BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:33 pm
I think another angle to look at when considering this discussion is top end buffer.
We all know that top end buffer exists on 8 and we reference it once the needle is pinned at 850. If the buffer exists with the total score, I don't think it would then be out of the question to think that it could also exist in each criteria category.
Here we're of course discussing Length of Credit History. If we say that this category is worth X points, considering the buffer angle couldn't it be possible that a negative reason statement related to that category could still be displayed even if X points are already achieved?
Perhaps on the upper end one of these aging thresholds is only "worth" 2-3 points on a certain scorecard. If one already has a score of X + 5 (buffer) but has that negative reason statement present, their score would still be X+2/3 points and for scoring purposes they'd still have that category maxed out.
I'm not sure if I'm explaining that the best possible way, so apologies in advance if I'm not being clear. I think this would be an interesting topic to discuss though... sort of the breaking down of the top end buffer that we all know is there.
I agree, it's a fascinating topic! I've got to tip my cap to
@Birdman for being the first person I've seen mention it, over on the other site.
My answer to the bolded question above is: absolutely it's possible! It seems to me we are just barely starting to explore this aspect of FICO scoring, so there are probably many nuances that we don't know about. But my hunch is that reaching a category cap would preclude the algorithm from throwing negative reasons there. If there are no points to be gained in that category, then by definition no factors in that category are costing any points.
If I'm following your hypothetical, the person would get exactly X points before and after the change in question, right? I agree that buffers can be a useful concept for explaining why maxed-out scores don't change. But that doesn't mean, or even imply, that the software literally uses buffers. Personally, I think of them as "disregarded excess points." I find it hard to imagine the software designers would intentionally recommend accruing more of those. But we're layers deep in speculation here, and I could easily be wrong in many different ways.
I should give a little more context to my comments. It has always puzzled me that some scores that aren't particularly close to 850 show fewer than four negative reasons. According to standard theory, that should not happen. But it does. To my knowledge, no one has ever provided anything better than a shrug emoji to explain it, but...
I think we might have just found the explanation! As a corollary, I think it's highly likely there are different category caps on different scorecards.