RobertEG wrote:
This is just one of many, many examples of the ludicrous and contradictory explanations that are routinely offered in the comments portions of your CRA reports. I have learned to simply ignore their pure stupidity. The CRAs us algorithms unrelated to the basic FICO algorithm to generate these stupid comments. This forum is replete with examples of such contradictory statements.
Under all guidelines released by FairIsaac, an oldest account of 23 years is well above average, and an average age of 9 years is average. No problem there in scoring at all.
If I were you, I would not be looking at the asinine comments, but rather at what can happen to your account ages based on the FICO algorithm.
Changes in your oldest account and in your average age of accounts can be affected by two things. First, if you open a new account, obviously, your avg will decline. And secondly, if any of the old accounts that are currently being used in your FICO scoring reach a point where they have been closed for 10 years, then they may drop from your CR, and thus no longer be included in your FICO score. So you can lose the 23 year oldest account, along with its affect in your avg age, if the CRA drops it. That is your concern, not the comments unrelated to your scoring itself.
That was what I was looking at last night. My oldest account falls off, theoretically, sometime late this summer. The second oldest account, opened in 1985 is inactive and I'll be looking to reactivate it next month. It's only inactive because I moved across the country, hopefully they'll reissue a new card.
Otherwise, my average account age will take a precipitous dive over the next couple of years which is something I now know would be prudent to forestall.
Guess I'll just have to shop at Carson, Pirie Scott once or twice a year!
atlast....
Ficos 2/17/08: TU 551 EQ 534 EX 587
Ficos 2/12/09 TU 695 EQ 715 EX 715
Fico...4/15/10....drumroll.....EQ 743
