Less obvious reason for a VS 3.0 +16?

[Anonymous]

I normally pay very little attention to my VS 3.0 scores (CK) but upon my weekly Sunday morning login today, I noticed that both of my CK scores were +16.  Immediately I got excited as I thought it could mean that one of my two late payments (2 different accounts) had been removed from my hard GW campaign.  If that were the case, my FICO scores would clearly increase as well upon a fresh CCT pull.

When looking at those 2 accounts, unfortunately both of those late payments are still there.  Too bad; no doubt my FICO scores will stay the same.

My question though, since I don't really know the VS 3.0 model very well, what other less obvious reasons are there for a score increase such as this?  Looking at some of the basics, I didn't have any inquries fall off or age past a year, my AAoA from the VS 3.0 viewpoint is 2.2 years, so it didn't cross the threshold of "2" this update so that shouldn't have changed anything.  My two late payments did not cross another whole number in terms of age in years (although one will in mid-January) so that can't be it.  Utilization has been 1% for months at this point.  I've played with letting 1, 2, 3 or all of my revolvers report a small balance and like my FICO scores my VS 3.0 scores never seemed to change because of this so I don't think the increase would have anything to do with utilization. 

Anyway, not that it matters much, but does anyone have any ideas of something less obvious (or maybe obvious, just not to me) that would yield a VS 3.0 increase of +16?

[Thomas_Thumb]

VS3 actually looks at 150 criteria per the below paste. The criteria get lumped together for simplicity in identifyinf primary scoring categories the way Fico does.

Note: Unlike Fico, VS3 does, to a degree, look at available credit in its scoring model.

Note: VS DOES look at inquieies for a full 2 years. I gained 3 points on EQ within days of my lone inquiry reaching 2 years and falling off. Something else is in play in your case but one would likely need to dig deep into your data to offer a reasonable guestimate on cause.

[Marcos8]

Doesn't CK have a link under each score that says "what's changed?" Maybe that can provide more insight. 

[JLK93]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

 my AAoA from the VS 3.0 viewpoint is 2.2 years,

---

I know very little about VS. What did you mean by the VS 3.0 viewpoint?

[Anonymous]

---

@JLK93 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

 my AAoA from the VS 3.0 viewpoint is 2.2 years,

---

I know very little about VS. What did you mean by the VS 3.0 viewpoint?

---

I just mean that I know VS 3.0 only looks at open accounts, not all accounts (open and closed) in the last 10 years when determining AAoA.  So, while my AAoA is 7 years in terms of what FICO looks at, from the viewpoint of VS 3.0 my AAoA is only 2 (2.2) years.

[Anonymous]

Thomas,

One thing I hadn't considered as the aging of new accounts.  I opened 4 new accounts in June (well Blispay only reports to EX, so 3 in terms of what CK sees) so perhaps it could do with the aging of "new" accounts and perhaps not considering them "new" any longer?  It has only been 5 months though, actually 3-4 months of reporting depending on the account which seems like a rather short threshold.  Also, I don't recall losing 16+ points when I opened these accounts under the VS 3.0 model.  There's got to be something else that I'm not seeing. 

[JLK93]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@JLK93 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

 my AAoA from the VS 3.0 viewpoint is 2.2 years,

---

I know very little about VS. What did you mean by the VS 3.0 viewpoint?

---

I just mean that I know VS 3.0 only looks at open accounts, not all accounts (open and closed) in the last 10 years when determining AAoA.  So, while my AAoA is 7 years in terms of what FICO looks at, from the viewpoint of VS 3.0 my AAoA is only 2 (2.2) years.

---

I don't think that is correct. Credit Karma only looks at open accounts. VS is the score provided by CK, but it does not use AAoOA like CK does. VantageScore uses AAoA. Your VS AAoA should be the same as your FICO AAoA. There is no correlation between Credit Karma and VantageScore.

Of course, like I said, I know very little about VantageScore.

[Anonymous]

---

@Marcos8 wrote:

Doesn't CK have a link under each score that says "what's changed?" Maybe that can provide more insight. 

---

I don't see that link and spent about 5 minutes looking for something like this but haven't come across it.

[JLK93]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Thomas,

One thing I hadn't considered as the aging of new accounts.  I opened 4 new accounts in June (well Blispay only reports to EX, so 3 in terms of what CK sees) so perhaps it could do with the aging of "new" accounts and perhaps not considering them "new" any longer?  It has only been 5 months though, actually 3-4 months of reporting depending on the account which seems like a rather short threshold.  Also, I don't recall losing 16+ points when I opened these accounts under the VS 3.0 model.  There's got to be something else that I'm not seeing. 

---

According to FICO scoring, accounts opened in June would be 6 months old on December 1st. I have no idea how VantageScore sees this aging.

For clean files, there is a rebucketing, and sometimes significant score increase, on FICO 04, when youngest account reaches 6 months. This probably doesn't apply to dirty files. If you have access to your FICO 04 scores, it would be interesting to see if there was any increase.

This could be what is going on with your VantageScores.

[Anonymous]

---

@JLK93 wrote:

---

---

I don't think that is correct. Credit Karma only looks at open accounts. VS is the score provided by CK, but it does not use AAoOA like CK does. Your VS AAoA should be the same as your FICO AAoA. There is no correlation between Credit Karma and VantagScore.

Of course, like I said, I know very little about VantageScore.

---

I just searched and read a couple of articles that say that VS only includes open accounts in AAoA, so that leads me to believe it's not just a CK thing.  I could be wrong, but this has always been my understanding and the articles I just Googled seem to support that.  TT would probably be the person to ask, though!