@Bman70 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@taxi818 wrote:
He wrote the check out to himself. And they cashed it. Then he paid everything down. Maybe that is key. He should have just did normal bt. Inputting credit card info and let them bt. His usage is only 25%. So no reason for AA. No new apps in a year either. Me on the other hand. I have 30% usage. Tons of apps. (12 ) in the last year. 3 in the last 9 months. Or since last month. No a word from them.Dont think that makes a difference. I've written two to myself w/o issues. That's why they send the checks.
Hmm. I've never had any issues yet doing BTs with Barclay, but I've never used the checks either. Maybe it's a combination of factors that causes the AA after a BT. Like lack of use, or low use for a long time, and then all the sudden a large BT? I don't know. I know there have been quite a few people that experienced AA shortly after doing a BT with them, but I just feel there is something else causing the AA and it's not just because Barclay doesn't like BTs.
I'm not sure why it causes AA (if it does). Yes, I'm sure Barclays does a review of your account but I think all these CC companies conduct reviews any time you bring attention to your account. That could be a balance transfer, a credit limit increase request, a credit limit reallocation/combination or any other reason that you draw attention to your account. I think that you're right about it being something else that causes the AA
In the last thread on this topic, the OP after questioning admitted to having some collections / lates on their reports. In my mind, accounts with derogatory items, even small ones, are looked at with suspicion by banks even though they get approvals. It's probably a bucket of some kind, "riskier assets" or something. AA is probably never far away in that bucket. The upshot is, you need to know what makes a healthy profile vs. a riskier one, and cultivate a healthy one. Then you can use your cards as you want to, without needing to worry.
I agree.
@taxi818 wrote:
In the last thread on this topic, the OP after questioning admitted to having some collections / lates on their reports. In my mind, accounts with derogatory items, even small ones, are looked at with suspicion by banks even though they get approvals. It's probably a bucket of some kind, "riskier assets" or something. AA is probably never far away in that bucket. The upshot is, you need to know what makes a healthy profile vs. a riskier one, and cultivate a healthy one. Then you can use your cards as you want to, without needing to worry.
Well I would like to know at which point I said anyone had lates or anything? Is this imaginary? No lates. No negatives. Nothing. This why there is a surprise. All scores mid 700s. Has nothing to do with anything except Barclay being jittery. Would never blame a lender for AA if anything negative was out there. But if customer is outstanding. 100% clean. Why worried ?
Some folks instinctively jump to the defense of the banks 
On this issue I think it's absurd and in bad faith for a bank to take adverse action against someone who's living up to his obligations with all lenders.
@taxi818 wrote:
In the last thread on this topic, the OP after questioning admitted to having some collections / lates on their reports. In my mind, accounts with derogatory items, even small ones, are looked at with suspicion by banks even though they get approvals. It's probably a bucket of some kind, "riskier assets" or something. AA is probably never far away in that bucket. The upshot is, you need to know what makes a healthy profile vs. a riskier one, and cultivate a healthy one. Then you can use your cards as you want to, without needing to worry.
--------------
Well I would like to know at which point I said anyone had lates or anything? Is this imaginary? No lates. No negatives. Nothing. This why there is a surprise. All scores mid 700s. Has nothing to do with anything except Barclay being jittery. Would never blame a lender for AA if anything negative was out there. But if customer is outstanding. 100% clean. Why worried ?
"OP" in that case meant the OP of another Barclay AA thread.
If your brother's profile is spotless, then this may be the elusive proof of Barclay's unwarranted AA that scientists have been seeking.
It's rare, though, that we get a complete portrait of the credit profile in question; when we do, there's almost always something in the profile that stands out as causing AA.
For instance, the derogs in the other thread mentioned.
In your brother's case, it's hard to know how healthy, thick, old his profile is. You said he has 27 cards. What are their ages? How may inquiries? Barclay's given reason was "balances on available credit".. what are his total available CLs, and overall utilization? A profile with 30 inquiries (example) has no derogs as such, but is considered risky due to heavy credit seeking. Having $10k or more unsecured (cc) debt also raises flags, regardless of utilization %.
Also, sometimes people honestly believe there are no derogs, but have misinterpreted a report, or assumed something dropped off when it didn't. Amazing how often that happens. I hope your brother calls and gets his credit line reinstated, though.
I had Citi drop my credit limit down a couple of years ago because the balances on my other accounts were too high and it made them nervous. All I did was made an unually large payment because I was in the middle of paying down all of my debt and getting my act together, financially speaking. You would think they would be happy, but instead they lowered my limit to reduce their risk. It's natural to get mad at the bank, but they are just trying to cover their own butts in case the person suddenly defaults. Carrying balances across multiple cards can make creditors nervous as it's considered "risky behavior." It definitely sucks, and I was certainly nervous in my situation that they would drop my credit limit down to $0, but there was nothing else after that initial decrease. He's lucky they didn't drop it further than that, to be honest.
I just wanted to point out that it isn't just this bank. My Citi account was over 10 years old. I was never late with them. Never over. Never anything negative. It was my behavior on my other credit cards that caused them to drop my limit. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't happy when this happened, but to be honest, I really wasn't all that mad. I was just relieved they didn't raise my APR. Of course, I don't have to worry about that anymore as I don't play around with carrying balances and running up my limits anymore. But to the OP, I wouldn't be nervous for yourself. As long as you're being responsible, and it sounds like you are, they have no reason to do anything to you. We never have the complete picture of someone else's finances.
@SouthJamaica wrote:Some folks instinctively jump to the defense of the banks
Saying that the creditor had reasons -- whether or not one agrees with the reasons -- is not necessarily jumping to the defense of the creditors. Additionally many seem to assume that it's only derogs that matter. Some may also consider revolving utilization. However, many seem to overlook new accounts, recent credit seeking activity, etc. It's not just a matter of the creditor but one's credit profile as well. A strong enough credit profile isn't just going to get AA'd by a creditor. A credit profile that is borderline good can easily get AA'd by a creditor. Risk tolerances and underwriting criteria do vary by creditor and some are more risk averse and have stricter criteria but the creditor is only half of the equation. One's credit profile is the other important aspect.
@SouthJamaica wrote:On this issue I think it's absurd and in bad faith for a bank to take adverse action against someone who's living up to his obligations with all lenders.
It's up to each creditor to determine such things.
Additionally, "living up to obligations with all lenders" is very vague and would cover a wide range of credit profiles covering a wide range of potential risk to creditors -- everything from a person with a long, established credit history and excellent track record of managing credit accounts to one with little credit history just managing to make minimum payments.
@Anonymous wrote:To each their own, but I just know I wouldn't use a card that I was afraid of getting AA every time I pulled it out of my wallet. I understand all CCC do AA but Barclays is the one most talked about on these boards by far.
You always need to consider your sources. myFICO has a lot of builders and rebuilders. Again, one's credit profile matters.
That said, it's up to each to determine which creditors and products the individual wants to use for whatever reasons. If you don't care for Barclaycard because they seem quick to take AA for your profile then certainly use other creditors and products. However, don't assume that everyone experiences the same from Barclaycard. Everyone's credit is not identical.
@CreditMagic7 wrote:I been thinking things over after reading up about these occasional barclays hatchet jobs. Some members behavior indeed well invite them to take action while there are some others which seem completely unreasonable. One could argue that as long as a cardholder is using the card regularly enough and making reasonable payments if not completely doing PIF, that all should be good for the long haul.
However there's one underlying pattern that seems to be consistent with them.
They appear to take great pains often times in over exaggerating in their risk assessment. Now that's ok if they are a new company or are going thru some hardship or other policy restriction in order to meet certain expected internal guidelines for profit potential. That's all well and understood, but hasn't barclays been around long enough by now to factor into their bottom line the highly competitive american card market to better meet expectations?
Or are they just simply so conservative that at the first sign of some competition that they prefer to go bananas. Cut their losses (if any) and look for newcomers to continue the cycle.
I just don't get it with them or their overly aggressive ways and yes from my own personal experience i have always had a devil of a time trying to intelligently correspond with their seemingly high school U/W's where i been made to feel so ill at ease as though my credit profile doesn't always meet with a Merrill Lynch or other high prestigious standard, while they routinely & eagerly cater to subprime and approve low limit cards only to carve up even those cardholders the moment that either their utility goes up (before PIF), they make use of a BT, or experience a score drop which is common while building.
Any opinions?
Lots of opinions, and that's part of the problem with some of these rumors and memes. It makes it hard to sort out a real pattern, providing useful actionable information. In my opinion and experience, the information exists that enables us to cultivate healthy, non-risky profiles. We're not at the mercy of strange whims from Norse-god like banks, who anger easily and strike unpredictably. AA is predictable. The behaviors that invite it are identifiable. It's possible to develop credit habits that prevent AA.
It takes some discipline.. the other day I really was tempted to apply for the Amazon store card, when a $70 gc offer popped up. But I want to keep my inquires below 5 per credit bureau, so I didn't. It's like working out - you can have that donut (again) or your nice abs. You can app a lot for shiny cards, or have a strong profile.
It's not a "high prestigious" standard, as if there's some social significance attached. It's a set of facts, using statistics and probabilities math. Which we can learn, and use to our advantage. When a subprime account is approved, that account is already under a high risk scrutiny. Yes, banks make riskier investments, but they also cut those faster. If you don't want to be in the cut pile, keep a healthy profile. Banks assess risk, well we can assess how much AA risk we are comfortable with. If like me, you like 0 risk of AA, here are some ideas:
-Try to keep all FICOs above 760
-Routinely monitor your reports for mistakes, discrepancies, and dispute them.
-Routinely try to remove baddies with good will letters, begging, bargaining, and finally just waiting
-Keep inqiuries to <15 overall, and new applications to once a year
-Keep overall util below 10%, and individual util below 25%.
-Keep total cc debt under $10k
