@Anonymous wrote:
@FinStar wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@FinStar wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Meanmchine wrote:
Nobody knows for sure.
I just wouldnt ask for a CLI while visiting Las Vegas
Yep. Same thought I had.
I guarantee you someone who goes to places like Vegas and other gambling towns like Blackhawk often gets more attention on their accounts.
I've never encountered any issues using any of my cards while visiting Vegas, Atlantic City, Reno and a bunch of other casino resorts here or abroad.
FWIW, I've never taken any CAs on any of them. Just ordinary business or travel-related, entertainment and shopping transactions. So, I doubt I was on a watch list or they honed in on my accounts like a microscope.
Did you have escalating balances while going to those places though? I think that's likely a key differentiator since obviously lots of professional events happen in those places too.
Just ordinary balances that I let report here or there, since I don't practice AZEO.
And, I think a differentiaton or clarification needs to be made with the statement you made about such "guarantee" because honestly while visiting some of these locations may be designated as 'hot spots' or known to have some inherent risks, unless obvious scenarios such as fraud, out of the ordinary transactions, excessive CA withdrawals, etc. would likely trigger some flags. But, not for the average individual who would not pose such inherent risks.
Potentially, anyone that may have escalating balances and decides to visit any gambling establishments and run up more transactions on their CCs may likely get their CC declined (if at all).
I would be surprised if they don't actually track how often people go to these locations regardless of whether they take action based on it or not. With level 3 data, there's too much gold to be mined to not use it. I stick by my guarantee statement that some issuers will give your account more attention based on what you do in higher risk locations.
I second the let pump the breaks on "guarantee". Lots of myFico paranoia here. First level 3 data only goes to Visa and MC on B2B transactions. Second, we are confusing risk. One risk to the bank is fraud. So yes banks have list of specific high fraud areas or no go transactions. For example it does not matter if you have. 850 FICO and 25 year relationship with a bank; some banks will not let you buy Bitcoins. Once fraud is eliminated banks want to know will Bob pay his bills. This is where we have made a leap. Bob is less likely to pay his bills based on the type of place Bob shops. Anybody got any evidence of this? What I mean is anyone have any evidence that banks do this? Because the office of the comptroller probably would like to have a word with them
Adverse action is strictly regulated. A bank can choose to cut you off at any time. Let me clarify this a bit more. If you have "escalating balances" and the bank decides to take AA against you, a purchase at a casino will not trigger a decline (not fraud) any more than a purchase at grocey store. You have either loss your charging principles or you have not. If you become a risk to the bank. Shopping at Kroger/Safeway/Walmart can not make you less of risk to the bank. And I am using escalating balances as an example because it was previously used. But this is something extremely overstated. That fact is CC banks want consumers to carry debt. Its how they make the bulk of their money. But thats a subject for another thread.
Well this ^^^^ is all I want to know now.