@Anonymous wrote:
Both are irrelevant if I am understanding correctly, and if I am not, please instruct me properly. FICO 8 has 8 clean, 4 dirty. AooA is a segmentation factor (aged/nonaged) on the clean 8. AoYA (New account/no new accounts) is also a segmentation factor on the clean 8.
On the 4 dirty, neither play a role, that I am aware of..Its either public record or not and how severe. (Excluding if it's conflated, which is possible, but I doubt.)
I don't think anyone really knows how the 4 derogatory scorecards break down, there doesn't seem to be a severity clause either and different models behave differently... AFAIK a collection and a BK are the exact same scorecard, but the BK hurts more similarly to a 120D > 60D in terms of penalty once inside that scorecard when it comes to that portion. That's two scorecards, and I believe there's a PR + late scorecard too for 3, and the 4th I don't know unless it's around age though that might be age of negative information to your point, but it might be new file too.
FICO 8 has an age boundary setup on negative information, and it might even be six months; FICO 9 has similar for even more than that based on some very shakey data I once got. Anyway the behavior was seen when I got a second tax lien on my file, FICO 8 dropped 40 points, FICO 5 moved 5 points, but by the six month mark FICO 8 had recovered back to the prior score... not gold standard but highly suggestive.
I also think a lot of our information is just on what people have seen sporadically over time, like my 767 TU FICO 4 with a recent 60D late is absolutely insane compared to all the other datapoints I've seen here, and if even small things like mortgages counting for installment utilization are accurate, hardly any home owner has an optimized file for FICO 8 as another example. It was a surprise when I hit 720 on the mortgage trifecta too with a tax lien, collection, and lates... that level of score in that ugly file case was later confirmed by jamie123's experience IIRC.
There's just still a lot that we don't know and nobody really has been able to put everything together on a file that's not already basically perfect and in whatever 850+ buffer zone exists when talking FICO 8.
It's just data analytics: someone who "doesn't use" their credit isn't as safe a bet as someone who does and isn't missing payments.
It's a dumb penalty to be sure but it's only one that hits those of us who are basically FICO Strategists and very few others, and really 12 points or whatever isn't a big deal in most cases for pretty or mostly pretty files. Subprime or especially on mortgages if not above 740 (or 760 if you need PMI) then yeah every little stinking point counts.
Some day the algorithms will be able to look at historical data and we won't have the current and admittedly a little silly utilization metrics, but I was expecting that years ago and it's still not here so I'm not holding my breath. Till then I'll just play the game and let a small balance report on a single card when it matters.
I have to go back and check my data but I lost some points when my lates fell off Experian and I still had a tax lien: that strongly suggests different scorecards when the report objectively improved but the score drops.
When you look at scoring metrics it is only the one reason code for public records of all types and at least from scoring collections seemed to be identical.
We are really sure what puts you into the derogatory scorecards but a helluva lot less sure what the makeup is of each. I am pretty sure if I got a collection or tax lien on TU I would get a non-trivial shift downward on both FICO 4 and 8 even though I have a 60D late marked as recent still... and not just the 5 points or whatever that a secondary derogatory would pick up of a similar type and age.
When you look at scoring metrics it is only the one reason code for public records of all types and at least from scoring collections seemed to be identical.
We are really sure what puts you into the derogatory scorecards but a helluva lot less sure what the makeup is of each. I am pretty sure if I got a collection or tax lien on TU I would get a non-trivial shift downward on both FICO 4 and 8 even though I have a 60D late marked as recent still... and not just the 5 points or whatever that a secondary derogatory would pick up of a similar type and age.
CFA doesn’t stick you in a derog scorecard; doesn’t even put one in a minor delinquency scorecard (which is still in the top 8).
Yeah my TU has a 60D late: that is basically the smallest piece of dirt that banishes one to the bottom.
BBS: older scores I think new accounts assuming segmenting you either had have one or you didn’t, FICO 8 there appear to be a ton more little breakpoints and my own recent Experian data seems to confirm Cassie’s data too when I dropped 30 points recently but it might also be a anti-spree mechanic so to speak in terms of number of new accounts.
That’s an interesting question BBS in general though but I think it almost has to. Hard to explain either Cassie’s data on new accounts or all the data on AAOA even (if it plays a role, I mean I saw a reason code shift at 5 years on EX across the board, doesn’t get any clearer than that for a breakpoint) with all the 66 etc month data points.
Yeah my TU has a 60D late: that is basically the smallest piece of dirt that banishes one to the bottom.
BBS: older scores I think new accounts assuming segmenting you either had have one or you didn’t, FICO 8 there appear to be a ton more little breakpoints and my own recent Experian data seems to confirm Cassie’s data too when I dropped 30 points recently but it might also be a anti-spree mechanic so to speak in terms of number of new accounts.
That’s an interesting question BBS in general though but I think it almost has to. Hard to explain either Cassie’s data on new accounts or all the data on AAOA even (if it plays a role, I mean I saw a reason code shift at 5 years on EX across the board, doesn’t get any clearer than that for a breakpoint) with all the 66 etc month data points.