@morgacj2004 wrote:I would agree with Irish. No need too panic. The 5 accounts discussed in the DOC post is minuscule when looking at the total of all Chase accounts. I do believe that CO is CLD a lot of customers but that was to be expected when they previously were handing out huge CL like candy!
Being mindful of a trend/possible trend is not panicking. Just like the banks look out for trends so that they can adjust their lending accordingly, I like to look out for trends so that I can adjust my financial dealings accordingly. I missed the hullabaloo with C1, but I was here when Barclay/Sychrony/Comenity were closing out accounts/BCing and CLDing folks left and right. While I wasn't worried it would happen to me, and it didn't effect me getting cards with either company, it's prudent to be aware. And while yes, this was just 5 accounts, plus the poster here making it 6, but we all know how a snowball can become an avalanche.
The bottom line is, with the news of the recent losses some banks have reported, C1's earlier behaviour and banks enacting rules like the 5/24 (Chase expanding which cards fall under this rule and Barclay enacting this rule for the Arrival+) are things we need to keep an eye on. Maybe they're being overly cautious, but maybe they're not.
@longtimelurker wrote:
@LadyJEsq wrote:
@sjt wrote:
@LadyJEsq wrote:
@sjt wrote:
@LadyJEsq wrote:Thanks for the bump, was an interesting read. As one who just obtained a few cards, along with IHG, in a short period of time, I'm wondering what "numerous" means. I do have money in a checking account with them, which I'm about to move to another bank, but curious if these affected individuals have any other relationship with Chase besides CCs. Not that I'm worried. If they close my account, it's their loss, not mine. But since I only recently heard about the consumer defaults that have increased this year, it's interesting to see how the CCCs are trying to reduce those losses.
I wonder what "numerous" means as well. From what I have been reading, it seems they are looking at folks who got accounts that put them over 5/24 after they got their Chase card. Also, it seems they get nervous about the amount of charges put on the new account.
In the past Chase was looking for M/S or money laundering behavior, now it seems like they are looking for risk. But the way they go about it is odd and short sided.
Agreed. I understand that every bank wants to mitigate risks, but the various ways that Chase has chose to go about it do seem shortsighted. I think they're losing out on good/great customers with these rules. And I said as much when I emailed their CEO.
Thank you for emailing the CEO. Have they responded?
I received a call from an EO, but they never returned my call after I called them back. I did it because when I was talking to one of their Lead Analyst, they mentioned that while the 5/24 rule couldn't be reconned (I apped for the Slate), she did say that she could file a complaint (that may not be the word she used) about my displeasure with being denied solely for that reason. I kinda got the impression that they wished they could recon apps that were denied solely because of the 5/24 rule. I was hestitant about filing the 'complaint' because I wasn't really expecting it to make much difference either for me or others, but she thought it might and suggested it again. I agreed, but decided I would take it a step further and emailed the CEO as well. I basically told her that they were legit reasons why one would have multiple cards such as minimizing the impact to one's CS (and I know there are those on here who believe that's not necessary if one pays before their statement cuts, but I don't usually have that kind of time to micromanage my accounts, and truth be told, if I did, I wouldn't waste it doing that anyway, not when there's so many other things one can be doing like educating themselves on a myriad of subjects, but I digress) or using my situation in particular, financing the furniture for my home garnered me two CCs I wasn't even expecting. I ended the email saying that while I wasn't trying to tell her how to run her company, I just thought that there was a better way for them to minimize their risk but not lose out on good customers in the process.
While contacting CEO/EO etc might have some impact, I don't like making these arguments as we lack the data. So while someone might have "legit" reasons (by which I assume you mean non-churner/bonus chasing reason) that probably doesn't matter too much to the issuer. As you said earlier. it is an exercise it mitigating risk, and it may well be that the lost "good/great" customers aren't all that profitable (maybe using the cards almost exclusively in high bonus categories for example) or at least there is no cost-efficient way of including them while excluding the targets who appear similar, at least initially.
While I may be giving Chase too much credit, I'm fairly sure that the 5/24 rule, and the cards it applies to, was at least somewhat thought out, and that some people would have considered those "good" potential customers who would be excluded. I would also guess that they did some sort of data mining on their customer history, to arrive at the figure. For all we know, Chase is perfectly happy with the result, the dissatisfaction of some (potential) customers may not matter at all if this maximizes profit.
But that's just it, we do have data. Whenever you have an arbitrary rule such as the 5/24, you're going to be excluding people you wouldn't necessarily want to exclude, but for the rule. If it were combined with another rule, sure, but it's not. It stands on it's own.
Of course it does, they're in the business to make money, and by excluding potential customers with this rule, they're affecting their bottom line.
How do you know these customers aren't all the profitable? You're just guessing. And there is a cost-efficient way of including them, iit's called a manual review.
I wouldn't know, but being in corporate litigation for over 10yrs now, I know for a fact that many corporations make decisions without actually thinking them through. This is really no surprise. All you have to do is look at Equifax and how it handled the breach in their security. Not only did they not have SOP in place, or they did, but didn't follow them, to regularly monitor their security system, but they had a much smaller breach occur earlier, and they didn't make any adjustments to their system so that it wouldn't happen again. You'd think a company which possesses such sensitive data of over 150 million people would've thought out how best to protect said data, especially after an initial breach.
Oh, I wasn't insinuating that they came up with it out of nowhere. More that I don't have faith that this was something that was fully vetted. I highly doubt that there a report out there with the metrics of say 4/24 versus 5/24. I suspect it was somewhere in between.
And I disagree that we all want more rewards and that such reward seekers, are less inclined to being loyal. That may be true for many on this board, but it certainly not true for myself. And many others I imagine. Discover was my DD up until a few weeks ago when I realized that I was neglecting my others cards, and was at risk of getting my QS CLD. But prior to that, I used it well beyond the 1yr anniversary like others here. I received a nice double cashback from them, so they earned my loyalty. I suspect more people out there are like me more than say the majority on the board. And with practically every store out there, getting their own CC and the growing number of co-branded CCs, that's built in loyalty.
And I also think this is why more and more people are going to have more CCs in the near future. As much as the CCCs are tightening their betls as of late to mitigate risk, they're also promoting their CCs more and more. And some even offer rewards just for applying. While it's not like it was when I was in college when I used to get CCs in the mail that all I had to do was activate, it's getting pretty darn close (without violating the Card Act of course). One just has to read the approval threads of late. Quite a few people were aggressively pursued. While I haven't received much by way of personal CCs, US Bank is flooding my mailbox and inbox with offers for their Business Edge CC.
I also disagree that the people the 5/24 rule impacts are those that they wish to keep out. Before I was over the 5/24 rule, I had no interest in Chase's CCs. While I liked the bonus on the CSP, I couldn't justify keeping the card after that the first year, so I never apped. A few weeks ago, I needed to BT and I did a quick search and the Slate was an option. Like the other BT CCs, the Slate is really only for BTs. So, as a plan, I thought it would be best to try for it, because then I could PC it to the Freedom and then get the CSP and use the two together. This one approval would've made me more of a Chase customer than I am now. Instead, it has me moving my account to another bank. Not out of spite mind you. I opened the account for the free money, consciously forgot about it and never stopped my DD and it's just been earning money interest free for almost 2yrs (it's been a crazy 2yrs for me). So, financially, it makes sense to move it to an acocunt where I'll be earning some interest/dividends. Now, if I had more of a relationship with Chase, I would be interested in keeping the money with them. But they haven't earned my loyalty, so I'll deposit it elsewhere. Like the two CUs I just joined.
@kdm31091 wrote:I don't enjoy the 5/24 rule any more than anyone else, but I'm sure Chase did not just make it up out of nowhere. My guess is that the a large chunk of people who open more than 5/24 are either reward savvy consumers who spread purchases on many cards and won't pay interest, credit card churners, people in financial distress obtaining as much credit as they can, people just looking for a bonus, etc. I would think Chase did not just pull this number out of their behinds; I'm sure statistics went into it.
Yes, applying a blanket policy screws over some people who legitimately just want the card for the benefits, but it is what it is. Most consumers do not open several credit accounts every 24 months.
We all want more credit, more rewards, more bonuses, etc but the banks would prefer the consumer who opens a card, sticks to it, uses it for almost everything, etc. While we don't have to like this, it makes sense from a business POV. Someone who opens many accounts is less likely to be loyal to the bank.
Filing a complaint can't hurt, but I doubt they will relax on the policy anytime soon because the people it impacts are the same customers they wish to shut out, unfortunately.
I don't disagree with you, and you certainly make a compelling argument; but why then is most (or at least half) of their entire credit card offering still available to those people who Chase has already deemed unprofitable and/or risky? Is it not the same capital that has to be allocated to open those accounts too? I've heard the theory that it may be disallowed under their cobranded agreements, but why would such an agreement permit a 5/24 rule for the Marriott Premier, but not the Marriott Business or Ritz cards? I have my own suspicions about the products excluded from 5/24, however, I'd be curious to hear another's.
