4506T from... ummm... Macy's (DSNB)?! **bleep**?!

[NegotiatorRogerSmith]

---

@pizza1 wrote:
I have always said, and will continue to say this......I will never provide tax returns EVER in order to keep a freaking store card....even my Barnys. No way...Ridiculous for a store card. I agree...I can see Amex, Chase, Citi...(and DSNB btw is a branch of Citibank)....

but Macys? um, no...Id let them close it.

---

Well, to be clear, we're talking about the Macy's American Express.

I suppose the question is whether DSNB's underwriting/risk shares its portfolio with the greater Citi. If so, I can then see their possible need for the 4506T since I also have the AA and DC cards from Citi, so combined, it's up there in terms of total exposure.

Anyone have insight on whether DSNB/Citi is determining risk on all accounts, or are they servicing their accounts/products seperately?

[pizza1]

---

@NegotiatorRogerSmith wrote:

---

@pizza1 wrote:
I have always said, and will continue to say this......I will never provide tax returns EVER in order to keep a freaking store card....even my Barnys. No way...Ridiculous for a store card. I agree...I can see Amex, Chase, Citi...(and DSNB btw is a branch of Citibank)....

but Macys? um, no...Id let them close it.

---

Well, to be clear, we're talking about the Macy's American Express.

I suppose the question is whether DSNB's underwriting/risk shares its portfolio with the greater Citi. If so, I can then see their possible need for the 4506T since I also have the AA and DC cards from Citi, so combined, it's up there in terms of total exposure.

Anyone have insight on whether DSNB/Citi is determining risk on all accounts, or are they servicing their accounts/products seperately?

---

ah, yes, just saw that it was the Amex version right after you posted , LOL.. I would assume they would talk amongst the the other accounts.  I would also assume that Citi,where as  Its just like Synch..(Synch has.a $100k exposure limit regardless it lays in store or major.), Citi may have their own exposure limit...regardless if its retail/co-brand/etc...

[MJ-san]

Underwritten by Citi Retail Services but issued by Citibank NA ... so total exposure may be a factor here. 

[Anonymous]

I am not implying, inferring or suggesting, just sharing my opinion; blaming a lender/creditor for doing due diligence does seem inappropriate.

I have provided POI/TR to NFCU, PENFED, BofA and AMEX in the past. My credit limits with these lenders reflect the confidence these lenders have because of provided documents. If I can help myself by providing helpful, verifiable information to the lenders, I have no issue with it. I don't consider my self to be entitled to any credit granted to me by any lender. It is their money, they need to decide the who, why, what and when, not me.

[Anonymous]

I understand the fascination of wanting to build up limits wth Visa/MC/Amex cards but for the life of me I can't understand the driven passion for big limits on store cards. 

[Loquat]

Just wondering for my own knowledge, and not making any kind of accusation....but what is the big problem with providing a lender for a tax transcript if everything is legit as far as income?  Is there any damage that they can do to us as consumers by them having this info?  I've read many times on here where some folks get a bit upset for being asked for this...and I'm just trying to understand what is it about the request that gets folks in such an uproar?  

I've never been asked for this info as I'm not anywhere close to being a "heavy hitter" with any lender...but if ever I get to that point in my credit journey, I would like to know I guess why I shouldn't provide this info if ever asked?  I never inflate my income for the sake of a higher limit so what would be the harm in turning this info over to a lender?  Any insight would be appreciated.  And again, no accusations just an inquiring mind wanting to know...

[takeshi74]

---

@NegotiatorRogerSmith wrote:

Got a 4506T request from Macys, which I find rather odd.

---

Nothing odd about it.  A creditor can require whatever it requires.  If you're willing to comply then submit it.  If not, then don't.

---

@NegotiatorRogerSmith wrote:

The ONLY thing keeping me from telling them to f-off is that it's my oldest account, so I'm being cordial. 

---

Consider the info in the Closing Credit Cards thread linked in the Helpful Threads sticky before putting so much weight on your oldest card.  One does not have to keep one's oldest card for good credit.  I've closed a number of my cards that were oldest at the time and my FICO 8's are above 800.

---

@NegotiatorRogerSmith wrote:

Other banks have been VERY candid with me regarding their max exposure with me, so when I suggested Macy's provide me such a figure, I'd more compelled to comply with their 4506T request, yet alas I get some scripted statement on how they can't do that, which I find silly.

Policy is policy whether or not you see it as silly or the amount in question worthwhile.  If you find it silly you don't have to comply.  Either it's worth it to you or it is not.  Your call to make.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I understand the fascination of wanting to build up limits wth Visa/MC/Amex cards but for the life of me I can't understand the driven passion for big limits on store cards. 

---

As pointed out above, it's a Macy's AmEx, not a Macy's store card.

---

@Loquat wrote:

Just wondering for my own knowledge, and not making any kind of accusation....but what is the big problem with providing a lender for a tax transcript if everything is legit as far as income?

---

Some find it too invasive to provide tax transcripts just for income verification.  It's aubjective matter.  I don't find it to be a big deal.  YMMV.

---

@Loquat wrote:

but if ever I get to that point in my credit journey, I would like to know I guess why I shouldn't provide this info if ever asked?

---

It's up to you to determine what you should or shouldn't do.  Look at your tax returns and see if you're comfortable providing that data to the creditor.

[TheConductor]

---

@NegotiatorRogerSmith wrote:

The ONLY thing keeping me from telling them to f-off is that it's my oldest account, so I'm being cordial.

---

If it's truly the only thing, just close it and get a card you like better.  By the time this card falls out of your AAoA calculation, the new card will actually be older.

[Creditaddict]

---

@NegotiatorRogerSmith wrote:

---

@pizza1 wrote:
I have always said, and will continue to say this......I will never provide tax returns EVER in order to keep a freaking store card....even my Barnys. No way...Ridiculous for a store card. I agree...I can see Amex, Chase, Citi...(and DSNB btw is a branch of Citibank)....

but Macys? um, no...Id let them close it.

---

Well, to be clear, we're talking about the Macy's American Express.

I suppose the question is whether DSNB's underwriting/risk shares its portfolio with the greater Citi. If so, I can then see their possible need for the 4506T since I also have the AA and DC cards from Citi, so combined, it's up there in terms of total exposure.

Anyone have insight on whether DSNB/Citi is determining risk on all accounts, or are they servicing their accounts/products seperately?

---

I find this odd for Macy's sorry to the people that think this is standard.

My partner and I have $25k Amex and $24k Store and I would never give taxes for a Macy's at a 24.5% interest rate!!!

I'm not sure about total exposure but it doesn't seem to because my partner has a pretty high business AA and also a personal AA and a DC that is equally as high and when he last received a CLI counter on the business AA they didn't state exposure or personal income, they stated business income as being factor for not approving the whole amount requested... We will be testing that later this year with new income from this year!!

[NegotiatorRogerSmith]

It's been a long few days, but I ended up getting my Macy's AMEX and store card reinstated to their respective limits after someone--9 escalations later--did a full internal account review.

Long story short, it took a lot of patience (and escalation) where normally I would've bitten someone's head off, but I had to repeatedly remind myself that calm objectivity will get me further.

In the end, I did not have to submit the 4506T.

Was it worth the multiple hours out of multiple days of dealing with the runaround? No.

Was the account worth saving? No.

Would I do it again? No.

Why did I do it in the first place this time around? Entertainment. Seriously though, it was more out of curiosity because I think a "normal consumer" would have given up out of impatience or simply not having the practical time to commit to hours-on-end phone calls (sometimes back-to-back). I was curious what outcome was possible if the variable (time) that many large companies leverage against customers was negated. Given I have certain luxuries with time that afford me to explore these curiosities, I went for it. Luckily, I had a favorable outcome to show for it. To put it into perspective, I've done less preparation and had an easier time following through a jury trial and its appeal. Consider that for what it's worth.

Hopefully, you get a data point out of this.