Scorecard reassignment and wonky score changes?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Having the max from one card equal the min from the next wouldn't prevent it?  I'm not sure if I'm overthinking or underthinking it at this point.

---

Good thought but then what happens when somebody on a mature card has really high utilization, ect... and becomes more risky than someone doing good on a young Scorecard? So they have to be able to go lower?

[Anonymous]

---

@Remedios wrote:

@Anonymous  as my HPs dropped off and accounts reached a year (I still have one under a year), older scoring models went up up up.

This is EX as of today.

10/31/2020

8 classic 753

2 732

Auto 8 747 

Auto 2 727

BC 8 769

BC 3 738

BC 2 711

11/01/2020 

8 classic 753

2 744

Auto 8 747

Auto 2 738

BC 8 769

BC 3 738

BC 2 747

11/05/2020 

8 classic 757

2  748

Auto 8 753

Auto 2 742

BC 8 773

BC 3 744

BC 2 751

I'd have to dig for earlier ones. 

This is with 4 cards reporting, same utilization. 

Prior to October, anything older than 8 was slumming between 700 and 730. 

---

@Remedios have you noticed any awards for age of oldest revolving account? And may I ask what your oldest Revolving account is?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

Good thought but then what happens when somebody on a mature card has really high utilization, ect... and becomes more risky than someone doing good on a young Scorecard? So they have to be able to go lower?

---

I would say yes.  I mean, going from ideal utilization to maxed out [aggregate] utilization can be impactful to the tune of 100 points or so on a mature scorecard, so make the penalty worse and bring it to (say) 120 points.  I'd rather see an individual such as that be penalized more and land a worse mortgage rate than someone whose file ages 1 month.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

Good thought but then what happens when somebody on a mature card has really high utilization, ect... and becomes more risky than someone doing good on a young Scorecard? So they have to be able to go lower?

---

I would say yes.  I mean, going from ideal utilization to maxed out [aggregate] utilization can be impactful to the tune of 100 points or so on a mature scorecard, so make the penalty worse and bring it to (say) 120 points.  I'd rather see an individual such as that be penalized more and land a worse mortgage rate than someone whose file ages 1 month.

---

@Anonymous I totally agree but that's the reason for the overlap potentially. So unfortunately when they re-calibrate, considering the ages are comparatively much lower than the new mature sub group, the score necessarily goes down most of the time. unfortunately it's not just one factor recalibrating but you have to be able to go down for people with high utilization or other problems and sometimes their risk is greater than that of someone who is on a young profile and doing well.

It is unfortunate but the best thing someone can do is educate themselves and be ready to move before that or be ready to wait six months to a year after that for the instability as they like to characterize it to resolve itself. 

but I totally agree with the point you're getting at. 

speaking of which, this is the instability I think they were referring to in that article @Anonymous

[Anonymous]

It would be nice if trended data could be used to help overcome this issue.  I'm not sure how, but there could be a way I'm sure.  Using the utilization example, if going from ideal aggregate utilization to maxed out utilization on an aged file was something someone had done a couple of times over 24 months, perhaps this move hits them for (say) 85 points since the algorithm can see they have proven the ability recover multiple times from it.  Conversely if this aggregate utilization max-out were a first time / abmormal profile move they get knocked for (say) 130 points, having not shown the ability to bounce back from one prior.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

I mean, going from ideal utilization to maxed out [aggregate] utilization can be impactful to the tune of 100 points or so on a mature scorecard, so make the penalty worse and bring it to (say) 120 points.  I'd rather see an individual such as that be penalized more and land a worse mortgage rate than someone whose file ages 1 month.

---

 I just took a -20 point hit on TU 8 for nothing but aging, but I knew it was a possibility many months beforehand.

I, too, think about all the people out there who have no clue this is in store for them, which could cost them thousands of dollars on a mortgage, or more severely, an outright denial from a lender. Maybe there just aren't that many people with young credit files getting mortgages, so it doesn't get that much attention.

At AoOA 2yrs 0mo my EX 2 score dropped -22pts with the exact same balances reporting as the prior month. I can only imagine what that would have felt like to someone ready to buy a home as soon as possible.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

Also remember that the Experian mortgage model has a higher maximum real world score so it being a little higher might not be counterintuitive. 

---

Thanks for reminding me of that! I wasn't even considering it.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

It would be nice if trended data could be used to help overcome this issue.  I'm not sure how, but there could be a way I'm sure.  Using the utilization example, if going from ideal aggregate utilization to maxed out utilization on an aged file was something someone had done a couple of times over 24 months, perhaps this move hits them for (say) 85 points since the algorithm can see they have proven the ability recover multiple times from it.  Conversely if this aggregate utilization max-out were a first time / abmormal profile move they get knocked for (say) 130 points, having not shown the ability to bounce back from one prior.

---

@Anonymous again I could not agree more. The only problem is trended data is for the amounts owed category; this drop comes from the Length of History category. 😕

[Anonymous]

Yes but using TD could help close the gap between the two scorecards related to the utilization end of things when looking at the lower limit of the mature scorecard.