Score gains from aging

All three of my mortgage scores went up today, May 1, when nothing changed on my file other than aging. Gains were 4 on TU4, 7 on EQ4 and 15! on EX2.

But here’s the thing: I have no idea what it liked. Here are some things I plan to look at, and what I think they were->are, off the top of my head.

AoYA 5m->6m
AoYRA 5m->6m
Age of youngest baddie 4y5m->4y6m
Number of new accounts in past 24 mo: 6->4

Are any of those at known thresholds? My hunch is there’s something they all liked a little, and EX2 also liked the aging baddie or spree.

I haven’t looked closely yet, but I think my 8s didn’t budge.

I think AoYA or AoYRA reaching 6 months could be worthy of gains on those scores.

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 8:03 pm I think AoYA or AoYRA reaching 6 months could be worthy of gains on those scores.

But 5ish points, not 15, right? Seems like we should have DPs galore for those hitting 6 mo. If everyone (or even just everyone on my scorecard) got 15 pts on EX 2 there, I assume we would know that.

For sure. Not sure what's going on with EX there, but I do think 5 points for the 6 month mark is reasonable.

I think I changed scorecards.

My EX2 score is hard to study directly at the moment because it’s now above 800 so I don’t see reason statements. But the industry variants can help fill in the blindspot. Here are my reason statements, in order, on EX AU2 just before and just after the calendar flipped:

4/30 (Score: 828)
1. Accounts with Balances
2. Seeking Credit
3. Bad Payment History
4. Many New Accounts

5/1 (Score: 842)
1. Bad Payment History
2. Seeking Credit
3. Many New Accounts
4. Accounts with Balances

Note that AWB dropped from first position to fourth, and the score went up 14 points. But nothing changed with my balances. Not by even one account or one dollar.

Also, Bad Payment History, which only got better as my baddie aged another month, moved up from third to first. I think there are only two ways that can happen: scorecard change or the factors that were ahead of it getting better. As stated above, AWB didn’t change. Neither did my credit seeking. I have one scorable inquiry from 6/2021. So it went from 10 months old to 11. That shouldn’t matter to the score.

It’s a similar story with EX BC2. Score change was +22 and the reason statements moved in directions not supported by file changes.

All of this info is from Experian’s CMS, so it’s not affected by MF’s intentional jumbling of the reason statements.

As I mentioned upthread, my AoYA (and AoYRA fwiw) went from 5m to 6m. Does anyone else have evidence for or against that being the moment of scorecard reassignment on EX2?

I have not heard of that threshold being a scorecard reassignment factor. The reshuffling of your reason statements does indeed suggest that could be the case though. I'm curious to hear other opinions on this one.

@Justaguy , just from what I can see, it seems like crossing the 6m mark on your newest account seemed to bump your scores. Your many new accounts negative reason code dropped in place compared to your bad payment history negative reason code, which shot up in importance. I have no basis other than what I see before me. Let's see what others have to say. I had thought 6m for newest revolver was a scoring/aging threshold. That is why while there has been no actual change in AWB - and it moved to a lesser importance. The "bad payment history" is now what is most "detrimental" to your scores than the other reasons, which also all shuffled in level of importance.

Can the signal strength of scoring factors change within the same scorecard due to metric changes, or must scorecard reassignment occur? I guess that's my biggest question at this point.

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:48 am Can the signal strength of scoring factors change within the same scorecard due to metric changes, or must scorecard reassignment occur? I guess that's my biggest question at this point.

I recall @Birdman expressing a lot of skepticism about that shifting signal strength concept a few months ago. I don’t know enough to rule it out. Birdman: I think you came to the belief that EX2 segments between the New Account and No New Accounts scorecards at 18 months, right? How does your evidence for that compare to my DP here?

Justaguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 1:54 pm

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:48 am Can the signal strength of scoring factors change within the same scorecard due to metric changes, or must scorecard reassignment occur? I guess that's my biggest question at this point.

I recall @Birdman expressing a lot of skepticism about that shifting signal strength concept a few months ago. I don’t know enough to rule it out. Birdman: I think you came to the belief that EX2 segments between the New Account and No New Accounts scorecards at 18 months, right? How does your evidence for that compare to my DP here?

I am not thinking you went from new account to non-new account, as it even still lists "many new accts", as a negative reason code, but rather that maybe there is aging factors at play for "newness". I realize you are talking about EX2, and not F8, but, still, that seems to be the most obvious choice, coupled with the fact these increases occurred at the beginning of the month. Edit, looking back, it may be possible 4y6m for a baddie is also an aging point for most recent baddie. I will have to double check old reports, but it is possible that could also be the culprit.

4y6m seems like an oddball threshold point for most recent baddie aging. Not to say it couldn't be the case, of course.

LaHossBoss wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 3:54 pm I am not thinking you went from new account to non-new account, as it even still lists "many new accts", as a negative reason code, but rather that maybe there is aging factors at play for "newness".

I don’t think I share the view that having a reason code for new accounts means I’m necessarily off the new account scorecard. It’s certainly possible to be on a mature scorecard while also getting reason statements about insufficient aging. That’s the situation I’m in. Apologies if I’m misunderstanding you.

Edit, looking back, it may be possible 4y6m for a baddie is also an aging point for most recent baddie. I will have to double check old reports, but it is possible that could also be the culprit.

That would be great! I hope you find the data, whatever it shows.

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:26 pm 4y6m seems like an oddball threshold point for most recent baddie aging. Not to say it couldn't be the case, of course.

Is it odd? I thought the X yr 6 mo points were among the most common places for thresholds to occur. I recall seeing several public-facing comments by FICO officials to the effect of “most of the negative impact of a delinquency wears off by around four years.” 4y6m doesn’t seem so far fetched when viewed in that context.

Justaguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 8:59 pm Is it odd? I thought the X yr 6 mo points were among the most common places for thresholds to occur. I recall seeing several public-facing comments by FICO officials to the effect of “most of the negative impact of a delinquency wears off by around four years.” 4y6m doesn’t seem so far fetched when viewed in that context.

For age of accounts thresholds, yes. As for aging baddies, who knows. I wouldn't have thought they'd be the same since they're different parts of the Fico pie, but you never know. I don't recall many baddie aging threshold points being discussed over the years, but from the little I remember I thought they were at whole numbers year wise and not the mid points. Would be news worthy if it could be proved otherwise for sure.

BrutalBodyShots wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:29 pm

Justaguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 8:59 pm Is it odd? I thought the X yr 6 mo points were among the most common places for thresholds to occur. I recall seeing several public-facing comments by FICO officials to the effect of “most of the negative impact of a delinquency wears off by around four years.” 4y6m doesn’t seem so far fetched when viewed in that context.

For age of accounts thresholds, yes. As for aging baddies, who knows. I wouldn't have thought they'd be the same since they're different parts of the Fico pie, but you never know. I don't recall many baddie aging threshold points being discussed over the years, but from the little I remember I thought they were at whole numbers year wise and not the mid points. Would be news worthy if it could be proved otherwise for sure.

I had made a few posts about large score gains as baddies aged at "another location", but I would have to sift through my old CRs and score changes to find them again. I will try to work on that.

Justaguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 8:53 pm

LaHossBoss wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 3:54 pm I am not thinking you went from new account to non-new account, as it even still lists "many new accts", as a negative reason code, but rather that maybe there is aging factors at play for "newness".

I don’t think I share the view that having a reason code for new accounts means I’m necessarily off the new account scorecard. It’s certainly possible to be on a mature scorecard while also getting reason statements about insufficient aging. That’s the situation I’m in. Apologies if I’m misunderstanding you.

Edit, looking back, it may be possible 4y6m for a baddie is also an aging point for most recent baddie. I will have to double check old reports, but it is possible that could also be the culprit.

That would be great! I hope you find the data, whatever it shows.

I think we are agreeing lol I said I am *not* saying you went from "new" to "no new" accounts. I am saying there may be aging thresholds while still being on a new scorecard. That does *not* make you move to a "no new account" scorecard. Which I believe is exactly what you are saying.