Sharing Impact of 120 Day Late After 7 Years

[EW800]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Congrats!

Note to everyone that our friend may have actually received a bonus of more than 66 points.  There is a buffer at the top of the model that allows people to score much higher than 850, but the final score is always truncated to 850 when the model spits it out.

In other words, if our OP had a score of 720 he might have easily gone to 805 (say). 

Interesting to see that a severe derog still enables a person to score 784 in FICO 8.  That's higher than I would have guessed possible.  It suggests that the penalty of even the severest lates is softened after enough time goes by, since I imagine that, for the same profile with a 22 month late, the maximum score would be less -- e.g. 750 say.

What is your AAoA, AoOA and AoYA?

---

CGID -- 

Good point in regard to my score being as high as 784 with a 120-day showing.  I, too, am a but surprised that I was that high.   

In regard to your questions:  

AAoA:  About 14.5 years

AoOA:  36 years (corrected typo from 26 to 36)

AoYA:  It is an auto loan that opened about 8 months ago, however I almost immediately paid it down to less than 9%.  I basically just got this account so that I could have an open installment tradeline.  

[EW800]

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

@ridgebackpilot wrote:

Really interesting! A 120-day late recently fell off my file but I saw far less score improvement, probably because my file isn't as clean overall.

Does anyone know whether a 90-day late has the same affect as a 120-day late? In other words, when a 90-day late drops off, will we see a score bump of the same magnitude?

---

Basically yes, we saw a 90D late at a 792 FICO 8 score once, and presumably she got a non-trivial bump after that.

Thank you for sharing EW!

It's seems clear there's some fading with time but it never goes to zero even in the 30D late case.  Agreed with CGID can't really tell what the magnitude of the change was because we absolutely know there's a buffer beyond 850 but for reference with less than a 1 year old 30D late my EQ score was 753, and my EX score was 822 and those files are identical otherwise than EX has more inquiries and a 1 month difference in AAOA using a bit of hand-waving analysis, suggests your old 120D was counting less than my recent 30D potentially.

I expect to see a bump whenever the recent deliquency reason code goes away, not sure when that'll happen but it'll be interesting to see aging factors after that if I continue to monitor.

---

Thank you for the education in regard to the buffering above 850.  I was not aware of that aspect.  

If I may, I will share a couple of other points, just in case they are helpful...

The 120-day late was a revolving account that I did a settlement on.  For some reason the tradeline showed differently on EQ than it did on EP and TU.  It showed a status of 120-late on TU and EP, then completely fell off of these two reports a couple of months ago.  On EQ, it showed as "Paid as Agreed", however the month history's showed all the 30, 60, 90, 120 lates.  I believe there were four or five 120's in total on the account.  Slowly but surely, each month had the late fall off, until it was finally down to just one 120 showing for one month, which fell off yesterday.  The account now shows as completely positive on EQ, whereas the entire tradeline removed from TU and EP.  Hope I explained that well.  

You may notice that my current TU score is 814, whereas the other two are 850.  What is holding me down on TU is that I have one 30-day ad one 60-day showing on one old second mortgage account from when we went through a foreclosure.  This account has turned completely positive on EQ and EP, however it has not turned positive on TU yet.  I am anticipating that the 30-day will fall off in March and the 60-day will fall off in April.  When that happens I assume that TU will then go to 850 as well, however in the world of FICO-roulette, who knows. 

Thanks again to all for the support! 

[Anonymous]

I was going to reply with the same thing CGID said regarding the top end buffer.  My guess is that you gained greater than 66 points, probably in the 70-75 range for that final major baddie going away.  No way to tell of course with 850 being the greatest score you can be presented with. 

Your AoOA and AAoA are definitely top-notch.  You without question are maxing out your FICO points with those factors, which are quite often the [time] constraints to 850 scores.

One thing I find very interesting is that you're at 850 with your AoYA being < 12 months (8 months).  You're taking a 15-20 point penalty because of that, meaning that your "buffered" score is at least in the 865-870 range.  We have seen a couple of members report an 850 score when at AoYA of < 12 months, but they aren't common and almost always require your AoOA and AAoA to be significant.  The fact that you have an open installment loan at ideal utilization definitely helps here too. 

The highest I ever made it was 768 on TU FICO 8 with a 90/120 day late that was maybe 3 years old on my CR.  My AoYA at the time was < 12 months, so perhaps if it was > 12 months my score would have been a bit closer to what yours was pre-final baddie removal.

[19eighty5]

Congrats on the point jump!

[EW800]

All, 

My apologies...  I just noticed that in message 11 within this thread, where I listed the age of my oldest account, I had a typo.  It is 36 years, not 26 as I originally listed ( I have since corrected in red).  When up in that range perhaps there is little or no difference as far as FICO scoring, however I want to make sure that I share as accurate information as possible.  

Thanks!  

[Thomas_Thumb]

@EW800 

Do you have access to Fico 8 Bankcard scores? If so, comparing before/after BCE scores may give you a better indication of point gain associated with the 120 day late since the buffer is not in play.

As BBS mentions the AoYA below 12 months might be costing you 15 to 20 points. If so, your clean file BCE scores are likely in the mid to upper 870s. When your AoYA crosses 12 months (assuming no recent HPs for CLIs) it will be interesting to see if you reach 900 - please report back on that if you have data.

It looks like 900 on EQ may require AZE1 (never been down to AZE1) for 900 on BCE Fico 8. However, AZE2 or even AZE3 won't prevent a BCE Fico 8 score of 900 on TU or EX.

[EW800]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

@EW800 

Do you have access to Fico 8 Bankcard scores? If so, comparing before/after BCE scores may give you a better indication of point gain associated with the 120 day late since the buffer is not in play.

As BBS mentions the AoYA below 12 months might be costing you 15 to 20 points. If so, your clean file BCE scores are likely in the mid to upper 870s. When your AoYA crosses 12 months (assuming no recent HPs for CLIs) it will be interesting to see if you reach 900 - please report back on that if you have data.

It looks like 900 on EQ may require AZE1 (never been down to AZE1) for 900 on BCE Fico 8. However, AZE2 is ok with TU and even AZE3 is sufficient for a EX BCE Fico 8 score of 900.

---

Hi Thomas_Thumb,  

Yes, I do have my FICO 8 Bancard Scores.  They are as follows:  

On 01/01/19 with the one 120 late showing:  803

On 02/01/19 with the one 120 late removed:  878

I welcome any comments/thoughts you have on what these numbers may indicate.  

Thanks! 

[Thomas_Thumb]

Thanks,

The BCE scores indicate to me that the 120 day late was still costing you 75 points at 7 years just before it dropped off your file. You would likely have seen a 70 point rise on Classic Fico 8 if your score had not been truncated at 850. That's in-line with what BBS hypothesized. My guess is your BCE should reach 892 after AoYA reaches 12 months - assuming optimum utilization & 1 or 2 cards reporting a balance.

BTW: How many cards were reporting a balance before & after the removal and how many cards do you have?

[EW800]

Thanks, TT.  

I will keep an eye on the BCE model when the AoYA hits twelve months, as you mentioned.  

You asked about how many cards are reporting a balance and how many cards I have.  I believe I have 13 cards.  One that is not listed in my sig is a Dell Financial Services Account with a CL of $5K.  Not sure if it counts as a credit card, however it shows as a revolving account ob my CR's.  I have used the account in years, however it is still listed.   Nearly all months I have just one account report a balance of $10 to $25 or so.  At times I have two accounts report, such as when I decide to switch which card I would like to have report.  In my case, I have never detected a FICO 8 difference in scoring between one card reporting or two reporting.  Perhaps this is because of my number of accounts?  There has been a time or two where I have accidentally had no cards report and as we all know got spanked with a temporary 15-20 point drop.  

I track all my scores each month, as I was able to get in on the monthly 3B updates, vs. quarterly.  If seeing any of my other scores as a comparison when the 120-late dropped would be helpful for us, feel free to let me know.  

Thanks again! 

[Thomas_Thumb]

I have not seen a difference in on TU BCE Fico 8 with 2 or 3 balances reporting or even 4 CC balances on EX. Heck, reporting balances on all cards has minimal impact on TU & EX BCE. In contrast, EQ BCE Fico 8 score has moved 10 points between 2 of 6 and 6 of 6 cards reporting balances.

Which CRA is your BCE score coming from? If you use multiple cards each month it would be interesting to get some data on how your profile is scored with 3, 4, 5 or 6 cards reporting small balances.