Impact/Benefit of Voluntarily Removing Toy Card(s) from Credit Report(s)

[NegotiatorRogerSmith]

In the name of science, I’m considering removing 4 toy cards from my earliest days of establishing credit. Had I known then what I know now, I would simply have kept them open and over the years build them up – then again, they were all subprime cards, so I doubt I would get them as nearly as high as my prime cards.

A friend of mine and I have applied for the same cards and he consistently gets higher limits. He has no toy cards, so I’m beginning to think the creditors’ models may be factoring those credit limits of the toy cards into their initial credit line offer… then I have to call underwriting, bitch and moan, then get something realistic…

I’d like to spare myself the headache.

So, I’m considering guinea pig-ing myself and demanding the CRCs to remove my toy cards from reporting, which are all paid/closed and current.

I know I’ll take a hit from the dip in AAofA, but I’m thinking longer-term.

I have every card I want except for the JPMorgan Palladium, which is still years from now, by which time my accounts will become the same AAofA… the toy cards will have fallen off anyways, so no argument of, “well if your ‘real’ accounts will become the AAofA your losing, the toy cards will age even more.”

The idea is: if I have nothing but high-limit account, and do nothing but go through manual underwriting for all my credit accounts, they’ll see all my high-limit, prime accounts, thereby furthering the high limits beget high limits agenda… without the rebuttal of the subprime cards tarnishing my existing state of affairs.

Thoughts?

[LearningMoreAboutCredit]

---

@NegotiatorRogerSmith wrote:

In the name of science, I’m considering removing 4 toy cards from my earliest days of establishing credit. Had I known then what I know now, I would simply have kept them open and over the years build them up – then again, they were all subprime cards, so I doubt I would get them as nearly as high as my prime cards.

A friend of mine and I have applied for the same cards and he consistently gets higher limits. He has no toy cards, so I’m beginning to think the creditors’ models may be factoring those credit limits of the toy cards into their initial credit line offer… then I have to call underwriting, bitch and moan, then get something realistic…

I’d like to spare myself the headache.

So, I’m considering guinea pig-ing myself and demanding the CRCs to remove my toy cards from reporting, which are all paid/closed and current.

I know I’ll take a hit from the dip in AAofA, but I’m thinking longer-term.

I have every card I want except for the JPMorgan Palladium, which is still years from now, by which time my accounts will become the same AAofA… the toy cards will have fallen off anyways, so no argument of, “well if your ‘real’ accounts will become the AAofA your losing, the toy cards will age even more.”

The idea is: if I have nothing but high-limit account, and do nothing but go through manual underwriting for all my credit accounts, they’ll see all my high-limit, prime accounts, thereby furthering the high limits beget high limits agenda… without the rebuttal of the subprime cards tarnishing my existing state of affairs.

Thoughts?

---

I don't know about getting positive closed accounts removed from your reports as positive closed accounts typically report for an additional 10 years.  However, with them closed creditors MAY view your current lines as a benchmark to where your current/future CL's should/would be.  I've never seen/heard anyone getting a positive tradeline removed on purpose; getting them removed by accident, yes through some disputing attempt.  I wish you luck if that is what you truly desire.  Hopefully, the more experienced will chime in.

OFF TOPIC:

Where can I get the Movado card? I've been eyeing the Sapphire for a while now and hesitant to pull the trigger.

[CreditUnionFan]

What do you mean by "toy" card?

It there's an annual fee and no benefit, then you get rid of it anyway - toy limit or not.

The limits you posted look adequate for most people - I'm also assuming your utilization won't be too severely affected by closing out the "toy" cards.

I have a few "toys" with limits at or below $1000...  but they're special purpose, typically from Commenity or GECRB - J.Crew, Eddie Bauer, Express, TJ-Maxx, Peebles, Boscovs, and even Kohl's. You know what, I'll never spend $1,000 or more at one time, so the limit is fine, and I'm just keeping them for the retail discount.

I do have to resolve an issue with AmEx, but they are my oldest accounts, short of Sears. They were useful, became toys in 2009, and I'm on the fence what to do with them, but they're on my list of cards to do something with by the end of 2014. It would affect my AAoA, and run by the big behomoth Centurion Bank.

[myjourney]

---

@NegotiatorRogerSmith wrote:

In the name of science, I’m considering removing 4 toy cards from my earliest days of establishing credit. Had I known then what I know now, I would simply have kept them open and over the years build them up – then again, they were all subprime cards, so I doubt I would get them as nearly as high as my prime cards.

A friend of mine and I have applied for the same cards and he consistently gets higher limits. He has no toy cards, so I’m beginning to think the creditors’ models may be factoring those credit limits of the toy cards into their initial credit line offer… then I have to call underwriting, bitch and moan, then get something realistic…

I’d like to spare myself the headache.

So, I’m considering guinea pig-ing myself and demanding the CRCs to remove my toy cards from reporting, which are all paid/closed and current.

I know I’ll take a hit from the dip in AAofA, but I’m thinking longer-term.

I have every card I want except for the JPMorgan Palladium, which is still years from now, by which time my accounts will become the same AAofA… the toy cards will have fallen off anyways, so no argument of, “well if your ‘real’ accounts will become the AAofA your losing, the toy cards will age even more.”

The idea is: if I have nothing but high-limit account, and do nothing but go through manual underwriting for all my credit accounts, they’ll see all my high-limit, prime accounts, thereby furthering the high limits beget high limits agenda… without the rebuttal of the subprime cards tarnishing my existing state of affairs.

Thoughts?

---

Blue:...........The CRA have no say so of what your lender reports because accurate info is being sent to them by the lender....So please don't dispute accurate info which we don't discuss those type of topics here on the forum 

If you ask the lender they may but again they may not stop reporting accurate info and may choose to continue to for a 10 year period

Also not only will AAoA change but UTL as well although with toy limits as you describe it shouldn't have that big of an impact....

[NegotiatorRogerSmith]

10 year "rule" is entirely arbitrary and a business decision of the CRCs. There is nothing in the FCRA that stipulates the length of time a positive account remains. You can demand a positive account be removed, albeit an odd request in “normal” circumstances, but considering what I’m testing, by removing the toy cards (e.g. sub prime, low-limit cards – First Premier with a $500 CL and the like).

They’ll fight back like hell, disclaiming (partially accurate) information regarding the possible negative impact it may make on your credit score, but the greatest majority of dispute reps don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. They have cheat sheets and talk tracks for everything, and call times that determine their shift hours (“good reps” that quickly wrap-up calls get early shift, while “poor reps” who take longer to wrap calls get the late(r) shift(s)).

I’ve seen it from the inside. It’s a comical observation if it weren’t so serious.

OFF TOPIC RESPONSE:
The Movado Boutique card’s been discontinued and was a product offered by TD Retail Bank back in ~2008. This was when Movado was carving their name in the diamond industry -- their facet patents are amazing. It took a truly educated person in diamonds to appreciate their quality. I don’t think Tiffany & Co. or Cartier came anywhere close to a Movado diamond’s brilliance. Alas, there’s a Zales at every turn. Hooray for the masses…

[NegotiatorRogerSmith]

Bump.

[Walt_K]

Do you and your friend have the same income?  I'd expect differences in income and overall credit profile as well as differences in amounts of exposure with each lender and differences in how accounts are managed, e.g., amount of spend being pushed through cards, PIF or not, etc. to explain a lot more of this than the appearance of some cards with low limits on your profile.  I still have some cards with $300 and $500 limits that are reporting and I have received high initial CLs with Amex, Citi, and Chase.

I don't think it's going to really make much difference whether you do it or not.  But if it satisfies your curiosity, and it doesn't matter much one way or the other, and you're willing to go through the effort to see if you can get the accounts removed, go for it.

[takeshi74]

---

@NegotiatorRogerSmith wrote:

Thoughts?

---

Sounds like a misplaced sense of causality to me but it's impossible to say without knowing the details of your credit reports and your those of your friend for comparison.  If you're going to perform this experiment then you'll find out if your hypothesis holds.

The limits that you do have in your sig aren't toy limits for most.  Personally, I don't see the point in keeping up with the Joneses but what you do with your credit is your call.

---

@Walt_K wrote:

Do you and your friend have the same income?

---

...and are your other credit limits similar?  Utilization?  Payment history?  Derogs?  Inquiries?  Number of accounts and variety of credit?  The only thing we have to work with is what you tell us.  Which creditors did you both apply to?

[NegotiatorRogerSmith]

---

@Walt_K wrote:

Do you and your friend have the same income?

---

I report a higher income than he does - by several tens-of-thousands of dollars.

---

@Walt_K wrote:

I'd expect differences in income and overall credit profile as well as differences in amounts of exposure with each lender and differences in how accounts are managed, e.g., amount of spend being pushed through cards, PIF or not, etc. to explain a lot more of this than the appearance of some cards with low limits on your profile.  I still have some cards with $300 and $500 limits that are reporting and I have received high initial CLs with Amex, Citi, and Chase.

---

Utilization on 2 cards at ~9-20%. All other PIF (reports 0% util). His is the same, except I have more overall available credit (which should be another score one for me).

---

@Walt_K wrote: 

I don't think it's going to really make much difference whether you do it or not.  But if it satisfies your curiosity, and it doesn't matter much one way or the other, and you're willing to go through the effort to see if you can get the accounts removed, go for it.

---

No effort. Say take it off. They take it off. THEY'LL bitch and moan, and cite how it'll report for 10 years from the close date, but it's NOT mandated by law/FCRA. It's their business decision. It's not a del/derog. I'm talking about closed rev accts w/ $0 bal, never late. "Yes, I'm aware of the potential affect... DO IT!" Done.

Most consumers just listen to the college drop-out dispute reps that plague the CRC call centers. They're worried about their quality audits, answering ONLY the question asked by the consumer and offering nothing more unless asked, and fearing for their jobs every day while security guards making rounds every 5 minutes to remind them not the get too curious.

As previously stated, it's quite humorous to observe... if only the CFPB knew what really went on in the dispute call centers and what they're really trained to (not) do/say.

[NegotiatorRogerSmith]

---

@takeshi74 wrote:

---

@NegotiatorRogerSmith wrote:

Thoughts?

---

Sounds like a misplaced sense of causality to me but it's impossible to say without knowing the details of your credit reports and your those of your friend for comparison.  If you're going to perform this experiment then you'll find out if your hypothesis holds.

The limits that you do have in your sig aren't toy limits for most.  Personally, I don't see the point in keeping up with the Joneses but what you do with your credit is your call.

---

Not complaining about the limits in my sig... just the toy cards on my report that have been long since closed (please read original post).

Not keeping up with anything, really... it's just a game at this point.

---

@takeshi74 wrote:

 

---

@Walt_K wrote:

Do you and your friend have the same income?

---

...and are your other credit limits similar?  Utilization?  Payment history?  Derogs?  Inquiries?  Number of accounts and variety of credit?  The only thing we have to work with is what you tell us.  Which creditors did you both apply to?

---

No, his limits are consistently higer, despite my reported higher income and more available credit, taking into account the additional credit available to me is proportionate to my income.

Our utilization are within ~5% of each other (between 9-20% at any given time on two high limit cards; the rest are PIF/report as $0). 

Payment history same, except mine is ~5 years longer. Never late. Util never anywhere near 25%. His is the same. I'd imagine I have the advantage here.

No derogs -- EVER... for either of us (and we see each others' reports, so it's not possible anything's being hidden from one another).

He has one more inq than me.

I have more accounts, but again proportionate to my income. I also have 3 paid/never late car loans. He has none. Neither of us have mortgates.

What started this was when we both applied for:

Amex BCP - 2k for me, he got 6k... after 61 days, 6k for me, 18k for him (3x CLI)

Barclays Sallie Mae - 2.2k for me, 10k for him... I bitch & moan, I get 15k. He doesn't bother, he's happy with 10k.

The issue is, with starting limits like his, I don't have to bother calling manual underwriting and provide crap to them. I just want high-limit instant approvals. Woe is me.