9y AAoA threshold on EX8 but not EX2

Birdman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 8:43 pm

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?

You lost me. I will try to work through the earlier posts and respond where and when I can. But I don't follow this one. Sorry. If your theory depends on a strict application of the 35%, 30%, 15%, 10%, 10% category weights, I think that's a weakness. I have always understood those to be approximations, aids to consumers in understanding the concept of unequal weighting. Since the people who designed the FICO algorithms were trying to predict borrowers' risk, it seems to me very likely that they would depart from strict adherence to those percentages if (really, when) it suited their quest for predictive accuracy. Can you point to something that says they always stick to those precise percentages? Or am I misunderstanding how important that is to your theory?

I don't believe @Birdman was saying that those percentage category weights are always exact, @Justaguy . In fact, I believe he was saying that they could vary in the previous post... so it appears you both agree on that. I tend to agree as well that they aren't concrete numbers and can vary by scorecard.

@Justaguy you did misunderstand me. I am saying specifically the percentages do vary, fico documentation establishes this, read what I wrote again. Fico documentation explicitly acknowledges this and what I’m saying is, this supports implementation of category buffers. I’m saying the only way to implement it is one of two ways and I believe it’s category buffers.

I recently went under 9y AAoA when I added my new CCs, so definitely not any sort of clean DP, plus I am on a dirty scorecard.

When I cross back over 9y AAoA in a few months I can let you all know what happens. SO is also under 9y AAoA. I believe SO is around 8y9m and I am around 8y4m on EX.

Again, both dirty scorecards, so DPs may be worthless, but I may be clean right before turning over to 9y AAoA.

Justaguy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:26 pm There have been four instances in recent months when my AAoA crossed over or under 9y. In every instance, I gained or lost exactly 3 points on EX8. … I think this is pretty strong evidence that AAoA has a threshold at 9y on EX8.

Another test of this hypothesis is imminent. My AAoA on EX is currently 8y11m. It will roll to 9y0m when the calendar flips to March, in two days. My EX8 is currently 796. If there is a threshold at 9y, I should gain points that day. If I gain exactly 3 points again, that will be pleasingly tidy.

Sweet. That would be very solid confirmation at that point since you've replicated it many times.

108 months....who would have thought?!

Well, time to add this one to the threshold list. I just hit AAoA 3yr 0mo and also saw nothing on the EX2s, with EX8 +2.

Cassie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 11:19 am 108 months....who would have thought?!

I wouldn't have! My thoughts were always that 92 months was the cap for AAoA. Maybe it is with another bureau, who knows. 108 is definitely getting up there. Next check point, 114?

I think 108 is the max for EX8.

Here’s why I believe that. Yesterday, I had “Short credit history” as reason #4 on EX AU8. That reason vanished overnight and I gained 3 points there too, just like on classic 8. I only have three reason statements on AU8 now, so I have maxed out aging there. Given how similar (identical?) the thresholds seem to be on classics and their corresponding industry variants, it seems highly likely that I’ve maxed out aging for the whole EX8 family of scores.

I may inadvertently test this. I plan to garden for a year or more, so unless old accounts drop off, I should get a DP for 114 months in September.

You could be right if aging metrics are the same across the board for the same family of scores.

The reason I question it though is that there are other Fico scoring factors (outside of aging metrics) that clearly aren't the same across the same family of scores. For example with EX, massive BWB fluctuations do not impact Classic 8 at all, but do impact AU8 and BCE8. I know that's a completely different category, but something to consider.

Good point. My assumptions could easily be wrong. Hopefully I’ll get some clarity in six months.

Did your before/after reason statements on Classic 8 or BCE8 change at all, or do you not have access to them?

My EX BC8 score went up by the same 3 points. I do see reason statements on that one, but Short Account History wasn’t one of them this month or last, so that’s less informative than AU8.

I haven’t yet seen reason statements from March on classic 8. Short Account History was in fourth position in late February, when that score was 796. In the past, when that reason statement was visible at AAoA=8y11m, it dropped out of sight when I hit AAoA=9y and gained 3 points. But I have always had at least four reasons shown on EX8, so I can’t draw conclusions as confidently there as on AU8. I hope to get a peek at my classic 8 reasons soon if MF posts a Credit Alert in the next few days.

Oh yeah, with those 3 points you'd be at 799 and they omit statements at 800 right? You should be good to see them then?

@BrutalBodyShots He can see them I think, but short account history wasn’t there, if I understand correctly. Congratulations @Justaguy I believe you have found the max AAOA for EX8 family as well! I’m fairly confident they are the same within a version and bureau. It could be different by bureau tho, due to the fact the algorithm is generated by the unique data set at each Bureau plus customization.