03-16-2010 03:57 PM
I have been reading the forums for quite a while, but this is my first post.
I pulled all 3 of my CRs today, for it was time to do so and I was also a bit concerned why Chase reduced my CLI from $1000 to $500. I know that's not a high CL, but I have been busting my tail to get a CLI for AGES, so I was disappointed to see it reduced. The account is PIF every month - with $0 balance showing on CRs - and the only late that shows on the acct. from all 3 CRAs is from July 2009 (which I planned on sending a GW for today). So, aside from that, the acct. is not in that bad of shape.
Well, I called Chase and spoke to a rep. and she said that the reason for the decision was based on information they received from Experian. I think she was shocked when I told her I was looking at my CR as we spoke and the only late is from July of last year so how can that be? She then transferred me to someone else, but I must've waited for 30 minutes, so I eventually hung up.
Here's the thing: Why did they make their decision based on information THEY received from EX? Isn't it kind of supposed to be the other way around, or am I not getting it? One late? And, it's a late from last year?
I know that many regulations have taken affect with CCCs and EX, for that matter, but I am just really concerned. Are they basing this decision on other factors in my CR? I had a couple of lates from July of last year with other CCCs due to unemployment, but that's it. Really. I have been doing a great job getting those CCs PIF so that they reflect $0 or $10-$20 balances by the time they are reported to CRAs.
And, what really scares me is if they are saying 'they are basing this information off of what they received from EX', then why am I not seeing it as well? Here I am thinking I only need to write a GW for one late, but what if EX is reporting something to these guys which is completely different from what I show? How am I supposed to know where I stand?
Does any of this sound kosher? Any advice?
03-16-2010 04:27 PM
Viva_La_Diva, welcome to the FICO Forums.
It sounds like you've joined the ever-growing club of people who have experienced cuts in their credit limits. This happens for a variety of reasons, but past delinquencies are definitely a well-known trigger for a CLD.
To answer your question about what Chase said about your Experian report, it's important to know that information flows in both directions. Chase reports your activity to the Experian (and the other credit bureaus) and, as part of periodic reviews of your credit, Chase requests your entire credit file from Experian.
If there is recent derogatory information - and last July would count as recent, since some CC companies only review your credit once a year - then the CCC may take adverse action, as you have seen. You had a late payments on not just your Chase card but on other CCs as well. When Chase did their account review, they saw these lates and made the decision to cut your credit limit. So Chase isn't seeing anything that you're not - they're just seeing the late payments on your credit cards, which you should be seeing as well.
Other things that might lead to a CLD are high balances on multiple credit cards, account inactivity, foreclosure or short sale, recent credit-seeking activity....the list goes on. Basically, in the current credit climate, it seems like anything that can be considered negative factor will be treated as such.
03-16-2010 07:50 PM
Wow. I really had no idea they actually pulled and reviewed your activity - with other institutions - like that! I always thought they were just concerned about your scores, in general, and your activity/history with them.
Thank you so very much, Lel, for taking the time to explain all of this to me. You really answered all of my questions!!! I really learned something new today.
Now, I am off to writing those GW letters!!!
03-16-2010 08:12 PM
That is Chase's current blanket "reason" and they've been using it since they took adverse action against a large number of ex-WaMu accounts last year. It's a very non-specific response and so almost anything on your EX report could be construed as the cause for the CLD. They also do not specify the date of the CR they reviewed, so their action could be based on a CR that was many months old. Many ex-WaMu customers had very good CRs when they received AA, and the consensus was that Chase had pulled the referenced EX reports months earlier (at the time of the WaMu acquisition) when those customers' reports were not as good.
Bottom line, Chase's risk algorithm decided your account qualified for a CLD, and the "reason" given is irrelevant.
Over the past year or two, many banks have been giving non-specific reasons for AA, presumably to guilt each customer into thinking he/she was somehow at fault. "Too many inquiries" (without specifying how many is too many), "high utilization" (without specifying how much is too high), etc. etc. Best not to wonder about it too much and just move on ...
03-17-2010 10:13 AM
Yeah, I hear you, and thank you so much for your help! I actually just found the letter they sent me on February 27 telling me about it. Shame on me for not opening it sooner, but since I don't receive paper statements anymore, I thought it was actually another offer or something, so I just filed in my Chase folder.
After looking it over, I see that they did indeed look at my other accounts. It states that, "...after careful consideration, we have decreased the credit line on your above-noted account to $500.00 for the following primary reason(s): For venting purposes only, I posted my two-cents in red! Pardon if I am not very lady-like, but I just have to say my piece! LOL!!!
Anyway, I am not going to really worry about this any further. I am actually taking action to remove any baddies on my CRs starting today. I just sent my first set of GW letters to anyone I happened to have a late on. I am better than this, and some day jerks like this will be BEGGING for my business!!!
03-17-2010 11:25 AM
lol. lol. That was funny!
If I was in that situation, I would call up the rep there. At the end of that letter they say which bureau they pulled to acquire that information in case there is an error. I'd say #3 is false, and have that "concern" removed from their letter and therefore can no longer be used against you. Then I would start in on #1 and #2. If technically you were declined based on 2 aspects, not 3, then push even harder to state your case and so-on and so-on.
I'd mess with them. I'd definately ask for reasoning. lol. I hate it when my husband gets a denied letter, and not one thing is accurate in their reason why denied. I not only pull the report they refer to, but the other ones, best I can. And sure enough, their reasons are not even on his report. It makes you wonder if you're not on top of credit reports if sure enough, there is a late payment, etc., that the lenders say is on there. It just makes your heart jump when you see their reasons why and worried if something is wrong on the report.