Citi closed all my credit cards :(((

[longtimelurker]

---

@sghosh5 wrote:

Citi closed my accounts as well when my scores were all above 750 and my util was just 1-2%.I was paying them off every month. Someone here told me that is a flag for them of me doing some sort of possible fraud lol as that triggers then that i will eventually max out all my open new accounts and not pay them back. 

---

IMO, an example of what can go wrong in forums!   Basically, someone posted a paper on bust-out fraud (actually a sales-type "white paper" informing creditors that they could purchase an algorithm to proactively detect this) and since then almost all  non-obvious AA has people saying "oh, they must suspect bust-out fraud""    There are lots of reasons for a creditor to take AA (and lots of types of fraud), and routinely PIF is common enough NOT to be one of them!

[hawkins]

I have been reading through all these the past couple of days and dont undertstand how some of you think PIF is such a bad thing. I PIF every month and never carry a balance. Sometimes due to a pending charge it does not post till when the statement hits but mostly not. PIF is most definitely not a valid AA reason. Either way what is done is done. Just my 2 cents. Sorry about your shutdown(s).

[sarge12]

---

@hawkins wrote:

I have been reading through all these the past couple of days and dont undertstand how some of you think PIF is such a bad thing. I PIF every month and never carry a balance. Sometimes due to a pending charge it does not post till when the statement hits but mostly not. PIF is most definitely not a valid AA reason. Either way what is done is done. Just my 2 cents. Sorry about your shutdown(s).

---

I agree...if PIF was a reason for AA...all my cards would have been hit with AA. If you pay in full every month and maintain low utiliation, it can and has in my case resulted in a decline of a requested CLI. Reason given, "You have only used a small portion of the existing CL you have available" The wording is not exact, but basically, having never even had the balance over 1000 on the 10000 CL they apparently felt I did not need a higher limit. They really do not much care for transactors that result in little or no profit for them, and they actually commonly refer to us as "Deadbeats" I have never heard of any AA being taken for always PIF, and there might even be laws against it, but don't expect frequent CLI's if you even PIF multiple times a month. Non-approval for CLI request is a far cry from AA.

[sarge12]

---

@longtimelurker wrote:

---

@sghosh5 wrote:

Citi closed my accounts as well when my scores were all above 750 and my util was just 1-2%.I was paying them off every month. Someone here told me that is a flag for them of me doing some sort of possible fraud lol as that triggers then that i will eventually max out all my open new accounts and not pay them back. 

---

IMO, an example of what can go wrong in forums!   Basically, someone posted a paper on bust-out fraud (actually a sales-type "white paper" informing creditors that they could purchase an algorithm to proactively detect this) and since then almost all  non-obvious AA has people saying "oh, they must suspect bust-out fraud""    There are lots of reasons for a creditor to take AA (and lots of types of fraud), and routinely PIF is common enough NOT to be one of them!

---

If a customer is normally a longtime revolver, and suddenly starts PIF every month and requesting CLI's, it might be flagged. It would not be because of the PIF...it would be due to the card holders change in credit behavior with them!!! They do not from my understanding keep historical data of our credit reports, but they do monitor changes of our behavior with their card. Any highly unusual activity could result in being flagged, and not just for breakout fraud. It is how they catch fraudulant charges. If you have allowed a card to be inactive for 6 months, and you suddenly use it 3 times in one day, look for the issuer to call and verify the charges. If I, however started carrying a balance for 3 months on a card, it would flag my account, because I have never carried a balance. The computer would recognize the unusual activity.

[Anonymous]

Highly unusual negative indicators will trip the algorithms but switching from carrying a balance to PIF is indicative of less risk, not more, and any algorithm that doesn’t recognize that will eventually bankrupt the company. 

[sarge12]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Highly unusual negative indicators will trip the algorithms but switching from carrying a balance to PIF is indicative of less risk, not more, and any algorithm that doesn’t recognize that will eventually bankrupt the company. 

---

I agree it would indicate less risk, but the change in behavior, in conjunction with seeking CLI's might look suspicious...not just PIF by itself. I can't recall exactly what I read on here was an indication of what the user was indicating as possible breakout fraud, but I think it had something to do with repeated CLI's. I have no idea why that would even be needed, because if you all of a sudden started making multiple major charges on a card, you would likely find out the limit is not really the limit. For me at least, they just always say no to CLI's anyway.

[longtimelurker]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Highly unusual negative indicators will trip the algorithms but switching from carrying a balance to PIF is indicative of less risk, not more, and any algorithm that doesn’t recognize that will eventually bankrupt the company. 

---

These things are correlation-based, so if indeed data showed ("enough") that people switching from carrying a balance to PIF did lead to increased defaults, then flagging it would be the right thing to do.     It's just unlikely that that is the case!   (But maybe I can finally pay off my cards because I just made a great drug deal.   And since I am doing well, I run up the cards.   Unfortunately, my next sell is to an undercover cop  and suddenly those cards look unlikely to be paid....)

[Anonymous]

---

@sarge12 wrote:

---

@hawkins wrote:

I have been reading through all these the past couple of days and dont undertstand how some of you think PIF is such a bad thing. I PIF every month and never carry a balance. Sometimes due to a pending charge it does not post till when the statement hits but mostly not. PIF is most definitely not a valid AA reason. Either way what is done is done. Just my 2 cents. Sorry about your shutdown(s).

---

I agree...if PIF was a reason for AA...all my cards would have been hit with AA. If you pay in full every month and maintain low utiliation, it can and has in my case resulted in a decline of a requested CLI. Reason given, "You have only used a small portion of the existing CL you have available" The wording is not exact, but basically, having never even had the balance over 1000 on the 10000 CL they apparently felt I did not need a higher limit. They really do not much care for transactors that result in little or no profit for them, and they actually commonly refer to us as "Deadbeats" I have never heard of any AA being taken for always PIF, and there might even be laws against it, but don't expect frequent CLI's if you even PIF multiple times a month. Non-approval for CLI request is a far cry from AA.

---

Actually, a non-approval or denial of a request to increase a credit limit is the very definition of Adverse Action according to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act:

(1) The term means:

(i) A refusal to grant credit in substantially the amount or on substantially the terms requested in an application unless the creditor makes a counteroffer (to grant credit in a different amount or on other terms) and the applicant uses or expressly accepts the credit offered

(ii) A termination of an account or an unfavorable change in the terms of an account that does not affect all or substantially all of a class of the creditor's accounts; or

(iii) A refusal to increase the amount of credit available to an applicant who has made an application for an increase.

[sarge12]

MaizeandBlue....If that is the case then PIF can be a reason for AA. I must somewhat disagree with the ECOA definition though. If anybody here asks for a credit limit increase to a billion dollars, and the issuer refuses, it can hardly be considered AA in my mind. I think the ECOA is defining it as such to require the card issuer to disclose the reason for the denial, and give the person denied the credit the right to a copy of the credit report used. I tend to define AA as an unprompted decrease in credit limit, closure of accounts, or increasing of interest rate. 

[Blackswizz750]

I wonder will lenders go back to just plain vanilla cards with no rewards or benefits. I wonder are they shoring up to see their credit positions.