@yfan wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@yfan wrote:
@red259 wrote:Hmm. You want actual evidence to backup a claim?
Below is one link to an explanation of the policy and there are other sources as well if you search FT etc.
Yes, I learned from the best.
The link does "explain" the policy, but doesn't actually provide sourcing for it... it's still hearsay. And like I pointed out, someone on this very thread reported getting 2 Citi cards within a day of one another, so...
Are you trying to argue about everything? Multiple sites talk about the 'rule' and it exists whether you call it hearsay or what. Just because it happens from time to time that the 'rule' is broken doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. From every one that is pointed out here there are examples where it doesn't apply. You're never going to get something in writing from Citi or any other creditor so you're going to either have to accept that many people have been told this before or don't believe it.
When, as you openly admit, the so-called rule is based on what people experience and not official documentation, it does indeed warrant a review of that conventional wisdom when contrary experiences are reported.
Except the people who follow these guidelines are not getting denied citi cards for too many apps, but many people who app earlier have been denied for this reason. Op's experience taken as a datapoint bears this out.
;
@Anonymous wrote:
@yfan wrote:
@red259 wrote:
@yfan wrote:
@red259 wrote:Simply using google for citi 8/65 brings up numerous threads on different boards and several blog articles all stating same thing.
Because everything on the Internet is always well sourced, documented, and factual? I am not trying to question the experiences of others, but rather, that is my point - that this "rule" a quasi best guess made from self-reported experience of the credit-obsessed and not something set in stone (or in policy documents from the lender). That people - even if they are just a few - (a) seem to be able to get more than one card in a time window shorter than the 8 day period AND that (b) Citi is now listing multiple accounts as a reason for denial for applications beyond the 8-day period (OP's experience) indicates that the "rule", if it is one, may either not be so steadfast or may be changing.
I think it is reckless to argue this and make it sound like this is all pure speculation when there have been a number of datapoints on it, especially when you consider future readers new to credit may be reading these posts when trying to decide if they should do multiple citi apps in the same day. OP's experience is completely consistent with general rule. They applied for two cards within eight days and were denied second card. They then waited eight days and applied again and were denied a third time. The third denial was because the second denial counts and pushed the clock to 61 days. OP's experience was completely consistent with the guidelines and citi's denial reason had nothing to do with OP's credit it was too many apps, which is what the lender themselves told OP. I don't see anything to indicate there has been changes based upon OP's experience. As I have stated repeatedly this is a general rule and there have been exceptions, but the exceptions are very few and you ignore the timelines at your own risk.
And I think it's reckless not to constantly re-evaluate "rules" that are based on experiences rather than official giudelines. If a future reader is reading this, I believe they will be better for reading the counterpoints and deciding for themselves whether what is being ascribed as a rule here is indeed so. Further, what a quick search reveals is that credit communities tend to repeat this rule over and over, but not a whole lot of rolling and current data points confirming this (has to be two-sided points: people denied within 8 days and approved on the 8th day or so).
I do understand what you are trying to say about applications vs. approvals, and if apps count then yes OP's experience is in line with this rule. But the only other actual experience reported in this thread contradicts it. Come to think of it, so does mine, actually. I don't know how long this "rule" has been in existence, but when I got my cards in 2011, I was approved for both my Citi cards (then a Dividend and Diamond Preferred) on the same exact day. So either I'm yet another exception, or the rule has changed since late 2011. If the latter, it only proves my point that these "rules" are not permanent, are constantly in flux, and thus should be constantly questioned.
Certainly things (appeared to) change since 2011. One good source has been the Citi AA threads on Flyer Talk, churning these cards used to be easy, and then timeframes were induced (and in some cases confirmed (for whatever that is worth) by CSR)). Now if these were all repeat churners, it would make sense that maybe their experience isn't typical, but a lot of these are people trying to get on the gravy train the first time.
And wondering why multiple references to people's experiences around the web are not convincing, but a single post by someone here (with equal lack of proof) is considered a strong counter example.
+1
@yfan wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:Certainly things (appeared to) change since 2011. One good source has been the Citi AA threads on Flyer Talk, churning these cards used to be easy, and then timeframes were induced (and in some cases confirmed (for whatever that is worth) by CSR)). Now if these were all repeat churners, it would make sense that maybe their experience isn't typical, but a lot of these are people trying to get on the gravy train the first time.
And wondering why multiple references to people's experiences around the web are not convincing, but a single post by someone here (with equal lack of proof) is considered a strong counter example.
Because the burden of evidence generally falls on the people claiming something to be the rule; usually, those who question that aren't charged with having to prove a negative. But for what it's worth, I also said that the recent references are more of people asserting it as a rule rather than providing a collection of double-sided recent and rolling data points (meaning, rejections within a week and approval on 8th day - not for the same person obviously). If people are generally rejected within a week, it doesn't hold up this rule without showing that people are also generally approved for a second card on the 8th day.
The FT forumn would freak out if all a sudden people started getting denied for a second card on the 8th day. The hardcore churners would certainly be posting all over the place if they got denied for too many apps after following the 8/65. Actually it would be all over the place if that started happening. Instead I don't see anyone posting that they followed that rule and they were subsequently denied for the sole reason of too many applications.
@yfan wrote:
@red259 wrote:The FT forumn would freak out if all a sudden people started getting denied for a second card on the 8th day. The hardcore churners would certainly be posting all over the place if they got denied for too many apps after following the 8/65. Actually it would be all over the place if that started happening. Instead I don't see anyone posting that they followed that rule and they were subsequently denied for the sole reason of too many applications.
And how many people would that take for FT to shed the conventional wisdom? More than one? More than 3? What's the "freakout threshold"? "Hardcore churners" may be busy with other churning opportunities, they may not like Citi products, whatever. An absent of reporting to the contrary is not evidence of the positive. Only reports of the positive are evidence of the positive. Only reporting of denials within a week coupled with approvals after a week can serve as evidence of the "rule." If these "hardcore churners" aren't applying within the week (which it would stand to reason they aren't if they really believe in the rule), then their data fails to prove the first part of the rule. You then have to get data for the first part of the rule outside of hardcore churners.
Not saying the data is easy to get. But without it, the rule as a whole does not withstand its test.
I just reviewed two threads about AA cards on FT and there was over 7800 individual posts between the two of them You are grasping at straws if you think that these cards are not being applied for/churned. In terms of needing data about being denied for too many apps in under 8 days I refer you to the original post that started this thread as evidence of that. Again nobody claimed the rule is enforced every single time, but the exceptions to it are few and far between and people ignore the general rule at their peril. By the way the data has already been established. There are actually posts on FT of husband and wife doing tests where one gets denied after two days and other gets approved after eight days using same income etc. There are other datapoints as well and Long mentioned that some people received confirmation from citi about this. I've spent enough time reading through threads about it. if you are that interested feel free to do your own research, but its not like someone magically pulled this out of a hat.
@DrZoidberg wrote:I was approved for a Prestige and Premier 1 day apart. Then got the Hilton card 1 month later.
Ok. But im sure you and op do not have the exact same credit profile? i could be wrong.
