CSP DECLINED with 740 Credit Score?! Really, CHASE?!

[Anonymous]

---

@nitrov wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

To take a contrarian opinion to most people on here, from a credit profile standpoint, I actually agree with you that it (objectively) seems unreasonable to deny people with strong credit profiles and a great banking relationship like yours if the reason for denial is only because of a perceived increase in risk due to having opened more than 5 accounts in 24 months without considering any other factors. I personally adore Chase, have 4 of their cards, and don't have a dog in this hunt, but if this is truly Chase's mindset and that is what you're disputing, I fully agree with you that it is illogical and I definitely have empathy for your position. 

The issue is, I don't think Chase is denying people for 5/24 only because they think that people who violate this standard are an increased credit risk (although statistically, this is more likely to be the case). In addition to generic credit-hungry people who are at risk of default, another group who violates 5/24 quite frequently are the churners/rewards hunters, as stated before, and these customers simply aren't profitable. The number of avid rewards hunters/churners is probably quite a bit smaller than the number of high-risk defaulters, but a person in either group would be a persona non grata from a profitability standpoint for Chase. If concerned with profitability, it really may be in Chase's best interest to keep both groups out, even if it may catch occasional innocent people like yourself (who are neither high-risk nor a churner) in the crossfire. In this respect, the policy -- as draconian as I think it is -- is a lot more logical than it appears at first glance.

---

I was very specifically told that it was automatically denied solely because I had too many new accounts in the last 2 years. She said "it's not a reflection of your creditworthiness," and that they cannot even submit a recon request for an analyst to review my credit file SOLELY because of the 5/24 rule. She would not confirm what the "magic number," was but she said I had too many for their policy. Like I said, if it was my credit itself, utilization too high, too much debt, whatever, I would get it, but I've done A LOT of work to make sure none of that applies to me, particularly before apping for this specific card because I know they have high credit standards and that's one of the reasons I like banking and working with Chase. This particular rule, however, I contend is stupid. I would support it as a general theory, as I mentioned previously, subject to analyst/human review and certain circumstances with supporting discussion or documentation, but to outright say no solely based on that factor I find it needlessly stringent. 

---

Stringent, yes, couldn't agree more, and I personally abhor the rule. But whether or not it's stupid is debateable. I find it possible (in fact, plausible) that the reason Chase implemented the rule in the first place was to block out MULTIPLE types of unprofitable customers -- both defaulters and churners -- and that the opportunity cost of keeping out good potential customers like you who just happen to violate 5/24 does not detract from the savings they get by barring potential unprofitable customers. And since I can't think of any reason why churners/high-risks would be any less likely to recon denials due to 5/24 than "innocents" caught in the crossfire, if Chase underwriters began to override 5/24 guideline, surely some people would be approved that Chase was trying to keep out of the fold with this policy in the first place!

Strict? Yes. Oversimplistic? Yes. Frustrating? Hell yes. Stupid? Not if their implementation of this policy actually saves them money and makes them more profitable -- that's just good business sense. (But I don't have to like it!)

[nitrov]

ok, well, submitted a special consideration form via a branch manager and we'll see what happens! Apparently now you only need $10k in deposits at Chase to be eligible to submit the form as opposed to the $15k it used to be. Not sure when I can expect to hear back from them, but I'll keep my fingers crossed. 

I also submitted the CLI request and Marriott card request yesterday so if I end up getting even ONE of the 3 things approved I'll be content. Would be great to get any more than that, though! I'll update once I hear back from anything.

[UncleB]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@nitrov wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

To take a contrarian opinion to most people on here, from a credit profile standpoint, I actually agree with you that it (objectively) seems unreasonable to deny people with strong credit profiles and a great banking relationship like yours if the reason for denial is only because of a perceived increase in risk due to having opened more than 5 accounts in 24 months without considering any other factors. I personally adore Chase, have 4 of their cards, and don't have a dog in this hunt, but if this is truly Chase's mindset and that is what you're disputing, I fully agree with you that it is illogical and I definitely have empathy for your position. 

The issue is, I don't think Chase is denying people for 5/24 only because they think that people who violate this standard are an increased credit risk (although statistically, this is more likely to be the case). In addition to generic credit-hungry people who are at risk of default, another group who violates 5/24 quite frequently are the churners/rewards hunters, as stated before, and these customers simply aren't profitable. The number of avid rewards hunters/churners is probably quite a bit smaller than the number of high-risk defaulters, but a person in either group would be a persona non grata from a profitability standpoint for Chase. If concerned with profitability, it really may be in Chase's best interest to keep both groups out, even if it may catch occasional innocent people like yourself (who are neither high-risk nor a churner) in the crossfire. In this respect, the policy -- as draconian as I think it is -- is a lot more logical than it appears at first glance.

---

I was very specifically told that it was automatically denied solely because I had too many new accounts in the last 2 years. She said "it's not a reflection of your creditworthiness," and that they cannot even submit a recon request for an analyst to review my credit file SOLELY because of the 5/24 rule. She would not confirm what the "magic number," was but she said I had too many for their policy. Like I said, if it was my credit itself, utilization too high, too much debt, whatever, I would get it, but I've done A LOT of work to make sure none of that applies to me, particularly before apping for this specific card because I know they have high credit standards and that's one of the reasons I like banking and working with Chase. This particular rule, however, I contend is stupid. I would support it as a general theory, as I mentioned previously, subject to analyst/human review and certain circumstances with supporting discussion or documentation, but to outright say no solely based on that factor I find it needlessly stringent. 

---

Stringent, yes, couldn't agree more, and I personally abhor the rule. But whether or not it's stupid is debateable. I find it possible (in fact, plausible) that the reason Chase implemented the rule in the first place was to block out MULTIPLE types of unprofitable customers -- both defaulters and churners -- and that the opportunity cost of keeping out good potential customers like you who just happen to violate 5/24 does not detract from the savings they get by barring potential unprofitable customers. And since I can't think of any reason why churners/high-risks would be any less likely to recon denials due to 5/24 than "innocents" caught in the crossfire, if Chase underwriters began to override 5/24 guideline, surely some people would be approved that Chase was trying to keep out of the fold with this policy in the first place!

Strict? Yes. Oversimplistic? Yes. Frustrating? Hell yes. Stupid? Not if their implementation of this policy actually saves them money and makes them more profitable -- that's just good business sense. (But I don't have to like it!)

---

+100... completely spot on!

Nitrov, let us know how it all works out! 

[kdm31091]

We don't have to like 5/24, but for the people who act as though Chases bottom line will be killed by it, I think that's looking at the situation through a distorted lens. The simple fact is that most everyday consumers have nowhere near 5 new accounts every 2 years. This rule locks out credit seekers, for better or for worse, and chase wouldn't (reportedly) be expanding it to cobrands if it were hurting them. Most credit seeking/reward maximizing/churning types make Chase very little money anyway regardless of 5/24. Anyway, it really doesn't matter, as it's not like anyone can do anything about it. Just have to adapt to it until/unless it changes which seems unlikely anytime soon.

As stated above if they start making exceptions they will inevitably allow in some of the same people they wanted to leave out.

[nitrov]

I'm not sure I understand why a bank's credit policy is such a political issue. I've never seen so much negative feedback on this forum before. I never said their bottom line would be killed by it, I said new account volume would decline. For better or worse, it will. As a consumer, I couldn't care less about Chase's bottom line because as sure as I breathe they'll be an immensely profitable bank no matter what they do. I'm very familiar with Chase's balance sheet, and I can assure you, the "little people" that would be on a forum about credit should shed no tears for Chase, since Chase would never shed a tear for one of us.

[nitrov]

Turns out Chase HPed EQ 3 times yesterday, so I assume they did the same to EX. So much for 2 cards from 1 pull

[UncleB]

---

@nitrov wrote:
Turns out Chase HPed EQ 3 times yesterday, so I assume they did the same to EX. So much for 2 cards from 1 pull

---

You still might get away with one HP... at least one per bureau.

There have been numerous debates on here on how the HPs are actually 'combined', but many folks believe it's done at the bureau level, and that lenders actually do a HP for each application. 

I've also read several reports on here of HPs being 'merged' several days after the fact, so YMMV. 

[nitrov]

Hmm either way it prob cost me an approval on Citi Prestige so I'm not very happy. If the bureau happens to merge them I could call Citi back to approve but I'd prob have to take another HP to prove it's only one inq now so it ends up the same crap bahahaha

[UncleB]

---

@nitrov wrote:
Hmm either way it prob cost me an approval on Citi Prestige so I'm not very happy. If the bureau happens to merge them I could call Citi back to approve but I'd prob have to take another HP to prove it's only one inq now so it ends up the same crap bahahaha

---

Ohhh... sorry to hear that.  That's one of the "dangers" to running apps close together, if something goes wrong it can impact more than just one app. 

I do hope it all works out for you.  <fingers crossed> 

[nitrov]

Thanks, I'm stubborn so if it can be done I'll get it done hahaha we shall see!