Why is it normal for banks to issue cards without showing their terms first?

[NRB525]

---

@Aahz wrote:

Still zero evidence to support your theory.

Circular logic.

Moving of goal posts.

Enjoy your fanatasy world!

---

Who's on first?

[Anonymous]

Some people in this thread keep pretending credit scoring is an exact science.. When you have 729 and apply for acard that requires 730.. according to what standard? There are countless Fico scores, internal systems.. Come on now. This doesn't happen only to people who "clearly should know" they won't get the best terms. It clearly also applies to people who have every reason to think they are more than worthy, and still get bad terms. And I think actually that someone with a 750 score would be especially annoyed getting a crap deal.

[Anonymous]

---

@Aahz wrote:

Still zero evidence to support your theory.

Circular logic.

Moving of goal posts.

Enjoy your fanatasy world!

---

Enjoy your substitued card's lol. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

Right but if all banks followed Chase's policy it would likely stop people from closing or using the card less. In this scenario the bank wins and the consumer wins. My main greviance is that banks either do not give out the bonus with the substituted product, or will not allow the card to be upgraded to a Visa Sig in the future. 

---

And my argument will still be that people concerned with what you are talking about simply shouldn't apply until they are 100% certain that their profile/score meets the criteria for obtaining the product at the best terms.  If it takes a 730+ (for example) and an individual chooses to apply with a 650-729 they can be considered "on the cusp" [with repsect to approval and/or the best product terms] and are taking on greater risk in not getting what they want.  These individuals don't have any ground to stand on to complain if they don't get what they want.

---

Your argument makes no sense, banks do not publish the acceptable scores and there are plenty of people including me who should of been approved for the Sig version but were given the less. I can complain all I want and I have a valid reason too regardless of what you say. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Some people in this thread keep pretending credit scoring is an exact science.. When you have 729 and apply for acard that requires 730.. according to what standard? There are countless Fico scores, internal systems.. Come on now. This doesn't happen only to people who "clearly should know" they won't get the best terms. It clearly also applies to people who have every reason to think they are more than worthy, and still get bad terms. And I think actually that someone with a 750 score would be especially annoyed getting a crap deal.

---

There's a abundance of data points out there from places such as the credit pulls database that can give a person a very good idea of their approval chances and their chances of obtaining the best terms on a CC product.  No it's not an exact science, and like I said above when I said "(for example)" the scores I gave were just for discussion purposes and nothing ever is finite in the credit card world. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

Your argument makes no sense, banks do not publish the acceptable scores and there are plenty of people including me who should of been approved for the Sig version but were given the less. I can complain all I want and I have a valid reason too regardless of what you say. 

---

No they don't publish scores, but with the internet at anyone's disposal it takes all of 15 minutes for a person to arm themselves with all the data necessary to make the best possible decision.  Honestly, you just sound salty here... saying you "should have been approved..."  when you know very well that there are a ton of pieces of data that go into a lending decision.  As I referenced a few pages back now, something like 6 of 7 people denied for the card you applied for had scores equal to or greater than yours, so the deal you got certainly wasn't unheard of.  If you didn't do your research up front on this, hopefully it will be something you consider next time around.  If you did, you assumed the risk in knowing that others that may have had similar profiles to you had been denied for the same product you were trying to obtain and can't really complain much about it IMO.  I understand your frustration, I just don't think you're being very rational about this at this point, likely due to your emotional investment having not gotten what you were hoping for.

[Anonymous]

No they don't publish scores, but with the internet at anyone's disposal it takes all of 15 minutes for a person to arm themselves with all the data necessary to make the best possible decision.  Honestly, you just sound salty here... saying you "should have been approved..."  when you know very well that there are a ton of pieces of data that go into a lending decision.  As I referenced a few pages back now, something like 6 of 7 people denied for the card you applied for had scores equal to or greater than yours, so the deal you got certainly wasn't unheard of.  If you didn't do your research up front on this, hopefully it will be something you consider next time around.  If you did, you assumed the risk in knowing that others that may have had similar profiles to you had been denied for the same product you were trying to obtain and can't really complain much about it IMO.  I understand your frustration, I just don't think you're being very rational about this at this point, likely due to your emotional investment having not gotten what you were hoping for.

---

Lmao, I would not have applied if I had not done my research. With two cards well above the $5,000 threshold at the time of application, and many beyond that approved me with large limits. Point out these "profiles like mine" that have been given an inferior product with BOA.... I am being completely rational in my opinion, and I have stated the reasons in previous posts. At this point your repeated responses are akin to trying to have the last word and I consider this matter settled. After all one's opinion can not be wrong.  Merry Christmas -

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

Lmao, I would not have applied if I had not done my research. With two cards well above the $5,000 threshold at the time of application, and many beyond that approved me with large limits. Point out these "profiles like mine" that have been given an inferior product with BOA.... I am being completely rational in my opinion, and I have stated the reasons in previous posts. At this point your repeated responses are akin to trying to have the last word and I consider this matter settled. After all one's opinion can not be wrong.  Merry Christmas -

---

I don't know anything about your profile or even what your exact scores were at the time you applied.  All you stated was that your scores were "all over 700" - I can only infer that they are barely over 700 or you would have presented that statement differently.  You say that you did your research prior to apping.  Since you did this, you certainly were aware that in the credit pulls database at least 6-7 people come up right away that were denied with scores in the 700-760 range.  Flat out denials, not given the chance of a lesser product like you were.  Who knows how many people were not denied but offered a lesser variation; no doubt that number is significantly higher than the half dozen straight up denials.  You knew you were assuming some risk in apping since from your research you knew a handful of others with possibly similar profiles (or at least scores) did not have a favorable result. 

Look, I'm just speaking in facts and data here and have no emotional investement in your situation as I'm just on the outside looking in.  You have stated your opinions, which of course you're more than entitled to present.