Authorized User accounts that retain aging when terminated

aj2121 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:23 pm See the attached screenshots for the details from Experian. Overview: 10 open bankcards, 3 closed bankcards, 13 total bankcards --> 2 closed bankcards, 12 total bankcards 5 open store cards, 3 closed store cards --> same 18 open accounts, 14 closed accounts, 32 accounts total --> 18 open accounts, 13 closed accounts, 31 total accounts AU account opened November 5, 2015 Citi AU Details.jpg EX Report from 9.16.21 EX_9.16.21 Overview.jpg EX Report from 9.17.21 EX_9.17.21 Overview.jpg

aj2121 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:44 pm @Birdman I'll tag you in the other thread as well... It was my only AU TL and I did confirm that letting the cad report a 0 balance dropped my score. Once it reported a small balance again my score increased by the amount lost. So it should not be discounted. I have hand calculated the values and used ccquest's spreadsheet, both figures match up with those shown by the CMS. I didn't even think about AAoRA; 4y7m --> 4y6m, so that decreased as well and I wouldn't think an aging decrease would lead to a score improvement.

aj2121 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:50 am @Birdman Maybe this change was related to the lag that you mentioned sometimes occurs between reports and scores. On September 19th the report indicated a card with a ~$4,000 balance was paid to $0, the reporting date is listed as the 17th. If there is a lag possibility between the report and scores, the ~4k balance decrease, 1 less AWB, and 3% util drop seems much more likely to create a score gain than an AU account that affects aging metrics by 1 month dropping from my report.

Birdman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:55 pm

aj2121 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:50 am @Birdman Maybe this change was related to the lag that you mentioned sometimes occurs between reports and scores. On September 19th the report indicated a card with a ~$4,000 balance was paid to $0, the reporting date is listed as the 17th. If there is a lag possibility between the report and scores, the ~4k balance decrease, 1 less AWB, and 3% util drop seems much more likely to create a score gain than an AU account that affects aging metrics by 1 month dropping from my report.

@aj2121 you could be correct about the delay causing conflation or misdirection, unfortunately that does happen sometimes which is why we have to have the tests able to be repeated in order to confirm it before we can rely on new findings. But it’s not the age change that would cause me to expect the score change. As a matter fact, I’m glad that it did not cause any meaningful age changes that would’ve crossed any thresholds. Well actually it did the 54 month AAoRA could be a threshold and could have offset other changes. But where the changes would come from that I’m looking for is the Utilization Metric in Amounts Owed. You see AZ is either a penalty or lack of an award. You know my theory, but, this could shed light upon that. You see the utilization Metrics for AUs appear to be independent. So if you lost points by losing the account, by default it may give you a couple points and then when you get a balance it gives you more points, then when you cross the threshold it takes away some. What was your AUAZ loss? So not only could this tell us whether an authorized user account gives points but it could also resolve the A-Z mystery

aj2121 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:18 pm

Birdman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:55 pm

aj2121 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:50 am @Birdman Maybe this change was related to the lag that you mentioned sometimes occurs between reports and scores. On September 19th the report indicated a card with a ~$4,000 balance was paid to $0, the reporting date is listed as the 17th. If there is a lag possibility between the report and scores, the ~4k balance decrease, 1 less AWB, and 3% util drop seems much more likely to create a score gain than an AU account that affects aging metrics by 1 month dropping from my report.

@aj2121 you could be correct about the delay causing conflation or misdirection, unfortunately that does happen sometimes which is why we have to have the tests able to be repeated in order to confirm it before we can rely on new findings. But it’s not the age change that would cause me to expect the score change. As a matter fact, I’m glad that it did not cause any meaningful age changes that would’ve crossed any thresholds. Well actually it did the 54 month AAoRA could be a threshold and could have offset other changes. But where the changes would come from that I’m looking for is the Utilization Metric in Amounts Owed. You see AZ is either a penalty or lack of an award. You know my theory, but, this could shed light upon that. You see the utilization Metrics for AUs appear to be independent. So if you lost points by losing the account, by default it may give you a couple points and then when you get a balance it gives you more points, then when you cross the threshold it takes away some. What was your AUAZ loss? So not only could this tell us whether an authorized user account gives points but it could also resolve the A-Z mystery

The loss for AU AZ was 6 points. The thing is, I gained points when the card was removed entirely. Which doesn't make sense as all aging metrics decreased. So I am not sure why there would be a point gain with the removal of a positive account??