This is like in school where there was always someone who got a 98 on the test and went crazy finding out where the other 2 points went. 
It sounds like they just want to provide value by offering reason codes - the nice thing about the reason code you have is they are basicaly telling you to do absolutly nothing and they will fix themselves.
@Anonymous wrote:This is like in school where there was always someone who got a 98 on the test and went crazy finding out where the other 2 points went.
It sounds like they just want to provide value by offering reason codes - the nice thing about the reason code you have is they are basicaly telling you to do absolutly nothing and they will fix themselves.
Hey Nurse! Glad to see your comment.
There are really two kinds of concerns that pop up in this particular sub-forum ("Understanding FICO® Scoring"): practical vs. theoretical. People raising practical concerns are, as you rightly observe, freaking out about their score. They need it to be higher because they are about to buy a house, a car, etc. Or it has just taken a substantial drop and they are worried about why that could have happened.
There's a whole other kind of conversation, however, which is people trying to guess how the algorithm works on the back end, the proprietary details of which are shrouded in FICO secrecy. This is a theoretical conversation. These folks aren't going crazy about their score; they aren't desperately trying to get it higher. In contrast to the "practical" conversation often going on in parallel on another thread, these folks have a much more relaxed, curious, puzzle-solving approach.
The first group wouldn't care much why FICO does a thing, as long as you could raise their score and help them buy that house. The second group wouldn't care much about their score going up, as long as you could shed more light on how FICO works.
Of course, the same person can have both practical and theoretical interests, though most often people tend to be one or the other.
When one group tries to understand the other in terms of its own set of interests they get baffled, as you were with BBS post. It just seemed silly for somebody to be scrambling to get higher than 840.
BBS is raising a good point (for a theory-chaser). He's observing that it appears that FICO seems to consider the age of revolvers separately from the age of all accounts (which would include installment as well). He's also suggesting that it is even more finely grained and looks sprecifically at open revolvers.
From a theory perspective this is revealing and has implications for pretty much all people. That's what theoreticians do. They look at really obscure experimental evidence (e.g. what small sub-atomic particles do) and build theories which (if true) have implications for all kinds of "normal" stuff that we see in everyday life.
For what its worth. This shows on my MyFICO 3B. Dont know why EX wasn't listed.
According to high achievers average? Oldest 25 yrs and AAoA 9 yrs or more.
@Anonymous wrote:Curious side note: in the LexisNexis models (used by the insurance industry and not made by FICO) the models punish you if your oldest account is a loan! There's a whole family of reason codes for it. And stranger still the penalty is not abated when both your oldest loan and oldest card are really old. As long as the loan is older (e.g. if you have a 29 year old loan and a 26 year old card) then you get a penalty. Wild, huh?
More proof the insurance industry is nothing more than a racket. 
