cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

I Didn't Mean to Churn, Yet it Happened

Valued Contributor

Re: I Didn't Mean to Churn, Yet it Happened


tuolumne wrote:
Honestly it's probably more about keeping profits up as people with less (sometimes much less) than stellar credit start getting approved for these type of promotions. Go check out the Approvals forum sometime to see what I mean. Of course, That's just my belief. Smiley Tongue

Sure, and without conceding that is the case, considering that to be the case for argument's sake, my belief is that I have less of a problem with giving people second chances than allowing people with... "stellar" credit to lose them money anyway. If gaining loyalty is key to business, then a bank is much more likely to do so from a consumer who sees that credit as a welcome surprise rather than a thing to exploit. Smiley Very Happy

Message 81 of 199
Valued Contributor

Re: I Didn't Mean to Churn, Yet it Happened


yfan wrote:

tuolumne wrote:
Honestly it's probably more about keeping profits up as people with less (sometimes much less) than stellar credit start getting approved for these type of promotions. Go check out the Approvals forum sometime to see what I mean. Of course, That's just my belief. Smiley Tongue

I have less of a problem with giving people second chances than allowing people with... "stellar" credit to lose them money anyway. If gaining loyalty is key to business, then a bank is much more likely to do so from a consumer who sees that credit as a welcome surprise rather than a thing to exploit. Smiley Very Happy


Opportunity cost, each side has their own. Smiley Wink

Shortcuts to credit lead to shortcut results.
Message 82 of 199
Super Contributor

Re: I Didn't Mean to Churn, Yet it Happened


yfan wrote:

tuolumne wrote:

I don't blame them for taking countermeasures against those "evil freeloader good-for-nothing churners", But it doesn't mean that I cheer on the clamping down of bonuses either even if it is completely within their terms, which can change at will. I will be the first to admit I had fun while it lasted, to be rewarded heavily and seemingly limitlessly for spend I was already incurring. I saved many thousands on travel over the years and I don't regret a minute of it.


That's just it. Just as you don't have to cheer on what the banks are doing, others need not cheer on what you are doing/have done. Just as you celebrate being able to take advantage of the system, so may others celebrate the trend towards shutting down that advantage-taking, especially if they believe they experience nerfing as at least partly a result of others churning.


Not going to get in a debate about what constitutes advantage taking or whatever, but I do want to point out a key difference. People come on here when they are upset if a bank has taken AA action against them/ denied them cards etc (even in cases not involving things where they have done nothing wrong). It is one thing where a person rants against a financial institution because they are upset. However, if someone makes a post like that I think it is totally not in the spirit of the forumns to cheer on the financial instutions at that person's expense. One side is a big business. The other side is a single individual person who is here looking for support and advice.

 

I'm not saying that you yfan would directly attack someone, but if someone had AA taken against them and then thirty minutes later there is a thread that says I'm happy that banks are taking these adverse actions against people to me that is a problem. I believe we should take into consideration the feelings of people who may be going through AA or getting denied cards, even if someone believes they deserved it. Comes down to the sentiment that if you do not have anything nice to say don't say anything at all. Obviously pointing out a banks rationale for taking actiomns to help a poster understand why it happened is one thing. However, that can be done in a neutral non-opinionated way without cheering on the bank and making the person feel worse. 

;
Starting Score: EQ: 714, TU 684
Current Score: EQ: 725 7/30/13, TU 684 6/2013, Exp 826 4/16/17, Last App 8/5/17
Goal Score: 800 (Achieved!) In garden until Sepetember 2019
Message 83 of 199
Valued Contributor

Re: I Didn't Mean to Churn, Yet it Happened


red259 wrote:

yfan wrote:

tuolumne wrote:

I don't blame them for taking countermeasures against those "evil freeloader good-for-nothing churners", But it doesn't mean that I cheer on the clamping down of bonuses either even if it is completely within their terms, which can change at will. I will be the first to admit I had fun while it lasted, to be rewarded heavily and seemingly limitlessly for spend I was already incurring. I saved many thousands on travel over the years and I don't regret a minute of it.


That's just it. Just as you don't have to cheer on what the banks are doing, others need not cheer on what you are doing/have done. Just as you celebrate being able to take advantage of the system, so may others celebrate the trend towards shutting down that advantage-taking, especially if they believe they experience nerfing as at least partly a result of others churning.


I believe we should take into consideration the feelings of people who may be going through AA or getting denied cards, even if someone believes they deserved it. Comes down to the sentiment that if you do not have anything nice to say don't say anything at all. 


You had me until here. Sometimes in order to understand exactly *why* you are being declined or had your credit line balance chased you need to be told directly with no sugarcoating and no "So sorry Chase declined you, You totally fit the mold with 5xx FICO" coddling nonsense.

Shortcuts to credit lead to shortcut results.
Message 84 of 199
Super Contributor

Re: I Didn't Mean to Churn, Yet it Happened


tuolumne wrote:

red259 wrote:

yfan wrote:

tuolumne wrote:

I don't blame them for taking countermeasures against those "evil freeloader good-for-nothing churners", But it doesn't mean that I cheer on the clamping down of bonuses either even if it is completely within their terms, which can change at will. I will be the first to admit I had fun while it lasted, to be rewarded heavily and seemingly limitlessly for spend I was already incurring. I saved many thousands on travel over the years and I don't regret a minute of it.


That's just it. Just as you don't have to cheer on what the banks are doing, others need not cheer on what you are doing/have done. Just as you celebrate being able to take advantage of the system, so may others celebrate the trend towards shutting down that advantage-taking, especially if they believe they experience nerfing as at least partly a result of others churning.


I believe we should take into consideration the feelings of people who may be going through AA or getting denied cards, even if someone believes they deserved it. Comes down to the sentiment that if you do not have anything nice to say don't say anything at all. 


You had me until here. Sometimes in order to understand exactly *why* you are being declined or had your credit line balance chased you need to be told directly with no sugarcoating and no "So sorry Chase declined you, You totally fit the mold with 5xx FICO" coddling nonsense.


I addd to my statement probably while you were reading the original because I saw the need for that exception. 

;
Starting Score: EQ: 714, TU 684
Current Score: EQ: 725 7/30/13, TU 684 6/2013, Exp 826 4/16/17, Last App 8/5/17
Goal Score: 800 (Achieved!) In garden until Sepetember 2019
Message 85 of 199
Valued Contributor

Re: I Didn't Mean to Churn, Yet it Happened


red259 wrote:

I'm not sure I have ever seen someone do a how-to guide for churning or actually advocate churning (in these forumns I mean). 


Nope, no one has ever done an how-to guide. But the book's been pretty well written here on using Chase's 24-month rule to churn, for example, including a discussion on just when this clock starts ticking. That is in effect a how-to instruction, though not a complete guide. Earlier this month a similar discussion took place with a thread the entire purpose of which was to ask how soon the CSP can be churned. Yet another thread last month opened up to ask for assurance that opening up o redundant Capital One cards still gives you the bonuses on both .. see Multiple Bonus Venture. I think all those threads and many others had advocacy for churning, but even if you disagree, you cannot disagree that they were all varitable how-to's of churning.

Message 86 of 199
Valued Contributor

Re: I Didn't Mean to Churn, Yet it Happened


red259 wrote:

Not going to get in a debate about what constitutes advantage taking or whatever, but I do want to point out a key difference. People come on here when they are upset if a bank has taken AA action against them/ denied them cards etc (even in cases not involving things where they have done nothing wrong). It is one thing where a person rants against a financial institution because they are upset. However, if someone makes a post like that I think it is totally not in the spirit of the forumns to cheer on the financial instutions at that person's expense. One side is a big business. The other side is a single individual person who is here looking for support and advice.


I guarantee you I would have no problem with someone's behavior of all they were affecting were the big bad banks. But banks aren't taking the loss - rather they are changing the products in ways that sometimes reduce overall benefits, passing the cost along to those who don't churn. This isn't about banks vs one individual. Churning is about what other individuals may believe to the adverse effect of a certain behavior by other individuals on a product they use.

 


red259 wrote:

I'm not saying that you yfan would directly attack someone, but if someone had AA taken against them and then thirty minutes later there is a thread that says I'm happy that banks are taking these adverse actions against people to me that is a problem. I believe we should take into consideration the feelings of people who may be going through AA or getting denied cards, even if someone believes they deserved it. Comes down to the sentiment that if you do not have anything nice to say don't say anything at all. Obviously pointing out a banks rationale for taking actiomns to help a poster understand why it happened is one thing. However, that can be done in a neutral non-opinionated way without cheering on the bank and making the person feel worse. 


Again, if we are talking about considerations for individuals, then we should also take into consideration the feelings of people who feel that the way others are using a product is hurting the product's benefits that they want. After all, that is, in effect, an adverse outcome. Often times though, the response to their feelings is something along the lines of "Yeah well I got mine, so whatever." 

Message 87 of 199
Super Contributor

Re: I Didn't Mean to Churn, Yet it Happened


yfan wrote:

red259 wrote:

I'm not sure I have ever seen someone do a how-to guide for churning or actually advocate churning (in these forumns I mean). 


Nope, no one has ever done an how-to guide. But the book's been pretty well written here on using Chase's 24-month rule to churn, for example, including a discussion on just when this clock starts ticking. That is in effect a how-to instruction, though not a complete guide. Earlier this month a similar discussion took place with a thread the entire purpose of which was to ask how soon the CSP can be churned. Yet another thread last month opened up to ask for assurance that opening up o redundant Capital One cards still gives you the bonuses on both .. see Multiple Bonus Venture. I think all those threads and many others had advocacy for churning, but even if you disagree, you cannot disagree that they were all varitable how-to's of churning.


I do disagree. It would be absurd if we were unable to ask or get answers to a question about a lender's policy of when someone would be elgible for the bonus again. Just because someone is going for the same card again does not make them a churner. There could be any number of reasons why they gave up the card and then subsequently needs it back (recovering from financial setback/AA/change in work circumstances now require travel again etc). Granted if there is a thread where someone is talking about apping/ getting bonus cancelling and immediately apping for another of same product and doing it repeatedly (which I have seen discussed on other forumns) I would agree that would be a churning guide. However, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. 

;
Starting Score: EQ: 714, TU 684
Current Score: EQ: 725 7/30/13, TU 684 6/2013, Exp 826 4/16/17, Last App 8/5/17
Goal Score: 800 (Achieved!) In garden until Sepetember 2019
Message 88 of 199
Valued Contributor

Re: I Didn't Mean to Churn, Yet it Happened


red259 wrote:

I do disagree. It would be absurd if we were unable to ask or get answers to a question about a lender's policy of when someone would be elgible for the bonus again. Just because someone is going for the same card again does not make them a churner. There could be any number of reasons why they gave up the card and then subsequently needs it back (recovering from financial setback/AA/change in work circumstances now require travel again etc). 


Except the threads I linked pretty much explicitly state that they closed the card so that they could earn the bonus again and/or to avoid an AF and they want it back so they can get the bonus again. None of the threads mentioned closing because of any difficulty or as a mistake. And as have been pointed out here before, if someone wants the card back, they often time can without the bonus and that does not involve figuring out precision timing for being eligible for the bonus again.

Message 89 of 199
Super Contributor

Re: I Didn't Mean to Churn, Yet it Happened


yfan wrote:

red259 wrote:

Not going to get in a debate about what constitutes advantage taking or whatever, but I do want to point out a key difference. People come on here when they are upset if a bank has taken AA action against them/ denied them cards etc (even in cases not involving things where they have done nothing wrong). It is one thing where a person rants against a financial institution because they are upset. However, if someone makes a post like that I think it is totally not in the spirit of the forumns to cheer on the financial instutions at that person's expense. One side is a big business. The other side is a single individual person who is here looking for support and advice.


I guarantee you I would have no problem with someone's behavior of all they were affecting were the big bad banks. But banks aren't taking the loss - rather they are changing the products in ways that sometimes reduce overall benefits, passing the cost along to those who don't churn. This isn't about banks vs one individual. Churning is about what other individuals may believe to the adverse effect of a certain behavior by other individuals on a product they use.

 


red259 wrote:

I'm not saying that you yfan would directly attack someone, but if someone had AA taken against them and then thirty minutes later there is a thread that says I'm happy that banks are taking these adverse actions against people to me that is a problem. I believe we should take into consideration the feelings of people who may be going through AA or getting denied cards, even if someone believes they deserved it. Comes down to the sentiment that if you do not have anything nice to say don't say anything at all. Obviously pointing out a banks rationale for taking actiomns to help a poster understand why it happened is one thing. However, that can be done in a neutral non-opinionated way without cheering on the bank and making the person feel worse. 


Again, if we are talking about considerations for individuals, then we should also take into consideration the feelings of people who feel that the way others are using a product is hurting the product's benefits that they want. After all, that is, in effect, an adverse outcome. Often times though, the response to their feelings is something along the lines of "Yeah well I got mine, so whatever." 


But any concern is always somewhat arbitrary.    Perhaps we should all be careful not to max out the 5x benefits on Freedom and Discover (especially now with double cash back).   Obviously we shouldn't do it every quarter, but maybe shouldn't do it ANY quarter, because it costs the banks, so they may reduce benefits and "ruin it for others"    So let's all aim at say $500 per quarter and get a respectable $25 back.     And don't tell me the rules ALLOW $1,500, just because they allow it doesn't mean it's not abuse.     (And this really did happen with Cash Plus removing the heavily used categories, even though they were all capped?)

 

 

So how do we distinguish?   I wouldn't be at all sure that churning bonuses (now every  24 months with Chase) costs a whole lot more than lots of people using the 5%

Message 90 of 199