topic Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey? in Credit Cards

Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:34:20 GMT

Since I can't swear...

I have to say, I have attempted 3 separate recons for new credit card apps and none of them were productive. Mind, this is all because of the Experian report, which ironically is the one with the least inquiries due to the 2-year freeze, BK fell off already, and has over 40 positive accounts with no negatives, no missed payments, a near 6 year AAoA, a 30% util.

Unfortunately, a bunch of $40 collection accounts from Dominos that I do not recognize - well over 15 of them - are stuck on there and slated to fall off next month. So they're 7 years old. I disputed them anyway hoping I can speed up that drop off process. What irritates me is that they could have filed a claim when I was in Chapter 13 and I would have just paid it anyway to make them go away, but they waited until AFTER the discharge so they could **bleep** up the credit report. They don't show on Equifax or Transunion.

Citi: basically read the denial letter to me word-for-word over and over again without any second consideration. This one really ticks me off because I've had a line of credit with them for over 4 years, perfect payment record on that, yet I can't get a card.

Chase: the guy was actually polite, but essentially said he couldn't do anything. The supervisor was numb in the head with an attitude, said, "I agree with the turn down." No counter offer, no lower limit offered, nothing. He did sneak in, "don't have any internal files on you that I could use..." so I'm guessing people who got recon'd might already be Chase loan customers. Unfortunately I'm not that stupid. But come on - 7 years old and about to drop off in weeks? And you can't do anything?

Juniper Bank/Barclays: I told this story, the chick basically said I was denied because I applied for the Discover card and refused to reconsider anything until they "...see how I do with that card".

(edited due to that annoying script requirement for line breaks)

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:16:26 GMT

Just a question... if you knew the baddies were going to fall off in a month, why didn't you wait? I know it's tough, but when the only bad things (and 15 of them at that) are going to fall off in a month, it only makes sense to wait for those to fall off.

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

clocktick — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:31:23 GMT

What were the actual denial letters for the first two? What were their reasons?

Barclays seems to be right on par as their reasoning for the denial seems typical of them from people on these boards.

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:40:13 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Just a question... if you knew the baddies were going to fall off in a month, why didn't you wait? I know it's tough, but when the only bad things (and 15 of them at that) are going to fall off in a month, it only makes sense to wait for those to fall off.

I didn't know when they were going to fall off until I called in. Chase was the only one to actually share what was on the report, which then spurred me to check it myself. As I said, Transunion and Equifax are nearly pristine, except for the BK, so I assumed that Experian should be similarly so.

@clocktick wrote:
What were the actual denial letters for the first two? What were their reasons?

Barclays seems to be right on par as their reasoning for the denial seems typical of them from people on these boards.

Citi's email was:

Why we're writing you
Thank you for applying for the Citi(R) Platinum Select(R)
MasterCard(R) account. Unfortunately, we are unable to approve
your request for the account at this time because of the
following:

o A delinquent credit obligation(s), either paid
or unpaid, was recorded on your credit bureau report.

Chase never did give me an email, so I haven't gotten that letter yet. Same with Juniper. Once I talked to Chase, Citi's denial made sense, but Citi wouldn't even entertain a recon. I basically wanted them to look at my stellar payment record with the line of credit, the fact that I'm a former Citigold customer, that I have three bank accounts with them and transfer large sums of money through the accounts. Chase was willing to at least consider my other banking relationships, but of course I don't have any. They both frustrate me to no end.

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:01:41 GMT

Unfortunately, ReVeLaTeD, every recon attempt isn't successful. More often than not, we read about the pre-attempts, and then the successful outcomes, because 'success' = excitement = want to share with the world! While there are no hard and fast rules to recon, there are certainly some helpful hints that might be taken under consideration, both before the initial app, and before the recon:

Review your credit reports: You don't want any surprises! See what the lender is going/likely to see.

Know the lender: I'm not sure I can adequately express how important this one is. Having an idea of what the prospective lender considers to be a "show stopper" can be invaluable. Some lenders are not, for example, bankruptcy friendly. Some lenders won't play if you've got unpaid collections of any age. Some lenders/products require that you already have a credit line of at least $X limit already. Some lenders suspect debt pyramiding, and will balk at extending you new credit. Some lenders won't come to the table if you're recently apped for other products. Some blacklist-- and some know about your past misstep with another lender because they acquired that company, and added you to their blacklist. Some don't like AU accounts. Some (albeit very rare) don't like other lenders, and won't lend to you're a current customer with a certain other company, or if you have a certain type of credit product. Further, some lenders, if you call after the denial, and say the right things will reconsider/relent. Knowing (or at least having a good idea) the denial triggers might help you to come up with the right answers when/if recon is a possibility. Still, it's not always a possibility.

Strategically App for new credit: Give some real thought to what you're apping for, and *when* you app. If you know what's on your reports, and you know the lender, then you should have a really good sense of when you're ready to put your best effort forward. You should, at least, believe that you're likely to get approved. If you believe that you're likely to get rejected, and you're hoping to talk your way in with the recon attempt afterwards, you should probably wait until you can present a stronger application. And, patience is a virtue, having over 15 unpaid collections, regardless of age and amount, is going to be an eyebrow raiser for every prime lender. Knowing your reports would tell you when they're going poof-- wait until they've gone poof before you app.

The above in mind--

I can tell you that Juni/Barclays doesn't like to see new INQs or new accounts. Even if they'd already granted you credit, app again, too soon, and they'll close your card. They can be one of the easiest companies to recon. Their one "show stopper" is seeking and obtaining new credit. You virtually stood no chance at app, and recon, even if your reports had been otherwise clean.

Unpaid collection accounts with Chase will very likely result in a denial, and they're not easy to recon, especially if you're reconning with the same information. It doesn't matter how old the baddies are, the fact that they exist, and the fact that they're unpaid presents a picture to prospective lenders of how you take care of your obligations, and how you respond to missteps. Chase can be very unforgiving in that regard. Waiting until those baddies dropped would have presented a very different picture to them.

Citi takes the same dim view of unpaid collections (regardless of age) as Chase, from all accounts that I've read. Suggesting to them that the unpaid baddies will soon drop from your reports is not likely to sway them. It only tells them that you were willing to wait out the CRTP as oposed to paying what you owed. That doesn't give lenders the warm fuzzies. If those CA accounts had been paid and that old, I think that Citi might have been more pliable.

The good news-- once those collection accounts fall off, and you let time soothe the pain of apping for credit, you can seek lenders who are BK friendly, and app products that won't give you nearly as much frustration and aggravation as you've recently experienced.

Good luck!

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 13:59:26 GMT

Appreciate the information. With due respect I'm going to go the opposite direction of the last sentence or two, because that's what the banks want you to do.

I'm just taking a mental note of each company that issues a denial for what I consider petty reasons. To me accounts that are 7 years old are not an indicator of current payment diligence. Additionally, my income level at that age was nearly half of what it is now. Balking at new inquiries is something a mortgage lender should do due to the large sum of money being lent, not for a ~$2000-$3000 credit card. I'd rather get the "too many inquiries" reason. Don't even get me started on American Express using Teletrack - a company that literally archives invalid information eternally and forces you to use mail to do any sort of correcting - no online request form, no online dispute outlet.

Now that I have unfrozen Experian and disputed all of those collections, I removed the opt-out. At this point I'm going to let my existing cards develop and let the card companies send me their pre-approval offers. Any that previously gave me a petty reason for denial - rejecting for some ancient activity, or rejecting over one inquiry - will get a adverse action letter advising them why I'm rejecting their card offer.

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

DI — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:42:27 GMT

A person should only request a recon when they know their credit is free of blemishes. When one has several baddies reporting, one cannot expect a successful recon and question if its meaningless. I've had two successful recons. One with PenFed and one with AMEX. I knew my credit was pristine, and that meant I had a legitimate reason to have my credit report reviewed by an analyst.

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

cdtotten — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:23:16 GMT

I tend to agree with DI here. The purpose of a recon is for someone who actually has great credit and still managed to get turned down for some automated reason (i.e. too many inquiries). When speaking with a recon analyst, you can explain why the issue exists (i.e. I was applying for a new car and they shopped the rate increasing my inquiries) and politely explain why they should reconsider, pointing out your best features as a potential/expanding customer.

If you have negatives on your account - then your odds of a successful recon go down considerably. No matter how old your blemishes are, something like a charge off is an indicator that you didn't handle your finances wisely. Why should they assume that just because a few years has passed that will change?

It's great if you can recon and get approved, but it shouldn't be considered the norm, or expected. It is ALWAYS better to wait until ALL derogs are off your report before you apply.

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

hedgeclipper2 — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:12:12 GMT

I agree with DI as well.

Although, Barclays declined me for mismatched information on my CR since I had just moved.

So I called and explained, and the nice guy even asked me about my new condo, and congratulated me for being a first-time homeowner, even talked about the house he was planning on buying, then approved me and sent me on my way.

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

Anonymous — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 03:23:07 GMT

@cdtotten wrote:

If you have negatives on your account - then your odds of a successful recon go down considerably. No matter how old your blemishes are, something like a charge off is an indicator that you didn't handle your finances wisely. Why should they assume that just because a few years has passed that will change?

By your logic no bank should be in business and such thinking is likely why certain Chase-branded store cards are moving away from them - denying for any reason they can think of, costing the stores customers and business. One can minimize risk without eliminating it. No risk, no reward. Issue smaller limits to start with instead of hard denials.

7 years ago today, I had just gotten transferred into a Compliance position but I was making easily half the income I make today. I hadn't yet committed to a bankruptcy, and I was cleaning up the mistakes of my youth. Since then:

I paid off the Chapter 13 in 3 years which should be proof of the capacity and responsibility to pay. I know they don't consider this, but it really should be considered a positive unless you are dismissed for lack of payment or untimely payment.
I literally overworked myself to get promoted and get raises.
Since that day I have not missed a single credit card or loan payment. Not one. The concept of 30/60/90 day late is foreign to me. That's got to count for something.
What good is a credit score over 700 when the systems totally ignore it? That's basically saying "FICO, we don't care that you say this person is credit worthy. They missed a $40 debt over 7 years ago!!!! They've got to be a deadbeat!!" Really?
Funny how Discover didn't bat an eye at any of it. Credit union also didn't even ask a question even though I know they do manual report reviews.

Look, I know some of the advice given is solid, but the reality is that the banks are looking for excuses not to lend - same as with the home mortgages. There has to come a point when you look at someone making six figures and say, "hmm...they make six figures, their debt is four figures. MAYBE he's good for business after all.", regardless of what happened nearly a decade ago. There has to come a point where you weigh the positive against the negative - "hmm, he's got over 40 accounts spanning 6 years with not a single blemish, OH and Discover felt he was credit worthy. Maybe he's worth a small credit limit on a lower end card and can earn his way up with good payment history."

Thus the reason I'm just going to...what's the term, harvest?...my existing cards. I tried, it didn't work, whatever. If I get a single preapproval I'm going to mock up an adverse action letter in response telling them to kiss something.

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

Anonymous — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 23:52:56 GMT

Update:

So I got a call from Chase. I had actually requested to speak to a manager but only got a sup - so this must have been the manager, and explained the situation. He agreed with the analyst about the denial BUT clarified that if there are errors on Experian, reps have the authority to review either of the other bureaus if you know they're clean. You can even specify a bureau if you want. Given I had disputed all of the erroneous information on Experian but knew that TU and EQ were clean, I figured I had a shot. So he sent me to an analyst.

She was really nice and I asked if she could run Equifax which she did with no problem (I purposely didn't do TU as it has the most inquiries out of the three). Equifax has no derogs, no BK, and a small number of inquiries in the past two years - like, 10 total.

Put me on hold, came back, asked about four inquiries: Best Buy HSBC (I applied for the store card, they countered with the crappy RZMC, which I declined. Wasted inquiry), USAA (they must have run my credit to open my checking account since that's all I have with them), Discover (which I have, see sig, it's also zero balance), and TORREYPNBK aka PartnersFirst, which is still a pending app after 10 days that I'll likely be declined for.

Put me on hold, came back, asked about the monthly payment on Cabrillo since it wasn't reported - I pay at least 10% of the credit limit per month to each credit card. In Cabrillo's case that's $300.

Put me a LONG hold, came back, said they were mailing a letter to have me send proof of address. This is because Experian still reflected my two-year-old address as the primary and didn't fix it until after I'd disputed, so it didn't match. I think Equifax also had the old address too, not sure. No matter though, my utility bills are all online so getting that information will be extremely easy to do.

Dunno if the level of effort put into the recon means they're leaning towards giving me the card...but I will say this. From now on, if I recon, I need to do two things.

Make sure it's a card provider that allows recon to a DIFFERENT bureau. That means Citi is likely never to get my credit card business.
Make sure I get a (young) female. She was way more flexible than the other dudes I spoke to the first time. Don't know if that's because I'm a male, or if the females are just more accomodating with their job. I do sound like a young Barry White, who knows.

By the by, this is for the Chase Slate. An actual VISA card (another thread about that). If I can get at least a Chase card with a reasonable credit limit - $2k+, I'll close Capital One down and I'll be done applying for credit cards for at least 2 years. That should be plenty of gardening time, and then I'll look into buying a house.

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

DI — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 23:57:51 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Update:

So I got a call from Chase. I had actually requested to speak to a manager but only got a sup - so this must have been the manager, and explained the situation. He agreed with the analyst about the denial BUT clarified that if there are errors on Experian, reps have the authority to review either of the other bureaus if you know they're clean. You can even specify a bureau if you want. Given I had disputed all of the erroneous information on Experian but knew that TU and EQ were clean, I figured I had a shot. So he sent me to an analyst.

She was really nice and I asked if she could run Equifax which she did with no problem (I purposely didn't do TU as it has the most inquiries out of the three). Equifax has no derogs, no BK, and a small number of inquiries in the past two years - like, 10 total.

Put me on hold, came back, asked about four inquiries: Best Buy HSBC (I applied for the store card, they countered with the crappy RZMC, which I declined. Wasted inquiry), USAA (they must have run my credit to open my checking account since that's all I have with them), Discover (which I have, see sig, it's also zero balance), and TORREYPNBK aka PartnersFirst, which is still a pending app after 10 days that I'll likely be declined for.

Put me on hold, came back, asked about the monthly payment on Cabrillo since it wasn't reported - I pay at least 10% of the credit limit per month to each credit card. In Cabrillo's case that's $300.

Put me a LONG hold, came back, said they were mailing a letter to have me send proof of address. This is because Experian still reflected my two-year-old address as the primary and didn't fix it until after I'd disputed, so it didn't match. I think Equifax also had the old address too, not sure. No matter though, my utility bills are all online so getting that information will be extremely easy to do.

Dunno if the level of effort put into the recon means they're leaning towards giving me the card...but I will say this. From now on, if I recon, I need to do two things.
Make sure it's a card provider that allows recon to a DIFFERENT bureau. That means Citi is likely never to get my credit card business.
Make sure I get a (young) female. She was way more flexible than the other dudes I spoke to the first time. Don't know if that's because I'm a male, or if the females are just more accomodating with their job. I do sound like a young Barry White, who knows.
By the by, this is for the Chase Slate. An actual VISA card (another thread about that). If I can get at least a Chase card with a reasonable credit limit - $2k+, I'll close Capital One down and I'll be done applying for credit cards for at least 2 years. That should be plenty of gardening time, and then I'll look into buying a house.

LMAO. Normally with Chase, it's the male analysts who are willing to approve after a recon call. The females look for any reason to deny an applicant if they do not get instantly approved. I got denied, approved or $5000 and denied again all in one day. I waited two years later for my inquiries to fall off and got approved recently.

Re: Do I assume that the recon threads = malarkey?

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:23:39 GMT

Certainly hasn't been my experience so far. But again who knows. She seemed to be completely willing and open to consider the card unlike the first two jokers.