9y AAoA threshold on EX8 but not EX2

Justaguy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:10 am

Birdman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:10 am AAoRA & AoORA max out at/< 108 & 240 months (9 & 20 years). BBS gave us those data points when he lost the AAoRA/AoORA code. I don’t know the exact thresholds, but it has to be under those or at those.

Hold on. We might be talking past each other. First, I’m seeing indications that the aging thresholds on the upper end are different between bureaus. On EX8, I now believe there’s an AAoA threshold at 9y. On EQ8, I'm getting the “short account history” code I mentioned above. The explanatory text mentions AoOA and AAoA, so I believe there must be an AAoA threshold higher than 9y7m there. On TU8, I’m getting “short revolving history.” My AoORA there is 27y4m. AAoRA there is 8y. Finally, I think we might need to be careful drawing conclusions about things — including but not limited to top-end thresholds for aging — based on the disappearance of reason statements. If, as you argue in the other thread about 70% Util, there are point caps by FICO category (e.g. Length of Credit History), then presumably once a person has all the available points in that category, the algorithms won’t display any negative reasons related to factors in that category. That doesn’t mean they have reached all top-end thresholds, it means there are no more point available for some reason. That reason might be that they are already at the category cap.

No just because a category is maxed out does not suppress the reason code. reason code resolution is absolutely reference. If that code disappears, that factor is satisfied. True enough we do have to worry about suppression through particular CMS. But I think you hit the nail on the head with the fact of threshold being different potentially at different bureaus. We know without a doubt it most likely is on differing scorecards, but I think you’re right that they may differ among bureaus and I need to go back and check the datapoints I was referring to from BBS and see whether we noted which bureau that was and if not we need to. Great discussion I love having great minds together brainstorming. This is what it’s all about and this is what I love and this is One of the things this place is for that I could not go without. Damn I missed you @Justaguy ! I’m so glad you’re here with us together we can figure out a lot of things and see where I slipped about the bureaus and didn’t think about that you caught me. And I think your idea is correct BBS. And I also agree with you @Justaguy I don’t think buffer is the appropriate term and that’s just what was used previously and I think that is the wrong word. I think it is more or less visible points. I think we need to find a new way of stating that and revise that out of the primer I don’t think it is a buffer.

That would be a good move to revise the term "buffer" to something that's more meaningful. Hopefully we can come up with a term. They're basically points that aren't being displayed, but they're there.

I totally agree anybody wanna give me some alternative choices or we could just say displayable/visible points? But we need a term to describe hiding the extra points.

Indiscernible Points?

One challenge I see with naming these points is they have multiple characteristics we want to describe, and that's hard to do with one word. To my mind, those characteristics are: [...they don't count towards one's FICO score Unrecognized Uncounted Uncountable Unscored Unscorable Disregarded Disallowed Ignored Excluded [...they aren't visible to the consumer or lenders Masked Hidden Suppressed Unreported [...they are more than is needed for a perfect score Spare Surplus Excess Extra Superfluous Wasted I don't really love any of the words I have listed. I think superfluous captures the most meaning because it gets at the first and third attributes listed above. But it's a rather obscure word so it would have trouble catching on with a mass audience. Google only reports 23M instances of it, compared to 306M for buffer. Incidentally, the reason I think buffer is a poor name is that it only describes one particular use of them. It signals that accruing these points will protect the consumer against score changes in the face of otherwise detrimental profile changes. That's true, but giving it such prominence suggests it should be the goal. Hey! If you earn 860 of these things, you can take an HP and still see an 850 score. Isn't that great?

Got to ponder this

I thought about it and here’s my opinion tell me what y’all think. I say points that count towards your score should be ‘useable/awarded points,’ while ‘superfluous points’ are ‘withheld points.’ What do y’all think? @Justaguy also the last characterization is not entirely accurate imho, as one might have withheld points in one category, but not be maxed out in another category and therefore I have under an 850, whereas if the points were not withheld, they would be at or an excess of 850. So again withholding the point contribution is independent for each individual category, I believe.

I think you're on the right track, but I don't know how I feel about "usable" since they aren't actually being used. We should let this concept marinate a bit more, perhaps get some more opinions as well. Whatever we decide on will be superior to top end "buffer" that we've been referencing for years, no doubt.

Yeah they envisioned one buffer where there are apparently 5, One for each category. I mean really it’s five buffers. The points in our score are awarded. The superfluous points from each category are withheld/buffered. Its a buffer, but there’s five of them, it appears.

But even so we use the term buffering with inquiries. So it’s better to have a different term here anyway, imo, as it’s definitely more complicated than a simple buffer.

You’re right, @Birdman, that I probably oversimplified things in my post with the phrase “perfect score”. I would also caution against asserting the existence of One Cap Per Category with more certainty than the evidence currently supports. It’s an interesting theory, but it hasn’t been proven yet. For example, the truth might be even more fine-grained. There might be caps on points for subcategories within the five top-level categories. Right? I like BBS’s suggestion to marinate on the re-naming of buffers. I see the merits of “withheld,” but it still seems a little off to me. It kinda sounds punitive and/or reversible. Like you were naughty, but if you’re good, FICO will give you back those points that they have withheld. What about “over-max”?

There definitely could be more to looking at sub categories.

Over-max... how about surplus? Something in that realm...

Justaguy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 2:59 pm You’re right, @Birdman, that I probably oversimplified things in my post with the phrase “perfect score”. I would also caution against asserting the existence of One Cap Per Category with more certainty than the evidence currently supports. It’s an interesting theory, but it hasn’t been proven yet. For example, the truth might be even more fine-grained. There might be caps on points for subcategories within the five top-level categories. Right? I like BBS’s suggestion to marinate on the re-naming of buffers. I see the merits of “withheld,” but it still seems a little off to me. It kinda sounds punitive and/or reversible. Like you were naughty, but if you’re good, FICO will give you back those points that they have withheld. What about “over-max”?

This is actually not new, I have been thinking about this for a very long time, as far as the individual category buffers. I am not presenting it now as fact yet, but as my opinion and belief. All the other things the past couple years similarly started out like this and then once I have enough data to confirm it, I move forward. I don’t have sufficient evidence yet, but I have nothing contradicting it so far. I don’t believe it occurs at subcategories because I’m not sure there are subcategories. can you give me an example so that I know what you mean, because all I know is the five categories & each have numerous scoring factors. Here’s the deal though, if there were not individual category buffers, then that would invalidate the percentages given by fico for how much each category makes up of your score. Stated differently, if there wasn’t a category buffer, those extra points would cause more of your scores percentage to come from that category than it would otherwise. So basically I propound that individual category buffers are a necessity to maintain the intended percentages for each category to contribute via fico. How else could they enforce the percentages? We’ve always known there was a buffer, everybody just didn’t realize there were actually five. I really see no other way around it. And I’ve seen no data contradicts it. Once I finish getting this computer set up, I’ll finish editing the primer 2.0. I’ll have to figure out the nomenclature by then. I really believe this is the way it is though and I’d love to hear arguments to the contrary. But everything in the Primer is theory really, even though I believe the majority is confirmed by testing. And it might be reversible but it’s not punitive it’s just intended to maintain the score ratio between categories I believe

A slight veer off the topic, but do we believe that the percentages for each slice of the Fico pie are exactly the same per category regardless of scorecard assignment? I know we talk a lot about signal strength differences depending on scorecard, but can those differences impact how much a category is worth overall? Can it impact perhaps the category buffer / surplus points possible?

That is exactly the point. The percentages do vary by scorecard, we know this, and this is how I believe that is implemented, you described it perfectly.

Cool. So if the percentages vary by scorecard, the points then vary by scorecard. This would mean then that the point at which buffer / surplus points occur would possibly vary by scorecard.

All interesting stuff to think about.

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:53 pm Cool. So if the percentages vary by scorecard, the points then vary by scorecard. This would mean then that the point at which buffer / surplus points occur would possibly vary by scorecard. All interesting stuff to think about.

Correct except for the possibly, imho, it definitely varies by scorecard. That’s not to say more than one scorecard could not have the same threshold on a particular category, but we definitely know the percentages vary by scorecard. Fico documentation establishes this. How else could it possibly be implemented other than to put a cap on each category’s contribution of awarded points? And if that occurs, the remaining surplus points are buffered/withheld, imho. Additionally, signal strength of scoring metrics varies by scorecard, but varying signal strength of particular scoring Metrics does not change the category’s top end award that we know of, therefore category buffers to maintain the assigned ratio between category contributions are necessary. The only possible variation I can think of would be if the difference between the scorecards was strictly the change in metrics’ signal strength, which then causes the differences in percentages for categories, if there are no category buffers. So either individual category buffers or the change in signal strength causes the difference in percentages, I believe. If it’s the former there are category buffers; if it’s the latter, there could be one overall buffer. My money is on the former. Can anybody shoot any holes in any of this?