No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
@Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but I (respectfully) don't understand the frustration. The poster states he had a previous savings account (not a credit account I understand but tell me Chase--or any bank--doesn't keep records on customers.) The OP admits he messed up and lost track of his balance and was hit with overdraft fees or whatever, and now he's coming back and giving Chase an "ultimatum" (his choice of words) on what he believes he deserves as a credit limit? Why should Chase deal with a situation like this? Why would you if you were a banker and had hundreds of thousands of other potential customers to chose from who are less demanding? Why can't we just be happy with what he have? Credit is not a right or an entitlement in our society. I do not "deserve" credit as an American and a bank is not obligated by law to offer me credit.
<<<Shutting up.
All i'm saying is a low limit is frustrating. That's it. Especially from a prime bank. Also, it doesn't look great on your credit reports to have all low limit cards.
Personally, if I worked at Chase, reviewed the app and saw that this persons history with my bank was way less than stellar, I would have denied. But the point is they didn't. Instead, they give him a very low limit card.
He's kinda put in a crappy position now. It's going to report. So any future CC the OP may want to app for, will see the low limit. And from what I've read here, they do take these things into consideration.
Sometimes I think the banks do more harm than good by giving us these cards.
Yes, but they didn't shut him out. I'm guessing they decided they would give him a chance and I'm fairly positive that over the years (and not necessarily within sixty or ninety days as some other folks seem to expect) he's get a CLI. Are banks supposed to grant a certain minimum CL in order to make it worthwhile to use up a hard pull or for the sake of appearance on a credit report? And would anyone feel any better had they been flat refused without even consideration of a CL?
All I'm suggesting is that there be more light and less heat here. I can't speak for everyone but I joined the forum to learn more about credit, credit scores, credit cards, bank policies, etc., not to hear about kicking creditors to the curb, slapping them, and whatever other pejorative adverbs we sometimes use.
@ReVeLaTeD wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@ReVeLaTeD wrote:
@blacklotus wrote:
Congratulations on the approval. If you don't mind posting what was the APR they offered on the card? Its alot harder to decrease your initial APR than to increase your CL. I have a Chase Freedom M/C with a never budging 3k limit (I got a "preselected" letter in the snail-mail I responded to a few years ago) suprised me my Fico was a little below 700 at the time. I just checked my online account and my APR hasn't changed either- a little over 13%. I'm not sure what the national average is right now. Anyways I read some other posts and it seems that Chase is being really stingy lately...They have three levels. 13.99, 19.99 (I think) and 21.99. I got the third. Which also makes no sense given the credit situation, but I don't ever care about APR because if I do carry a balance it's for a month at the most.
@Walt_K wrote:
I'm a little confused. Did they pull a completely clean report showing no negatives and no BK? Or did they pull a report showing negatives, and then you asked for a recon based on a different report? It seems like from your follow-up message that it was the latter. If that is the case, I imagine that is why they started you off with a low limit.
In any event, good luck with the CLI request.
The latter, because I told them that the negatives on Experian were grossly inaccurate, but by that time I had already wasted the inquiry on Experian. So they offered to pull a different bureau.
I still don't see why that should affect the limit. The limit should be predicated on what I can and cannot pay on my revolving accounts. Given I have never missed a payment on any revolving account, and have decent limits on the ones I do have, I would expect that Chase would at least give me $1,000 if nothing else. Again, I'm not asking much.
And no, I don't have a checking/savings account with Chase. I did, once. Last year I believe. Took the $100 offer. But then they nailed me with an overlimit fee and an overdraft fee when the account had gotten down before I realized how far. $70 in fees for one faulty swipe and I was done with Chase. Not even Citibank does me that dirty.
It obviously should effect the limit. With derogatories on one CR they only have your word that they are inaccurate. Not that anybody here believes you are dishonest, but probably very few people with well-earned derogatories will 'fess up. Any reasonable creditor has to doubt one's story when there is uncertainty.
Then REJECT the recon outright. Or as I said, match my lowest limit. Or offer a different card where the limits aren't expected to be high as a counter offer. Or just do the sky high APR without affecting the amount you lend.
The credit limit is money given based on the expectation that you can pay it back if lent. Ability to pay is (A) income and (B) current performance on existing accounts, both of which are well over standard, evident by the other cards that well exceed what Chase gave.
Again, I'm going to lay down the ultimatum. I'm not expecting a 5 figure credit limit. The card doesn't have anywhere near the benefit offerings to justify such a low limit, period, not given my score and income and other factors.
You went asking for a recon. Obviously they didn't buy your story, but felt sorry enough for you to give you a chance. Somewhere there is an adage in this, but if I post it people might take it the wrong way and get offended where no offense is intended.
No, credit limit is not based on the expectation that you can pay it back. It is based on the hope that you will pay it back. Chase probably saw something that gave them legitimate concern that you might not.
Card came today.
Just called the credit analysts. First gal was blatantly rude - in her 40's I wager, that's why. Second gal was nicer, but couldn't help. Spoke to a nice enough gal in customer service, but she couldn't help. One thing she did say which is probably what they did here (and it's BS): "$500 is the starting limit for the Slate card. One possible reason I've seen is when a person has too much available credit, we won't offer them a high amount on our card". So in other words, you don't like it if I'm maxed, you don't like it if I pay all my bills, and you don't like it if I carry a balance. Really? I can't help it if my cards are all paid off.
Chase has been fired. I will not be doing business with them in the future. This fancy plastic card is getting shredded.
While I appreciate the gal at least reconsidering my app, a $500 card does nothing. It's useless, and unfortunately I don't have to nor am I inclined to wait "years" for Chase to figure out that my 8-year streak of perfect payments on various credit cards means I'm credible.
I probably wouldn't have minded so much if they didn't do the 2-week review. If they had just put me on hold, came back and said "We can offer you $500", I would have an opportunity to say, yeah, that won't work, and have them counter with a higher offer. The 2-week review made it so I had no way of knowing what limit I would get, but again, I expected AT LEAST the lowest limit of my cards to be matched. It wasn't. There's simply no excuse for HSB frickin C to have nearly DOUBLE the credit limit offered over Chase.
O6 wrote:
No, credit limit is not based on the expectation that you can pay it back. It is based on the hope that you will pay it back. Chase probably saw something that gave them legitimate concern that you might not.
There wasn't anything to see. That's just the point.
The credit limit I got would make sense if they ONLY went off of Experian. Then I could see it. Equifax is literally pristine. If they went off of Equifax to allow the approval but used Experian to determine what terms, well that's faulty. It defeats the purpose of pulling a different bureau to begin with if you're not going to also use that bureau to determine the terms.
My Equifax report paints me as someone who clearly must make six figures. There are a number of vehicles paid off in short periods of time, more credit cards than I've kept track of that have never missed a payment, some with decent credit limits as shown below, personal loans, my line of credit with Citibank...the only thing I don't have is a mortgage, and only then because of the state I live in. There were a grand total of a whopping 7 inquiries across two years at the time they pulled, no excuse there. No public record, nothing.
@ReVeLaTeD wrote:Card came today.
Just called the credit analysts. First gal was blatantly rude - in her 40's I wager, that's why. Second gal was nicer, but couldn't help. Spoke to a nice enough gal in customer service, but she couldn't help. One thing she did say which is probably what they did here (and it's BS): "$500 is the starting limit for the Slate card. One possible reason I've seen is when a person has too much available credit, we won't offer them a high amount on our card". So in other words, you don't like it if I'm maxed, you don't like it if I pay all my bills, and you don't like it if I carry a balance. Really? I can't help it if my cards are all paid off.
Chase has been fired. I will not be doing business with them in the future. This fancy plastic card is getting shredded.
While I appreciate the gal at least reconsidering my app, a $500 card does nothing. It's useless, and unfortunately I don't have to nor am I inclined to wait "years" for Chase to figure out that my 8-year streak of perfect payments on various credit cards means I'm credible.
I probably wouldn't have minded so much if they didn't do the 2-week review. If they had just put me on hold, came back and said "We can offer you $500", I would have an opportunity to say, yeah, that won't work, and have them counter with a higher offer. The 2-week review made it so I had no way of knowing what limit I would get, but again, I expected AT LEAST the lowest limit of my cards to be matched. It wasn't. There's simply no excuse for HSB frickin C to have nearly DOUBLE the credit limit offered over Chase.
O6 wrote:No, credit limit is not based on the expectation that you can pay it back. It is based on the hope that you will pay it back. Chase probably saw something that gave them legitimate concern that you might not.
There wasn't anything to see. That's just the point.
The credit limit I got would make sense if they ONLY went off of Experian. Then I could see it. Equifax is literally pristine. If they went off of Equifax to allow the approval but used Experian to determine what terms, well that's faulty. It defeats the purpose of pulling a different bureau to begin with if you're not going to also use that bureau to determine the terms.
My Equifax report paints me as someone who clearly must make six figures. There are a number of vehicles paid off in short periods of time, more credit cards than I've kept track of that have never missed a payment, some with decent credit limits as shown below, personal loans, my line of credit with Citibank...the only thing I don't have is a mortgage, and only then because of the state I live in. There were a grand total of a whopping 7 inquiries across two years at the time they pulled, no excuse there. No public record, nothing.
You initially stated you were declined because of derogatories on EX. You called for a recon and they then pulled EQ, which has no derogatories.
If so, then do you really expect them to unsee what they originally saw on EX? I find it hard to imagine that someone would logically expect a recon to ignore the initial information which led to the original decline. If that were the case, then anybody with a boatload of derogatories can always get credit by having at least one clean credit report.
Your beef is with EX and not Chase.
No, my beef is with both. Experian has always produced and perpetuated fraud, that's one thing. Chase isn't off the hook.
If you're going to look at a credit report and then reconsider, then do so under the terms of that report. Otherwise there's no practical purpose to pulling a different bureau if you're not going to use it to determine the terms.
In writing on the back:
"We used information from your credit report to set the terms of the credit we are offering you, such as the Annual Percentage Rate."
I authorized Equifax which is what ultimately generated the approval. That means the terms should have been set from Equifax. If I confirm they used Experian to determine the terms they ran the second inquiry in a faulty manner, because it means they never needed Equifax to make their decision. Different date, different purpose. IN this case, not permissible if it was not used to determine the terms.
And while most may not understand your abbreviation, I well do. GIven that statement is valid, that also means I'm not keen to hear any of your "legal advice" on the matter. Bottom line: Chase either gave improper terms from the wrong report OR was not authorized to run Equifax since they didn't bother using it. Either way, I'll deal with it.
@ReVeLaTeD wrote:No, my beef is with both. Experian has always produced and perpetuated fraud, that's one thing. Chase isn't off the hook.
If you're going to look at a credit report and then reconsider, then do so under the terms of that report. Otherwise there's no practical purpose to pulling a different bureau if you're not going to use it to determine the terms.
In writing on the back:
"We used information from your credit report to set the terms of the credit we are offering you, such as the Annual Percentage Rate."
I authorized Equifax which is what ultimately generated the approval. That means the terms should have been set from Equifax. If I confirm they used Experian to determine the terms they ran the second inquiry in a faulty manner, because it means they never needed Equifax to make their decision. Different date, different purpose. IN this case, not permissible if it was not used to determine the terms.
And while most may not understand your abbreviation, I well do. GIven that statement is valid, that also means I'm not keen to hear any of your "legal advice" on the matter. Bottom line: Chase either gave improper terms from the wrong report OR was not authorized to run Equifax since they didn't bother using it. Either way, I'll deal with it.
Whatever. But from any intelligent viewpoint taken, Chase was perfectly within reason. Most other lenders would have done exactly the same thing.
If a completely new application, fine, but a recon does not in any way mean that they have to disregard the earlier CR used in the initial decline. Also, Chase did use EQ -- that's how you got at least $500 when the alternative was zilch. I know you are upset; nobody likes to be declined. But you are grasping at straws here when you should be trying to deal with EX to avoid the same problems happening again and again.
@ReVeLaTeD wrote:No, my beef is with both. Experian has always produced and perpetuated fraud, that's one thing. Chase isn't off the hook.
I can understand the frustration of denial, or of being surprised by undesirable terms, and limits. I can even understand refusing to do business with certain lenders (I've got a list of many). What I don't understand is what you think Chase has done that's wrong, or unethical, or in any way injurious to you...? You have derogs on your Experian credit report. You, obviously disagree with the validity of those derogs, but they remain. You applied for credit, Chase pulled Experian, you were denied. You reconned, they pulled another credit report at your request, and with your authorization, listened to your side of the derog story, and decided to give you a chance. You got a credit line of $500.
Seems like a net win, to me.
When you applied, was there anything in the Chase Slate application that guaranteed approval? Was there anything that guaranteed a minimum credit line of at least your current lowest credit line? Did they disclaim, at the beginning of the reconn conversation where you were approved, that the previous (and relevant) credit report would drop out of consideration... or did they just offer to consider the additional information that you were providing and authorizing?
I guess my point is this-- As someone previously mentioned, credit is not a right, and not something that we're guaranteed. Credit reports exist for the purpose of business (not consumers). As much as I dislike Chase, and would love to shake my fist in the air at them, they didn't do anything wrong... As a matter of fact, it appears that they went above and beyond in their recon. You got credit, whatever they were willing to lend to you, as is always the case, where they previously said "no". That's what you asked them to do.
None of us, not with perfect (or near perfect) credit scores, 'high income' (whatever that means for the individual & where they live), or otherwise are entitled to credit. We can't compel lenders to allow us to borrow money. We're only entitled to our own $$$, minus taxes, and what we owe to others. I have yet to see any credit application that favored me as the consumer, making guarantees, or desirable promises (or, the desirable promises are summarily revoked when you read the fine print, LOL). And, I already know, upon application, that I don't pick the credit line. I may ask for, and get a specific credit line, but the "get" only happens if the lender was already willing to grant it to me. And, when the terms arrive in the mail, outside of what's been legislated, they'll all be in favor of the lender. Further, I can do everything right, and they can decide (without provocation or cause) to take their toys and leave the sandbox, or even take back the good toys, and leave me with the broken & less desirable one. That's how the game of lending is played.
@ReVeLaTeD wrote:In writing on the back:
"We used information from your credit report to set the terms of the credit we are offering you, such as the Annual Percentage Rate."
I authorized Equifax which is what ultimately generated the approval. That means the terms should have been set from Equifax. If I confirm they used Experian to determine the terms they ran the second inquiry in a faulty manner, because it means they never needed Equifax to make their decision. Different date, different purpose. IN this case, not permissible if it was not used to determine the terms.
And while most may not understand your abbreviation, I well do. GIven that statement is valid, that also means I'm not keen to hear any of your "legal advice" on the matter. Bottom line: Chase either gave improper terms from the wrong report OR was not authorized to run Equifax since they didn't bother using it. Either way, I'll deal with it.
According to what you've posted here, you authorized Chase to pull your credit on two separate occassions to obtain the one card. You authorized them on your initial app, and then again at recon. Chase initially pulled Experian, and, at your request, they pulled another (turned out to be EQ). They had permissible purpose.
Chase (nor any other lender) doesn't give "improper terms"... their terms are whatever they see fit, without regard for how undesirable you/consumer/borrower might find them. You have the options to either a) like it, b) try to negotiate, or c) lump it, IF you decide to apply. It looks as though your were semi-successful at "b", and ultimately settled upon "c". This is exactly how things are designed to work in the system that exists today.
After referring to women repeatedly as a "gal," one was called an "alluring female" (I didn't know people could be diagnosed as alluring over the phone) and another was said to be grouchy specifically because she sounded to be in her forties. This is all sort of weird.
Maybe they didn't find you the most pleasant to deal with on the phone.
ReVeLaTeD wrote:First gal was blatantly rude - in her 40's I wager, that's why.
Pretty discriminatory against mid-40s women or something? I find that statement to be insulting.