Score impact of average age of accounts vs age of oldest account?

[BrutalBodyShots]

---

@Patient957 wrote:

---

---

Yes, I agree that AAoA is likely way more significant in terms of profile strength and underwriting.  But the original question and therefore this thread are about scoring, so that's what I was addressing.

---

Aside from the 24m threshold you spoke of, have you discovered any others for AoORA?

[Patient957]

---

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

---

@Patient957 wrote:

---

---

Yes, I agree that AAoA is likely way more significant in terms of profile strength and underwriting.  But the original question and therefore this thread are about scoring, so that's what I was addressing.

---

Aside from the 24m threshold you spoke of, have you discovered any others for AoORA?

---

Yes, 36 months, but it's less important than the 24 month threshold.  I made a thread about it:

https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Understanding-FICO-Scoring/AoORA-36-months-in-Nov-Will-I-get-any-po...

Also, I need to correct the record in this thread.  I got 9 points at the 24 month threshold, not 12.

[BrutalBodyShots]

So 9 points at 24 months and 2-4 points at 36 months. 

What the 36m data point clean in that no other aging metric threshold values were reached at the same time? How many revolvers do you have, and are you looking at AAoRA as well?

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

FWIW - 

Many years ago I had the reason code "you opened an account relatively recently". It finally fell off when my youngest account, a revolver, reached exactly 60 months. So, there is something relating to AoYRA (or AoYA) that goes away at 5 years.

---

Hey TT. I'm assuming that was on 8? When that code dropped off, how many points were gained? Where was that code positioned in your list and do you recall the negative reason codes that surrounded it?

---

I posted on it back in the day along with screen shots showing reason codes. I believe it may have been Fico mortgage scores. I  have the screen shots saved here and can go back and look. Fico 8s were 850 so no reason statements listed for them.

P.S.

It was EQ auto score 5. Score was 827 before age off and 831 after. It then stayed at 831 in subsequeny months. So, 4 point gain.

I'll come back and list reason codes later.

[Patient957]

---

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

So 9 points at 24 months and 2-4 points at 36 months. 

What the 36m data point clean in that no other aging metric threshold values were reached at the same time? How many revolvers do you have, and are you looking at AAoRA as well?

---

I currently have 10 revolvers.

So, I took a careful look at my handy spreadsheet and here's what I found for 11/1/25, the date my AoORA hit 36 months:

So there is a potenally confoundng variable in AAoA hitting 42 months (3y 6m) at the same time AoORA hit 36 months.  But here's why I think it was due to AoORA and not AAoA:

1) While the current thinking is AAoA thresholds tend to come at 6 month intervals, I can't find any references to anyone saying they think 42 months is actually a threshold for AAoA.

2) You'll notice from the other linked thread that I knew ahead of time that I was going to get a bump on 11/1/25.  The reason I believed this was because the MF simulator told me a looong time ago that it was coming.  At that time, the only variable that made any sense for 11/1/25 was AoORA.  At the same time, the simulator told me to expect the 24 month bump, which did happen as expected.  And while I know the MF simulator is far from perfect, my experience has been that on aging metrics, it's fairly reliable.   I say "fairly" becuase it did tell me to expect 10 points on 11/1/25, and I only got 2-4 points.  So I would say it's reliable as to timing but not necessarily about number of points.

So can we be 100% sure of the AoORA = 36 months threshold?  No.  But I think at least the preponderance of the evidence is pointing in that direction.

[BrutalBodyShots]

---

@Patient957 wrote:

---

1) While the current thinking is AAoA thresholds tend to come at 6 month intervals, I can't find any references to anyone saying they think 42 months is actually a threshold for AAoA.

---

I'll be that reference for you. 42 months is definitely an AAoA threshold point, as are all 6 months increments from 6m to 90m. I don't think I've run into anyone that hasn't identified a 6m increment for AAoA as being a threshold point inside 90m; I never did.

That being said, your data point is definitely conflated / unclean. Could it be that AoORA is part of it? Absolutely. Without question though there would be two score-impacting variables at play, thus making it impossible to say how much each one is "worth" in terms of scoring.

As for the MF simulator, that's  a tough sell for me. I've never found any simulator to be any sort of reliable. I haven't played with the MF simulator since 2021, but at the time I don't recall it being any "better" than the next and I've used a lot of them. I get it that you've seem to found some success with it, but I don't think your experience is indicative of the whole.

[Patient957]

---

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

---

---

I'll be that reference for you. 42 months is definitely an AAoA threshold point, as are all 6 months increments from 6m to 90m. I don't think I've run into anyone that hasn't identified a 6m increment for AAoA as being a threshold point inside 90m; I never did.

---

This is the first time I've seen anyone make the claim that every 6 months is an AAoA threshold up to 90 months.  Do you have any data points to back that up?  Do you have any data points specifically to back up the 42 month threshold claim?

[BrutalBodyShots]

I personally wasn't able to test below 54 months based on my AAoA when I got into credit, but from 54m and beyond up to 90m I saw minor gains in 6 month increments, which is what the CSP suggests. I know Birdman spoke to many people across different scorecards regarding data points on that front. We know that threshold points exist at 24m, 30m, 36m and I know from 54m+ they are there, so the odds of there being none at 42m and 48m would seem pretty slim to me.

Do all of the 6m threshold points return points for all scorecards? I certainly can't say there.

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

FWIW - 

Many years ago I had the reason code "you opened an account relatively recently". It finally fell off when my youngest account, a revolver, reached exactly 60 months. So, there is something relating to AoYRA (or AoYA) that goes away at 5 years.

---

Hey TT. I'm assuming that was on 8? When that code dropped off, how many points were gained? Where was that code positioned in your list and do you recall the negative reason codes that surrounded it?

---

I posted on it back in the day along with screen shots showing reason codes. I believe it may have been Fico mortgage scores. I  have the screen shots saved here and can go back and look. Fico 8s were 850 so no reason statements listed for them.

P.S.

It was EQ auto score 5. Score was 827 before age off and 831 after. It then stayed at 831 in subsequeny months. So, 4 point gain.

I'll come back and list reason codes later.

---

Prior to my AoYRA (also my AoYA) reaching 5 years my Auto EQ score 5 bumped up against a ceiling of 827 many times.

The two below codes always showed at 827 in the same order. At lower scores (816,808, 788) the #1 code was still present but dropped to #2 position with 3 or 4 reasons listed. The codes at 827 before age reached 5 years were:

1. You opened a card relatively recently.

2. The amount owed on your revolving accounts is too high.

After aging to 5 years code #1 code above dissapeared completely never to come back.  My new ceiling increased to 831 and the codes changed to:

1. You have too many credit cards carrying balances.

2. The amount owed on your revolving accounts is too high.

[Patient957]

---

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:

I personally wasn't able to test below 54 months based on my AAoA when I got into credit, but from 54m and beyond up to 90m I saw minor gains in 6 month increments, which is what the CSP suggests. I know Birdman spoke to many people across different scorecards regarding data points on that front. We know that threshold points exist at 24m, 30m, 36m and I know from 54m+ they are there, so the odds of there being none at 42m and 48m would seem pretty slim to me.

---

Right, so we have absolutely no DPs pointing to a threshold at 42 m.  And despite Birdman's great efforts to discover and document these thresholds, he uncovered nothing for 42 months.  So at this point, there's zero reason to believe there's an AAoA threshold at 42 months.  

Do all of the 6m threshold points return points for all scorecards? I certainly can't say there.

---

If there were thresholds every 6 months, I think we would see a lot of posts here and elsewhere of people mentioning it.  I myself have gardened for a full year without any hint of of having crossed an AAoA threshold.  By your theory, everyone who gardens for 1 year would cross two AAoA thresholds.  If this were true, we'd have a plethora of data points on this, but we don't.  

At this point, there's no data to support either a threshold at 42 months or a threshold every 6 months.  All we have is your belief that it just has to be true, and WADR, that's not much.

Edit to add:  Look, to be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that we don't have the data to support the theory.  If Birdman's reported thresholds are correct, we have a huge threshold at 48 months worth as much as 27 points.  Why award 2 points at 42 if an enormous 27 point threshold is right around the corner?  It's not impossible, I suppose, but it just highlights the lack of reliable data on this.  Maybe it's worth having a separate thread for reporting 6 month AAoA events, whether points were awarded or not.