Strange Citi message for CLI

[Gmood1]

@BBS
Any one that PIF by due date is a strict transactor. Reporting real world balances verses clearly manipulated ones is what I'm referring to.
How many people do you know of outside of myfico allow $1 to report on their revolving accounts? That's what I'm talking about.
TU is one of those CBs that reports statement balances followed by the amount paid. Not all lenders report this, but what if they did?
If your statement balances are $1 every month for two years. What goes through the UW's mind if that is all they see?

[Anonymous]

I don't think they'd care one bit.  Why would they?  What's the difference between allowing $1 to report or allowing $0?  If you're spending say $500/mo or $5000/mo every cycle on a card, why would they care if you let $0 report or $1?  If you're spending big and paying in full, you're a profitable customer that's extremely low risk.  The rest IMO is irrelevant and semantics. 

I can understand the argument of letting a larger balance report, at least from time to time, as that "high balance" can be seen by other lenders. 

[Gmood1]

No arguments here, I am simply pointing out what is missing from your perfect equations in receiving the CLI you want or may expect from some lenders. On computer driven systems you'll probably be fine. When they go to manual review is when I suspect you'll be disappointed.
Its up to you whether you actually listen or not.
I had a long time myfico member tell me the same two years ago. That's when I was attempting to do exactly what you are now. I listened and the gates still haven't closed completely. Only thing that holds me back with certain certain lenders now is income. I've hit my max exposure with some of them.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure what you're referring to with the comment on "perfect equations" regarding a CLI request.  I read my Post 6 to which your started on Post 7 suggesting that I (and others perhaps) are over doing things, then started talking about how allowing a $1 balance to report (as opposed to $0 I suppose) could be a negative look to a lender.  No where did I say that I had a $1 balance when I requested my Citi CLI did I?  I think my previously reported balance with Citi at the time of my CLI request was $600-$700 and my current balance at the time of the request was $1300 or so coming off of $5100 in purchases the previous cycle. 

I did start a thread and inquire with people on this forum leading up to my Citi CLI request asking their opinions based on their experience [with respect to Citi personally] if going with a $0 balance, small balance or large balance both reported and current would make a difference when doing a HP CLI request with them.

Maybe you're confusing my opinion on this with the lowest balance a creditor will report thread, where in the past I've tested all of my creditors to see which will report a $1 balance and which don't?  Just because I have let creditors report a $1 balance on my accounts in the past in the name of testing doesn't mean it's something that I do all the time.

[Gmood1]

I figured you had a balance on the Citi. Which is fine and shouldn't matter. I was hoping you weren't paying everything else to $1. Instead of allowing balances to naturally report. Not necessarily zero..just what was used. As plain as I can say it, allowing balances to report without any manipulation.
I've seen a bunch of newbies mention the technique and for some reason believe it will get them in with lenders as well as the CLIs they want.
When in reality it may actually hamper them from getting what they want.

[Anonymous]

I think this discussion comes down to whether or not someone is attempting to maximize their scores.  If you are just letting your balances report naturally every month, there's a chance that you're leaving FICO points on the table.  Which, assuming your scores are fine where they are and you aren't apping, no harm no foul.  Of course, your limits like many are plenty high enough that you can essentially let any reasonable balance report (like $5k on a $30k limit) and it's not going to adversely impact your scores.  That definitely isn't the case for most people though, as there are far many with lower limits than there are with monster limits.   

Considering that the majority on this forum I believe are trying to maximize their scores, it's good to think from the perspective of AZEO.  The most commonly suggested reporting balance on this forum (that I've seen) is when discussing AZEO, where the advice is often given to allow all cards to report $0 and have just one report something small like $5-$10.  In your opinion, you don't think it's necessary to micromanage $5-$10.  Unless the AZEO card has a $300 limit, you're right. 

I think most of the newbies that you refer to are likely the ones trying to employ AZEO, so in their case allowing balances to naturally report would not be the best advice for them.  Allowing them to naturally report could mean that all of their cards would have reported balances at the same time, which we all know can result in a scoring drop.  It also could cause their aggregate utilization to cross a threshold in the wrong direction, causing a greater score drop.  Many newbies have lower limits on their cards, so their actions with respect to utilization are far more volatile than someone with $150k+ in total credit limits like myself or $500k+ like you.

[Gmood1]

I would hope common sense would kick in and they understand that we all started from some where. I found focusing on AZEO building scores and credit a non-issue and unnecessary. As you've said unless the limit doesn't allow you to report naturally, there's no reason to stress over it. The scores will rise and so will the TLs over time.  My advice is simple. Pay on time, PIF when possible and not necessarily before statements cut, use your credit as a tool. And please don't be afraid to use it. After all what's the purpose of having good credit, if you're afraid to use it?

Focusing on small score drops is also something I've tried not to do. The points will come back.

If you're paying on time and responsibly. There's only one direction for them to go.

[Anonymous]

Here's a hypothetical for you.  Say you have someone that puts a $5k/mo spend or so on one of their cards and the card has a large limit, say $30k.  Assuming they don't micromanage their balance and let things happen naturally, suppose their reported balances show up something like $3000, $2500, $3300, $3500, $2100, etc.  Naturally, the creditor with which this person has the account can see that they do PIF every cycle.  An outsider though looking at this person's credit report doesn't actually know what their monthly spend is, or whether or not this person is always paying in full, correct?  It could be that their monthly spend is only around $1000-$1500 and they are carrying a balance and paying interest. 

I would think a best practice, while it would involve some micromanaging to an extent, would be to report a high balance followed by a very low balance the next cycle a couple of times, as it would then show two things that may not be seen in the above example.  One, it would show the $5k spend and two, it would show that the card can be paid off in 1 cycle.  Is my thought process correct here or off?

[Gmood1]

I've done both depending on what I had going on. If I had a 0% promotion. I'll let the balance trickle down slowly on one card. Enough to keep from paying interest by the end of the promotion. While on others it will be PIF for that month. I don't believe there's a right or wrong way to do it.
As long as you're showing some consistency. If you consistently show balances, say $3000 to $6000 a month. And show 2/3 of it PIF monthly. It shows that you do know how to manage your revolving accounts IMO. Doing that over a long period of time builds one heck of a track record. This data does show on TU reports.
Maybe you have a month where it spikes to $10,000. Creditors will be less spooked when they look back over the last couple of years and see all of those balances followed by the PIFs.
I've noticed lately. I get a ton of loan offers because I let balances report.