30
Too few accounts with recent payment information	I/O	31	NIU
Amount owed on delinquent accounts	34	34	IS
Lack of recent installment loan information	Y/32	32	04
Proportion of loan balances to loan amounts is too high	I/33	33	03
Amount owed on delinquent accounts	IS	34	31
Payment due on accounts	45	NIU	NIU
Length of time open installment loans have been established	IS	NIU	NIU
Number of consumer finance company accounts established relative to length of consumer finance history	IS	NIU	NIU
Serious delinquency and public record or collection filed	38	38	38
Serious delinquency	39	39	39
Derogatory public record or collection filed	40	40	40
Lack of recent auto loan information	98	NIU	IS
Length of time consumer finance company loans have been established	NIU	NIU	98
Lack of recent auto loan information	NIU	NIU	97
Lack of recent auto finance loan information	NIU	IS	NIU
Lack of recent consumer finance company account information	IS	IS	IS

[Anonymous]

---

@Thomas_ThumbThe bigger question is: What happened to your Fico 8 score associated with the other two CRAs?

I assume they have the same AoOA & perhaps AoYA but, may or may not have the same AAoA. If those scores didnot react in a similar fashion, I'd rule out AoOA as a possibility.

---

I was already at 850 on TU, so there's nothing to see there.  EQ was also at 847 just like EX, but EQ did not increase.  My AAoA is greater on EQ than it is on EX.  When EX moved from 81 months to 82 months on 9/1/18, EQ moved from 88 months to 89 months.  I don't really know that it matters though whether a change would be seen with score using different bureau data, as the thresholds could be different across the CRAs no?  I mean, we already know certain factors like number of accounts with a balance impact a score drawn on EQ data before they do on EX/TU for example.  My AoOA and AoYA are indeed the same across all bureaus, just not AAoA.

[Meanmchine]

<sneaks in the door so no one can see me as I shout....>

CONGRATULATIONS !!!!

<runs out the door quickly becore BBB can yell at me>

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Thomas_ThumbThe bigger question is: What happened to your Fico 8 score associated with the other two CRAs?

I assume they have the same AoOA & perhaps AoYA but, may or may not have the same AAoA. If those scores didnot react in a similar fashion, I'd rule out AoOA as a possibility.

---

I was already at 850 on TU, so there's nothing to see there.  EQ was also at 847 just like EX, but EQ did not increase.  My AAoA is greater on EQ than it is on EX.  When EX moved from 81 months to 82 months on 9/1/18, EQ moved from 88 months to 89 months.  I don't really know that it matters though whether a change would be seen with score using different bureau data, as the thresholds could be different across the CRAs no?  I mean, we already know certain factors like number of accounts with a balance impact a score drawn on EQ data before they do on EX/TU for example.  My AoOA and AoYA are indeed the same across all bureaus, just not AAoA.

---

Thresholds are built into the Fico model as part of the core algorithm. CRAs can tweak the model by adjusting weights and adding or subtracting certain secondary scoring attributes. However, the core model is controlled by fico and the CRAs don't have access to those specifics. After all, the CRAs jointly developed VantageScore in an effort to compete with Fico.

Clearly the CRAs can choose to add or subtract some "non core" scoring attributes as evidenced by NIU and IS in the above table. All CRAs use AoYA and AAoA so, those factors can be helpful in validating thresholds by monitoring how score responds to a change

AoOA is looked at as well but, it is a bit muddled due to its use in assigning profiles to scorecards. Also, some CRAs may look at AAoA and AoOA specific to installment loans while other CRAs may not. Furthermore, there is a reason code that makes specific reference to age of open loans that may or may not be used by a given CRA.

Curious what you revolving account AoOA and installment loan AoOA are by CRA. Do you have any differences in open loan ages among the CRAs? Any differences in aggregate installment loan B/L ratio?