topic Re: Reported balances vs starting limit in Credit Card Applications

Reported balances vs starting limit

SRT4kid93 — Tue, 30 Dec 2025 22:11:24 GMT

(Anyone else feel free to answer as well)

So lately I've been playing around a bit with allowing different balances to report. Then checking my Apple Card offer with different reported balances. (Since they tell you your starting limit before accepting the card)

with 1% reported utilization I was offered a $3000 starting limit.

then I allowed my reported utilization to go up to 13% aggregate. And their offer went up to 10,000.

my question is, at what aggregate utilization should I expect to start seeing diminishing returns? (I know each profile and situation is different but on average what should I expect)

for example, if I applied again with 80% aggregate utilization, do you think that would increase their offer further? Or hurt it? (Keep in mind I pay all my accounts in full every single month, so risk is low)

what if we changed the utilization from 80% to 50%, etc. at what point would higher utilization hurt me? Would it hurt me at all?

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

Thomas_Thumb — Tue, 30 Dec 2025 23:00:48 GMT

If you want the card, I'd take the $10k SL and run with it.

As a general rule, utilization above 29% (particularly aggregate) represents elevated risk and score can drop significantly. A potential lower offer may be a NO offer. A steady, sharp, increase in AG UT over a "short" timeframe can also result in CLDs on other cards as experienced by SouthJamaica.

Note: risk is assessed based on reported balance/utilization and does not consider PIF - except for the card issuer that "sees" your PIF on their card(s).

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

BrutalBodyShots — Tue, 30 Dec 2025 22:24:47 GMT

Hey there @SRT4kid93. My take is that it has more to do with overall credit profile and how your perceived use (Transactor vs Revolver) of your existing revolving lines is moreso than actual utilization percentages. We know that utilization percentage alone doesn't dictate risk in and of itself. There are examples of people at 90%-100% utilization that are lesser risks than those at 20% utilization. Why? Because the 90%-100% person may be paying their statement balances in full monthly, where the person at 20% utilization may be carrying balances for months or years. Dollars of debt also need to be considered beyond just percentages as well.

We don't know what the internal algorithm of the issuer/product you are speaking of looks at of course. I don't believe for a second though that it would only be looking at utilization percentages here and not how the actual balances on revolving lines are being used (responsibly or irresponsibly).

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

Patient957 — Tue, 30 Dec 2025 22:41:19 GMT

@SRT4kid93 wrote:
my question is, at what aggregate utilization should I expect to start seeing diminishing returns?

Who knows? It would happen at some point.

As @Thomas_Thumb said, if you actually want the card, then take the $10K offer. If you're just messing around collecting data, then by all means carry on. You can answer your own question.

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

SRT4kid93 — Tue, 30 Dec 2025 22:48:44 GMT

@Thomas_Thumb

Interesting,

so what would be the best approach if I wanted to go from 1-2% utilization, to say 30-40%. (I would still be paying in full, I would simply allow larger balances to report)

it sounds like just letting the cards report higher balances quickly in 1 shot would be better than allowing the balances to "slowly increase to that 30/40% mark"

never really thought about that, I figured as long as you're paying in full. It really shouldn't matter.

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

Thomas_Thumb — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 02:54:26 GMT

See the note I added above. IMO - Keep reported aggregate below 29%. A new lender/card issuer is unaware of your PIF status. They only see your utilization.

As far as AG UT is concerned, a repeated pattern of reporting a spike in UT up followed by a low AG UT suggests ability to pay but perhaps sub optimal cash flow or bill payment management. In contrast, a steady increase in UT may indicate insufficient cash flow to handle a significant increase in credit. Worse yet, a rapid, sustained build-up in combination with recent new accounts is a flag for "bust-out" fraud in the making.

We don't know each card issuer's internal algorithms but ... If one must speculate:

1. A stable Fico score is desireable.

2. A responsible (under 29%) reported aggregate utilization is preferred.

3. A slightly elevated aggregate utilization (say 10% - 19%) may get flagged as a potential candidate for apr revenue from balance carryover fees. (After checking reported income against aggregate CL; the algorithm may categorize the applicant as low risk with increased profit potential and boost SL).

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

Vinjints — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 00:01:41 GMT

I know it's not factual, but that speculation is very interesting to think about. Assuming your increased utilization doesn't drop your score out of a desired range, might be worth carrying a bit of a balance.

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

SRT4kid93 — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 00:39:43 GMT

Would you all consider 10k a good starting limit for the Apple Card?

what about in general?

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

Thomas_Thumb — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 02:43:01 GMT

It is a good starting point.

I know nothing specifically about how generous Apple is with CLIs or how frequently they can be requested.

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

FicoMike0 — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 02:56:25 GMT

@SRT4kid93 nice experiment. It could be the dollar amount posted, rather than util %, that is driving the cl offered. Both 1% and 13% should be in the " no penalty" bin, so probably treated the same. On the other hand, if I were looking for good card client candidates, I'd choose one who posted $10,000 over one who posted $1000, if utilization was the same.

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

BrutalBodyShots — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 04:12:32 GMT

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
See the note I added above. IMO - Keep reported aggregate below 29%. A new lender/card issuer is unaware of your PIF status. They only see your utilization.

There's no way that's true. They can see all of your credit report data, which can include balance/payment history. Even on accounts where payment history isn't reported, it is very easily inferred by the balance history. If a average person like myself can look at those numbers and deduce whether or not one is a Transactor or a Revolver, you can bet good money that the brains that design lender internal algorithms look at that information and interpret it. It's a far better indicator of risk than simple utilization percentage alone.

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

BrutalBodyShots — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 04:14:08 GMT

@Vinjints wrote:
I know it's not factual, but that speculation is very interesting to think about. Assuming your increased utilization doesn't drop your score out of a desired range, might be worth carrying a bit of a balance.

It's important to differentiate between "carrying" a balance and reporting a balance. One suggests elevated risk, where the other doesn't if one is paying in full monthly.

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

BrutalBodyShots — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 04:15:52 GMT

@FicoMike0 wrote:
On the other hand, if I were looking for good card client candidates, I'd choose one who posted $10,000 over one who posted $1000, if utilization was the same.

Wouldn't you look for the one that spent heaviest while exhibiting the lowest risk, that is, paying in full monthly?

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

FicoMike0 — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 04:55:43 GMT

Yes I would. I'm taking the utilization value as a representation of risk. Actually, the credit score is sold as a representation of risk. I agree that balance and utilization over time are available from the credit reports. It's not clear that the banks look at it. If they did, why wouldn't they abandon fico 8/9 for 10t ?

Huntington provides me with my fico8 score and claims this is the score they use to manage my account. Why would they lie?

I think most banks are happy with the result they get using fico8/9, they must not see enough added value in doing the switch to 10t to get the trending effect.

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 05:48:29 GMT

Every credit portfolio is weighted differently, and utlization score will matter, or not matter depending upon your established standing.

If someone holds 500k to a million in credit lines, a maxed out credit card of 10k, isn't going to matter at all. None, zero, zip. That total utilization is still under a combined utilization ratio of 2%-4% for all revolving debt you hold. However, if you hold 15k in total credit lines across two cards, and you max out, and report one card at it's 10k limit, it's going to tank your score into the abyss. Until that debt is paid off. Don't be that guy/gal.

Consider each and every credit card line you apply for, the container. Consider each revolving debt you take on, the water that fills the container. If you only own one container and fill it up, you're done. If you own 100 containers, and you only fill up one or two, or three to full capacity, maybe four or even five, no one cares. It's a crude example, but one none-the-less.

Acquire as much credit as you can by all means, even if you have to manipulate the numbers to find the best path forward (truthfully and not fraudulently). Don't risk taking on more debt than you an realistically afford to manage.

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

TrapLine — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 10:34:21 GMT

@SRT4kid93

An interesting question you asked.

A several of years back I did an experiment similar to yours with FNBO on a Visa Platinum Card they had. Today the Evergreen Card would be the equivalent. They offered me different starting limits (before I actually locked in on the card) based om my income and UTI.

At the time they were geo-fenced and I used a work around to get in and then played with their pre-approval program until I got it as high as I could based on my income and UTI. Submtted the pre-aprroval for a card and received approval.

Do not know whether they do that today or not. Similar to what you are talking about.

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

BrutalBodyShots — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 15:03:12 GMT

@FicoMike0 wrote:
I'm taking the utilization value as a representation of risk.

Right, which on carried balances can hold value. On the profile of a strict Transactor, it means little. That's why issuers will look beyond just utilization percentage. It's also how the system self-corrects. If Cornelius is cutting high statement balances every month and paying in full, that's precisely what stimulates the most lucrative CLI results. Those greater limits will then naturally lower utilization on the same reported balances. If Rupert is cutting high statement balances every month and paying minimums or just above, he's far less likely to see CLIs. Over time, utilization gets "fixed" for those that responsibly use their revolving credit. This flowchart may be useful.

https://imgur.com/a/pLPHTYL

They wouldn't abandon FICO scores because they see value in them. They take far more into consideration than just utilization. We all know that profile is King to score though and that credit is approved or denied because of your overall profile and not just your score. So, by definition we are aware that lenders look well beyond a 3 digit number. They obviously still see value in it though or it's not something they'd pay for. There are some that don't see value in it though that have developed their own internal scoring algorithms.

Huntington isn't lying. They do use that score to manage your account. You're getting tripped up on the language though. This doesn't mean they use only that score to manage your account. Of course they use far more than just that 3 digit number. ALL lenders do. It's no different than saying US Bank "uses" VantageScore 3.0 - yeah, they "use" it as in they provide it for free to their cardholders... but they don't use it in lending decisions which is what actually matters. They use TURD Model 1.

I agree that most banks are happy with 8 which is why very few have adopted the use of 9 and traction hasn't been gained on 10. Again though, it's not just about the 3 digit number. Regardless of which score they use, they are still going to look at the overall profile in question. This is why when you are denied credit you are provided with profile related reasons for the denial. Rarely do you ever see "your credit score is too low."

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

BrutalBodyShots — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 15:07:24 GMT

@Anonymous while I get what you are saying with your analogy and your discussion of balances verses limits, you don't make any clarification regarding those that pay in full monthly verses those that carry balances.

Someone with a $10k carried balance is still going to be seen as an elevated risk even if their utilizaiton is low due to a high TCL. The reason why is the carried balance. It has nothing to do with utilization percentage. Conversely, someone with a low TCL (say, $15) that has that same $10k balance that pays in full monthly is NOT going to be seen as an elevated risk. Sure, their credit score will be lower, by anyone looking at their profile will see that they are simply showing an exhibition of strong, responsible revolving credit use. I explain this more in the post below. The bottom line is that not all utilization is created equal.

https://old.reddit.com/r/CRedit/comments/1fj6fkh/credit_myth_32_higher_utilization_always_means/

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

Thomas_Thumb — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 19:54:51 GMT

@BrutalBodyShots wrote:
@Thomas_Thumb wrote:
See the note I added above. IMO - Keep reported aggregate below 29%. A new lender/card issuer is unaware of your PIF status. They only see your utilization.

There's no way that's true. They can see all of your credit report data, which can include balance/payment history. Even on accounts where payment history isn't reported, it is very easily inferred by the balance history. If a average person like myself can look at those numbers and deduce whether or not one is a Transactor or a Revolver, you can bet good money that the brains that design lender internal algorithms look at that information and interpret it. It's a far better indicator of risk than simple utilization percentage alone.

You are incorrect.

Credit card issuers are still not required to report payments. Credit scoring systems still do not identify accounts as transactor or revolver in behavior. A means for identifying such behavior was discussed back in 2016.

As we know, neither Fico nor VS attempts to identify transactor vs revolver behavior by account. It is not used in assigning risk associated with utilization. Why? One likely reason is there is no mandated requirement to report payments (although most issuers do).

Allowing balances to report organically (which I have always done) would not be important to evaluate account use if all payments were reported. Just look at monthly payments independent of a monthly balance.

Re: Reported balances vs starting limit

TrapLine — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 20:03:43 GMT

@Thomas_Thumb

Hmm ... was there not a Fico Score that did take into account more than what you just stated?

Thinking Fico 10 or 10T?