Is EQ removing AU's from CR?

[Anonymous]

K- in-Boston Wow, that is extremely interesting and fascinating. And it’s obvious they are counting because of the score changes, so they’re not being excluded from consideration by anti-abuse.

One thought that crossed my mind was something mentioned about the credit based insurance scores dinging you for your age of oldest account having too large of a difference from your average age of accounts ... I wonder if that plays any part in FICO algorithms?

I can understand the basis for increased risk as it would indicate an older profile all of a sudden seeking a great deal of new credit, which could be an indicator of financial distress.

[K-in-Boston]

@Anonymous  unfortunately, I'm not sure on the insurance scores because I live in one of the three states where insurance scores cannot be used to determine insurance rates (CA, HI, and MA are the states).  On the other hand, fortunately I live in one of those three states because my rates dropped considerably when I moved to MA years ago.

[Anonymous]

K-in-Boston Very cool, but what I'm pondering is whether FICO algorithms could also possibly use that metric.

Cuz thats crazy your score increases when your ages drop

[iv]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
One thought that crossed my mind was something mentioned about the credit based insurance scores dinging you for your age of oldest account having too large of a difference from your average age of accounts ... I wonder if that plays any part in FICO algorithms?

---

Ah, yes... LexisNexis Attract Home 3.0 codes 3345 through 3352.

https://consumer-solutions.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2523/~/how-do-i-learn-more-about-scores-and-reason-codes%3F

"Insurance industry research shows that consumers with longer established account age in months but whose average account age is less than 7 years 5 months experience more insurance losses."

It's not purely having an old account as well as recent brand new accounts - the stat is based on TOTAL # of months across all accounts (one 10-year old account being equal to 10 1-year old accounts), as well as average account age.  Very odd criteria.

I don't believe we've seen any evidence that FICO scoring models use this kind of criteria.

[Anonymous]

iv Excellent info!

But I thought I recalled an insurance code that specifically compared the disparity between the AooA with AAoA.

TBH, I've never seen this one, and if it is effectuated as you say, then it would penalize consumers that simply had thicker files and therefore more account age months. Am I understanding you correctly, and is this how it is utilized?

I am going to see if I can find the one I think I remember..(memory isn't what it used to be.)

[iv]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

But I thought I recalled an insurance code that specifically compared the disparity between the AooA with AAoA.

---

Oh. Yes. I'd missed that one.

LexisNexis Attract Auto 3.0 codes 3066 through 3069 and 3176 through 3189.

"Insurance industry research shows that consumers whose oldest account was established more than 14 years 7 months prior to the date the score was generated but whose average account age is less than 7 years 8 months experience more insurance losses."

"Insurance industry research shows that consumers whose oldest account was established less than 14 years 7 months but whose average account age is more than 7 years 8 months experience fewer insurance losses."

---

@Anonymous wrote:

TBH, I've never seen this one, and if it is effectuated as you say, then it would penalize consumers that simply had thicker files and therefore more account age months. Am I understanding you correctly, and is this how it is utilized?

---

Yeah, 3345 through 3352 do literally just count total months across all tradelines. A thick young file and a thin old file could both add up to the same number of total months.

LN scoring is ...weird. (But the scoring/reason codes are at least very well documented!)

In all of those listed cases above, the penalties for those specific codes are gone at 8+ year AAoA...  but for the best LN scores, you need 16+ year AAoA, utilization under 4.62%, AoYA of 10 years(!!!), AoOA of 28+ years(!!!), total non-mortgage balance under $666(!!!), average revolving CL of $10,533+... all strange breakpoints, but all spelled out in the LN reason code lists.

I just wish LN still made the Home/Auto scores available for purchase by consumers.

[Anonymous]

iv I've been searching for that since the hour ago you posted it..I just gave up and checked my notifications, and here it is, you gave it to me in a bow! LOL!

Yeah, sucks they refuse to sell them anymore. But what do insurers do if you freeze LN and Verisk?

Yes, nice its documented, and yes, its strict!

[iv]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
iv I've been searching for that since the hour ago you posted it..I just gave up and checked my notifications, and here it is, you gave it to me in a bow! LOL!

---

Just part of the service! (I cheated - I had the LN reason codes PDFs open already...)

---

@Anonymous wrote:
But what do insurers do if you freeze LN and Verisk?

---

Depends - for a new insurance application, I'd guess that they would either just deny the application unless unfrozen, or apply the "worst" credit-based tier to the application.

But for an existing insurance account? The freeze wouldn't matter, since they would have an existing relation, and be able to SP the report through the freeze anyway.

[Anonymous]

I thought insurance companies could SP anyway?

[Anonymous]

I appreciate the reference too because I couldn’t find it it was bugging me!

Yeah freezes doesn’t stop softpulls though. Or does it work differently with LN or Verisk?