Amazon's "further review"

[HeavenOhio]

---

@kah-pas wrote:

It's not a denial yet. They said the application requires futhrer review.
-- I am aware of the 5/24 rule but no, I have had only two (2) new cards in the last 24 months
-- You're right, there were three (3) cards approved but I cancelled one (1) City card and it's now in my report as a "cancelled account" so only those two are "open" and reported as such.

But, even with that cancelled one, it would've been 3/24.

---

For the purposes of 5/24, closed cards count the same as open ones.

[kah-pas]

---

@HeavenOhio wrote:

---

---

For the purposes of 5/24, closed cards count the same as open ones.

---

While this sounds a tad strange to me, it's good to know. Thanks.

[Remedios]

---

@kah-pas wrote:

---

@HeavenOhio wrote:

---

---

For the purposes of 5/24, closed cards count the same as open ones.

---

While this sounds a tad strange to me, it's good to know. Thanks.

---

Nope, not strange at all. 

5/24 counts all revolving accounts that were opened during that time, regardless of their status when you apply.

Fun fact, opening account, getting sub, closing account is one of the reasons we have 5/24. It's anti churning measure, it doesn't stop churning completely, but it does limit the ability to churn Chase cards. 

So really, nothing strange about counting closed accounts if they were opened in the past 24 months. 

[kah-pas]

I guess this depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

If they want to be accurate in their approach to the customers, than they should differentiate in between those that are churning the cards, avoid fees, getting the miles or other perks and leave and those (like myself in the case of the closed Citi) that were given a card but, due to the fact that the offer said one thing and the reality was quite different, closed the card. (almost immediately)

I have no qualms with how any of the banks play the game, after all, its entirely up to them to provide us wiht access to money or not, but a more nunanced approach should be that difficult, given the era in which we live and how entirely different each of us are, when managing our money / credit is in question.

[Remedios]

---

@kah-pas wrote:

I guess this depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

If they want to be accurate in their approach to the customers, than they should differentiate in between those that are churning the cards, avoid fees, getting the miles or other perks and leave and those (like myself in the case of the closed Citi) that were given a card but, due to the fact that the offer said one thing and the reality was quite different, closed the card. (almost immediately)

I have no qualms with how any of the banks play the game, after all, its entirely up to them to provide us wiht access to money or not, but a more nunanced approach should be that difficult, given the era in which we live and how entirely different each of us are, when managing our money / credit is in question.

---

"Is" is not controversial word in terms of definition, it's already been defined, and it's really hard for me to see how one would misinterpret "is".

Unless one is taking about present tense of *be*, "is" literally means "equal" 

But, you've touched on an interesting word that many use and I think that particular word is at the core of misunderstanding for UW limitations and that word is  "game" 

What you call  "a game" in terms of maximizing rewards, lenders call "business", and when you're in business of making money, last thing you want to do is lose money. 

Lenders don't pause application process to ask "what are your intentions???". That's what credit report is for. 

Also, if this is a game, it's a game defined by those who issue plastic, not us. We might be allowed to participate, but we do not get to dictate or ask for refinement in how players are selected. 

Truth is, if one has to apply for 3 or more cards every year to "maximize" rewards, they are either doing impulse apps or chasing bonuses. 

So, by looking at this thread  you have 3 new(ish) accounts, so if this isn't ID verification, then Chase is probably tripping on recency of those accounts. 

You mentioned nuanced approach and now you're seeing nuances in how 5/24 is approached by a lender. You could be 3/24 but still get denied if those three are recent. More nuances would lead to more denials, not approvals. 

When more of "if/then" possibilities are introduced in an algorithm, more opportunities for application to get denied are created. 

Hopefully, you will get approved and you can put this behind you soon. 

[kah-pas]

I guess we agree in principle, only you seem to be better skilled in the art of nuancing the messages board communication. A smiley, confirmimg even such a feeble pun, here.

It's quite clear to me that their business game is to be played by their rules. I wrote that. So, we agree on that as well. The only thing I am not quite sure I get / or agree to / are the nuances of their process. Why would more nuanced approach necessarily lead to more denials is not quite clear to me? What if (some of) the nuances are shared with us, the customers, and we choose more carefully when to apply? For example, had the JPM told me -- during the application process -- that my 22 years long business relationship with the Amazon carries no weight in their approval process of the merchant card they're issuing, I might not have applied, precisely because of those 3/5, despite my (wrong) belief that the cancelled card does not matter too much.

On the other hand, if my years of flying Emirates, staying at the Marriott (I never do) or dealing with the Amazon would be a factor, I'd consider applying for the Emirates card, for the Marriott Bonvoy card (I never will) or, as I have, for the Amazon Prime Card by JPM.

What I am saying is that I truly believed that the money I spent with them --- they, the Amazon, have been pushing the card on me every **bleep** day only that big purchase the other day prompted me to bite the bait -- over decades would make it a done deal. So, at the end, the true education, the true nuances of the process are to be learned here, in this forum. Much more than on the lender's side. I guess it's a fair game.

This is the point of this post -- I want to thank you, all of you guys commenting and advising here and elsewhere, truly. I've made much less mistakes during my credit journey than I would have otherwhise, had I not read this forum. I only wish I asked here first, before pulling the gun with the Amazon.

[4sallypat]

---

@Remedios wrote:

---

@kah-pas wrote:

---

@HeavenOhio wrote:

---

---

For the purposes of 5/24, closed cards count the same as open ones.

---

While this sounds a tad strange to me, it's good to know. Thanks.

---

Nope, not strange at all. 

5/24 counts all revolving accounts that were opened during that time, regardless of their status when you apply.

Fun fact, opening account, getting sub, closing account is one of the reasons we have 5/24. It's anti churning measure, it doesn't stop churning completely, but it does limit the ability to churn Chase cards. 

So really, nothing strange about counting closed accounts if they were opened in the past 24 months. 

---

Does a SP credit card opening count towards the 5/24 ?

I had 2 new accounts that were pure SP - no HP.....

[Remedios]

---

@4sallypat wrote:

---

@Remedios wrote:

---

@kah-pas wrote:

---

@HeavenOhio wrote:

---

---

For the purposes of 5/24, closed cards count the same as open ones.

---

While this sounds a tad strange to me, it's good to know. Thanks.

---

Nope, not strange at all. 

5/24 counts all revolving accounts that were opened during that time, regardless of their status when you apply.

Fun fact, opening account, getting sub, closing account is one of the reasons we have 5/24. It's anti churning measure, it doesn't stop churning completely, but it does limit the ability to churn Chase cards. 

So really, nothing strange about counting closed accounts if they were opened in the past 24 months. 

---

Does a SP credit card opening count towards the 5/24 ?

I had 2 new accounts that were pure SP - no HP.....

---

Yes, accounts are counted, not inquiries. 

[SoCalGardener]

---

@kah-pas wrote:

What I am saying is that I truly believed that the money I spent with them --- they, the Amazon, have been pushing the card on me every **bleep** day only that big purchase the other day prompted me to bite the bait -- over decades would make it a done deal.

---

Would you consider the Amazon Prime Store Card instead? (I'm guessing you're a Prime member, given your comments about history and spending with Amazon.) I don't know whether it's more likely to get approved, but its benefits are quite nice--the only real downside being that it's from Synchrony...and we all know about them....   Anyway, I'm happy with my APSC as it gives me 5% cash back across the board. Of course, it's only usable at Amazon, but if that's not an issue maybe you could try for it instead.

[Crowhelm]

---

@kah-pas wrote:

No spinning. This is what they said:

Thank you for applying for the Amazon Prime Rewards Visa Signature Card.

Unfortunately, an immediate decision about your application cannot be provided as it requires further review. You will be notified in writing about the status of your application within 30 days.

---

I got that same message and was very upset at the time. They pulled a 792 credit score and not an instant approval? They send a letter that they needed to verify my information. When I called, they claimed I entered my SS number incorrectly. Really? you still managed to pull my credit score. Without any notice, they pulled it again during that phone call. I got approved for 10K, but hated the extra pull. Keep your scores locked if they want you to call.