@Anonymous wrote:
From my humble understanding, the first segmentation factor is whether or not a derogatory exists. If so, then the next segmentation factor is whether there’s a public record and then the third segmentation factor is age of the derogatory.
I’ve gathered this information from illustrations from ThomasThumb, who is much more knowledgeable in this matter than I.
I asked about the credit mix because they you stated the reason code for loan was intermittent.
I was wondering if the AU account was being flagged by the anti-abuse algorithm in one or more of the bureaus.
I know that 2 of the bureaus do not discriminate as to what day of the month and use the 1st for everything, but doesn’t EQ use the actual day of the month for its calculations? Or does the FICO algorithm always use the first for all purposes regardless?
I;m almost postive Thomas_Thumb was the author of the post I read about the age of oldest account being a segmentation factor (I'll see if I can find the post and note the link). Yes, you are correct - the presence of a derog is also a factor -- but I do not know if the ageing of a derog plays a part as well -- i have never heard that theory, tho it is certainly possible. But, my derog only aged from 5.5 years to 5.6 years, so seems odd that that would have resulted in a scorecard reassignment.
Yes, the loan balance reason code was intermittent on the two bureaus that report the AU -- it used to only appeared when my credit utilization increased beyond 9% and now it is there even though my util is below 8%. However, it was always a constant negative reason on TU, which does not report my AU account. My thought (which could be totally wrong) was perhaps the loan balances were a factor in the overall debts owed ratio (credit & loans) -- which would be higher on TU due to the lack of the $20K AU; this ratio would also be higher on EX and EQ if my overall util was high (in my case, high was anything above 9%).
I do not believe my AU is flagged for abuse as the limit and balance is still considered by both bureaus that report that account (do you know how else would I know if it were?). My AU is also legit, same residence / last name as primary account holder.
FICO in general gauges age by the 1st of the month. EQ uses the actual date on your report while EX and TU use the 1st of the month - but the FICO algo uses the 1st of the month no matter the bureau.
@Anonymous wrote:
By the way what would be your AAoA with the AU?
AAoA with AU is 2 years 11 months. I'll find out next month what, if anything, the increase to 3 years does...
@Anonymous wrote:
From my humble understanding, the first segmentation factor is whether or not a derogatory exists. If so, then the next segmentation factor is whether there’s a public record and then the third segmentation factor is age of the derogatory.
I’ve gathered this information from illustrations from ThomasThumb, who is much more knowledgeable in this matter than I.
Here's a post from Thomas_Thumb that mentions age of oldest account as a scorecard factor:
Quote: "File age classification is based on age of oldest account on file. This influences scorecard assignment. A file's AAoA is a factor in Fico model scoring - just not scorecard assignment. "
But then, I also just came across this one, also from Thomas_Thumb, which discusses derogs & scorecards -- so perhaps the aging of my derog did, indeed, play a part in reassignment...
While my derog account is 5.6 years old as of today, the initial 30-day late delinquency that led to the charge-off did become exactly 5 years old today - so maybe that was some sort of a milestone... ???
Good thoughts...thank you for brainstorming.
@Anonymous wrote:
Assuming the illustration I have is correct: AooA is segmentation factor at the second level if no derogatories exist. I’m on mobile so I don’t know how to insert it, but if the illustration is correct because you have a derogatory, AooA may not be a segmentation factor until that derogatory falls off. However I agree the timeframe does not appear to be threshold.
As to the intermittent code I think it only shows so many, so probably another one pushed it out maybe?
The AU abuse algorithm can still be flagged regardless of name and address. If my understanding is correct, the only way you can know for sure is to actually test it as BBS advised me. Have everything else report zero and then see if placing a charge on it gives you back the points you lose for having no balances on any account.
I have one reported at all three bureaus that I need to test.
Thanks for the information on the reporting day being the same for FICO purposes regardless of bureau.
Yes, I think I know which illustration you are referencing -- I think it's the one in the link I just posted about derogs -- seems you may be correct in the derog factor. But --
That doesn't really explain the drastic point loss deviations between EX (-15), EQ (-25), and TU (-5). If the aging of the derog was the only culprit, why only a small drop on TU and such large drops on EX and EQ (both of which had the AU age to 8 years today - in addition to the loan aging to 6 years and the initial derog delinquency to 5 yrs.)? This is what makes me think the aging of the oldest account was a motivating factor... otherwise, the loss of points should be within a smaller range between the three bureaus, no?
You may have a point about the intermitten reason code -- I guess it could have been pushed out -- still seems odd that it only happened on the two bureaus with the AU (I guess that could be another reason to assume the AU is not flagged).
I'll have to test the AU thing... that card always reports a balance, so I'll have to see what happens next time I'm able to let all of my primaries report $0 and then a balance again... thanks for the advice!