Penalty For A Zero Balance Reporting? Non-usage

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous wow, weren't those the oldest accounts as well? So didn't it affect average ages? Or was it isolated to the CFA's?

@Anonymous , they were not the oldest accounts. I have 2 accounts that are older, so my AAoA actually went down a couple months, when these 4 CFAs aged off. 9y 1m > 8y 7m per MyFico. My AoOA went up 1 month since this was from 11/20 > 12/20.

It was always thought the points must be negligible, but we never had really seen an isolated case to determine the value. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wow, weren't those the oldest accounts as well? So didn't it affect average ages? Or was it isolated to the CFA's?

@Anonymous , they were not the oldest accounts. I have 2 accounts that are older, so my AAoA actually went down a couple months, when these 4 CFAs aged off. 9y 1m > 8y 7m per MyFico. My AoOA went up 1 month since this was from 11/20 > 12/20.

It was always thought the points must be negligible, but we never had really seen an isolated case to determine the value. 

---

@Anonymous The CFA's were paid and not derogatory? Do not rely on MF's calculation of ages. Please re-calculate it yourself. And if you're AAoA was that high, then I don't think it affected it. 

if in fact those calculations are correct and your AAoA was that high and the CFAs had become positive at least, then these are awesome data points!! It's crazy how much 'knowledge' has been overturned these past couple years!

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wow, weren't those the oldest accounts as well? So didn't it affect average ages? Or was it isolated to the CFA's?

@Anonymous , they were not the oldest accounts. I have 2 accounts that are older, so my AAoA actually went down a couple months, when these 4 CFAs aged off. 9y 1m > 8y 7m per MyFico. My AoOA went up 1 month since this was from 11/20 > 12/20.

It was always thought the points must be negligible, but we never had really seen an isolated case to determine the value. 

---

@Anonymous The CFA's were paid and not derogatory? Do not rely on MF's calculation of ages. Please re-calculate it yourself. And if you're AAoA was that high, then I don't think it affected it. 

if in fact those calculations are correct and your AAoA was that high and the CFAs had become positive at least, then these are awesome data points!! It's crazy how much 'knowledge' has been overturned these past couple years!

---

They were positive TLs, paid/closed. Not all of my accounts were derogs.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wow, weren't those the oldest accounts as well? So didn't it affect average ages? Or was it isolated to the CFA's?

@Anonymous , they were not the oldest accounts. I have 2 accounts that are older, so my AAoA actually went down a couple months, when these 4 CFAs aged off. 9y 1m > 8y 7m per MyFico. My AoOA went up 1 month since this was from 11/20 > 12/20.

It was always thought the points must be negligible, but we never had really seen an isolated case to determine the value. 

---

@Anonymous The CFA's were paid and not derogatory? Do not rely on MF's calculation of ages. Please re-calculate it yourself. And if you're AAoA was that high, then I don't think it affected it. 

if in fact those calculations are correct and your AAoA was that high and the CFAs had become positive at least, then these are awesome data points!! It's crazy how much 'knowledge' has been overturned these past couple years!

---

They were positive TLs, paid/closed. Not all of my accounts were derogs.

---

@Anonymous did you double check the calculations on the dates yourself? For average age? If so, I've got a put this in the Primer! 

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous was there a score change on version 8/9?

@Revelate @Thomas_Thumb @Anonymous you might wanna see this!

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous was there a score change on version 8/9?

@Revelate @Thomas_Thumb @Anonymous you might wanna see this!

---

I will have to double check the AAoA math, because as you know, my MyFico and EQ ACR CRs show different AAoA between them (AoOA is the same, though).

I am at work, but I will bust out the reports and calculator tonight.

I will have to double check the F8/F9 changes, but off the top of my head, I believe there was no change.

[Anonymous]

I guess my next question would be regarding whether or not diminishing returns exist with respect to CFAs, the way they do with other adverse-scoring impact items like delinquencies for example.  What I mean is if we quantify the gain for 4 CFAs dropping off as being worth (say) 20 points gained, are we therefore quantifying each CFA as being worth 5 points?  Or, do we believe that if there was only 1 CFA present that its removal would also be worth 20 points and because there was already 1, the other 3 didn't really matter when it came to scoring impact?

If we're saying that 1 CFA is worth 20 points, I would agree that it's significant.  If we're saying that one in and of itself is worth 5 points, I'd consider that personally to be insignificant.

Just trying to further quantify the quantification thus far.  Great info for sure though!

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I guess my next question would be regarding whether or not diminishing returns exist with respect to CFAs, the way they do with other adverse-scoring impact items like delinquencies for example.  What I mean is if we quantify the gain for 4 CFAs dropping off as being worth (say) 20 points gained, are we therefore quantifying each CFA as being worth 5 points?  Or, do we believe that if there was only 1 CFA present that its removal would also be worth 20 points and because there was already 1, the other 3 didn't really matter when it came to scoring impact?

If we're saying that 1 CFA is worth 20 points, I would agree that it's significant.  If we're saying that one in and of itself is worth 5 points, I'd consider that personally to be insignificant.

Just trying to further quantify the quantification thus far.  Great info for sure though!

---

SO had 2 x CFAs drop and saw +39 pt gain in EQ5, so I think of it as an all or none when it comes to CFAs and scoring penalty.

like CAs. 

Mine might have had less of a scoring increase due to being on a Dirty/PR scorecard while SO is on a Dirty/non-PR scorecard. Perhaps the affects is even more pronounced for clean scorecards?

[Anonymous]

That could definitely be the case.  I would think we'd see the CFA negative reason code higher up on the list though on clean scorecards, as not much other than high utilization IMO would rank higher points wise if you're taking negative payment history items out of the mix.

[Revelate]

Interesting.  TY for the datapoint re CFAs.

For me my CFA has always been in the #4 position I believe on all scores that I've ever received reason codes for and sometimes it's been below that depending how many variable things I have wrong with my file (inquiries, new accounts, wayward utilization, etc) where it can be pushed off the table easily, wasn't expecting a 39 point swing on FICO 8 certainly.  Out of curiosity do you have before and after reason codes?  That seems high for a small modification of an existing scorecard to me but hard to say without much closer analysis.

Unfortunately I haven't been in the same bucket on TU (stupid lates on the JCB tradeline sorry y'all for being dumb) screw up the analysis as my CFA is only on EX/EQ.  Mine is still another 18 months away from falling off.

That large of a penalty when my file was at it's cleanest I wonder if I would've already hit 850, just seems way too high to me for that namely 30D late territory.