Seasoned tradeline DID NOT raise score.

I'm just throwing this out there....try using the card, and wait to see if it impacts the score. Worth a try for a small everyday purchase.

 

My wife's grandmother's balance increased from 216 to 284 reported on EX and TU, hasn't hit EQ yet, still no impact to my score from that AU account.

As a reminder, 21 year old CC with 22,600 limit and <$300 balance, never late in 21 years...

 

First and foremost, I'm not here to answer everyones questions as to AU accounts and how they impact their own personal scores. Not trying to be rude but, there are far to many variables that I'm not privy to.

Again, what evidence we have supports that AU accounts are effective. All of our clients state as such and even a few board members which have used us in the past (recent) have affirmed that as well. Moreover, if the dreaded FICO 08' had reared its head, it would be more than one or two people complaining. Even FICO's June statement (which is a farce) stated that two credit reporting agencies weren't even to review it until some point in 2008.

With that said, I will presume that you are looking at a True Credit report. Your terminology of "open" is indicative of that. If you're not looking at a True Credit report, then the account is reporting wrong insofar as it should report as "revolving" because it is a credit card. Again, assuming that we're dealing with True Credit, you have to allow a couple of days for a score change to reflect. Secondly, even if it never reflects a change it doesn't mean anything inasmuch as those scores are wildly inaccurate. Go to MyFico to see if there has been a change.

Also, it would be good to note what your oldest, open revolving account is as well as what your utilization is (both overall and per each account). There are many variables which can effect the impact both up and down.

 

The 0 high balance makes it look like it's never been used (I don't know if it has or not). If it's never been used, it may not make much impact. I agree with Bizwiz, it needs to have some usage on it.

 

The above is true and may account for a blank account history as well. If so, that may have an impact.

 

Perhaps...

Perhaps the dreaded "FICO '08" is here, and we just don't know it, or a modified version anyway.

It would make some sense that these tradelines would not have an impact for a month or two. If FICO '08 is trying to sort out "purchased AU accounts", then they may wait to see of the user stays on as a "permitted to use AU" for longer than 1-2 months.

I'm certain FICO knows how the "purchased AU account" process works, and is trying to factor in the AU for a month criteria. I'm betting that usage and/or a time as user criteria is working here.

Check your actual FICO score, that is really the only true measure, but perhaps give it some time.

 

Yes, thats it . . . FICO 08' is here. Good Lord people, it is not here and it is not going to be for the forseeable future if at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you think more than a few people would be complaining? Let's use our noggins a little bit.

And no, you cannot tell a "purchased" account from one that a family member is added to. That just cannot be ascertained in a cost effective manner. Moreover, it doesn't matter if the account is purchased. Both methods inflate scores do they not?

In any event, I will agree with Biz that the OP should check their FICO scores and report back.

 

Apex,
Help me understand the workings here a bit. As I understand the "purchased AU account" process,

1)the "purchaser" buys the AU account,

2) the account holder adds the "AU",

3) The physical card, and critical account information, goes to the primary account holder, the "purchaser" does not get these things,

4) Once the "AU account reports" to the CRAs, (about a month +/-?), the account holder then removes the "AU",

5) But, the "AU account" stays on the purchaser's credit report, thereby increasing both account history, utilization ratio and good payment history.

So, does the credit issuer ever "re-report" the account? As a normal CC account reports monthly or quarterly, does this same step take place with a purchased AU account?

I'm hypothesizing that somewhere the FICO model is trying to become "street smart" as to giving score credit to "newer" AU accounts. I'm not saying it's right, legal or ethical, it just seems to make empirical "modeling" sense".

We have to admit that there seems to be something going on here. We've seen a few examples here on the forum, and they all seem to be "lately" incidents. Based on these cases we've seen, it does look like FICO is trying something.

 

No, we have a very, VERY limited number of people that are experiencing "something." I cannot tell what that "something" is without looking at the entire report. Also, we have no way of ascertaining the veracity of what is being said here.

With that said, we do anywhere between 75 and 100 tradeline additions each month. May not seem like a lot to some but, let me tell you this . . . if our clients did not see an increase you would see that reflected in our Better Business Bureau records. We have not had ONE client with such a result as is being described here and that is indicative of our excellent BBB record. In other words, we can provide evidence that this is not occurring.

Moreover, the OP has yet to report back. We don't even know what they were looking at.

With the above said and in order to answer your question, yes, the creditor reports the accounts every month even if the account holder removes the AU. That is only not true with Bank of America. They remove the entire line. Citibank on rare occasion will denote the account as terminated but, it has no scoring effect and they still update the account each month.

With that in mind, Fair Isaac would not be able to delineate a purchased account from any other.

You want to know what the real scoop is? Fair Isaac was going to produce an illegal scoring model. They may come out with it. Who cares. The issue is who will use it? Is First American Credco? Is Kroll? No and you know why? Because it is illegal and they don't want to be involved in class litigation. Kroll's actions are clear in that they are not going to use this model insofar as they already have an "AU Alert" on all of their reports. Guess what, it has no effect on the score because if it did, it would be illegal. The loan officers ignore it anyway . . .

The whole FICO 08' phenomenon was a feel good measure that was also meant to scare people away. It did to some extent.

So the whole ball of wax is that this model is not in use. We don't think it will ever come of the shelf but, if it does, no one will use it. If anyone does use it, they will be sued. They will lose and sue Fair Isaac for contribution. Thereafter, this will be a distant memory.

 

Well, it was in the news so it has to be true . . .

I'm thinking that maybe if I explain that it is illegal, blah, blah, blah a few thousand more times it may sink in some heads, lol. I know it seems like a script but, hell, anyone that can read knows that the proposed model is illegal. Just look at the ECOA or even our website for an explanation.

In addition, any reasonable person could deduce that many class suits would be filed if this would come into play because, uhhhh, Fair Isaac has ALREADY SAID IT WILL EFFECT A THIRD OF CONSUMER CREDIT SCORES.

It's really that simple.

It is my opinion that a lot of folks want this new system for one reason or another and thus, they'll perpetuate rumors and the like. They don't care about the law or choose to ignore its plain meaning. They probably either have low scores themselves and resent those that raise theirs or are of the opinion that purchasing AU accounts is unethical. The problem is that the whole scoring model is unethical and corrupt. Any company with a subscription can report anything they like. Moreover, the system is designed to weigh more heavily derogatory information. You can have a 750 score and get one collection and fall into the lower 600's. In short, the system is built to make money for lenders. Finding a small tweak here and there to balance the playing field may be considered unethical but, I sleep fine at night. It is legal and it works under the rules.

As all this applies to your situation, I was right. True Credit and Privacy Matters are identical with respect to scores and the length of time before a change can be seen. You should see a change in a few days. You could probably already see a change on MyFico. Just go pull one and see. Use "cppsavings" in order to save a few dollars.