Does PIF before Statement hurt CLI chances

[FalconSteve]

I typically pay my accounts to AZEO with a tiny balance (<$10) on one account. I do this with my wife's cards too.

Is this hurting my chances of a CLI? Do they look at statement balance or total spend when deciding a CLI?

Specifically

TD Bank- REDcard (auto-CLI only)

Citi (especially concerned with this card as it is our daily driver)

Wells Fargo (do they auto-CLI? They seem to still HP CLI) 

Also of interest, but less worried...

AmEx

Discover

Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge and wisdom!

[cashorcharge]

While we don't have all the same accounts/banks... I will say that I have hit some roadblocks this year asking for CLI's when my usage has been significantly lower than my existing credit limit. I don't really attribute this to AZEO nor the fact that I may make payments throughout the month prior to anything posting but in fact because I have relatively high credit limits that I'm not reaching the 30, 40 or 50% utilization of each month.  Ultimately, this year I have been very successful with new accounts and CLI's…while some of those CLI's were the results of a recon because the question was asked "why do you need more credit when you're not using what we've already given you?"

I don't think AZEO would prohibit your request success but would suggest you manage usage well. If you want to continue getting CLI's you need to show utilization during a month so...not necessarily posted with a balance. 

Lastly, yes..Wells Fargo does do auto-CLI's but not often.  You do need to call to ask for a CLI however, during the conversation the rep is supposed to tell you whether or not the request can be completed via SP or HP...I learned this by reading some of the other posters requests with Wells Fargo. I just got 2 last month through this process on my accounts with them. 

[Slabenstein]

With the issuers I have had for any length of time, which are Chase, Discover, and State Farm Bank, I have not seen low posted utilization be a barrier to CLI's.  With them, I haven't even really seen a low ratio of total monthly charges to limit be an issue.  Chase and Discover have given me auto and requested CLI's w/ historical monthly usage at probably < 5%, and State Farm Bank has given me several large-ish auto CLI's over years and years of almost complete disuse of their card.  That said, this is something that's probably extremely YMMV, even for two different people with the same card, due to differences in profile and history with that lender.  Lenders are also going to vary quite a bit; I doubt I would have seen the same if one of my cards had been a Cap1.  Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with the lenders you're specifically interested in, but I can suggest that, if you have a card that you'd like to see get a CLI, you've had denials with your normal usage, and the denial reasons don't clearly point to a different issue, you could try to shift as much of your organic spend to that card as isn't inconvenient for about three months and see whether that does anything.  Similarly, you could try letting larger balances report for a few months, so long as they're not so large as to hammer your scores, and see whether that has an effect on how that lender evaluates your need.

[Anonymous]

I would say that total spend matters more than usage of limit, although I think it's important to draw a distinction between the two.  Total spend would be the total amount of charges made during any given cycle.  Total usage of limit expressed as a percentage would be the highest balance at any given point in a cycle divided by the limit on the account.  It's possible that someone with greater total spend actually uses less of their limit:

Cornelius has a $5000 limit on his card.  Every single day for the 30 day cycle he charges $300 on the card and pays it off that evening.  His monthly spend therefore is $9000.  Due to many payments, his balance never exceeds $300, or 6% utilization. 

Rupert has the same card with the same $5000 limit.  He only makes 2 purchases per cycle, both for $2000.  His $4000 balance (80% utilization) reports every month and he pays it in full.

In the above example, Cornelius' spend is >2X that of Rupert's, but Rupert is actually using some 13X more of his limit.  If both individuals were to have their credit limit cut in half, Rupert's new [lower] limit wouldn't support his spend/payment pattern, where Cornelius could carry on just fine the way he was.

I do think that overall spend matters most to lenders, as that's how they make their money.  In most cases a high spend (relative to limit) is likely the greatest driving force for a CLI.  I do think there's something to be said about usage of limit however, as the more it is used the greater the reason the lender has to raise that limit.  I think showing greater usage of limit can only help in terms of CLI opportunity.  I say that of course under the assumption that we're discussing a Transactor here and not someone that carries balances from cycle to cycle.

[bettercreditguy1]

Several years ago when I asked for a cli on Capitol One Product twice in a year, I was denied for not enough useage. I let it ride as I had other goto cards with higher limits and better benefits. My scores then were around 750-760 at the time.

[Anonymous]

Each issuer is well aware of what you spend on their card, so decisions on CLIs shouldn't be impacted on the statement balance on their card.   However, they generally don't know what you are charging on other issuers cards, only reported balance.    So if they see very little apparent usage on other cards, and your spending on their card is  within limits, they may feel that giving you a CLI won't gain them anything.  If there is significant spend elsewhere, they may (or may not!) believe that there is an opportunity to gain some of that spend if they increase your limit.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Each issuer is well aware of what you spend on their card, so decisions on CLIs shouldn't be impacted on the statement balance on their card.  

---

I don't necessarily agree.  I'm not saying that's the only thing that should matter, but it should matter.  If the statement balance is always very low, what incentive is there for the creditor to raise the limit relative to someone that always has a higher/nearer limit statement balance if spends are similar?   

[Remedios]

I really don't know if it affects your CLI chances, but I'd more concerned about another aspect of paying prior to reporting on multiple cards, making them appear unused 

Till little over a year ago I would only let one card report some nominal balance and called it a day. It became a real waste of time and money for me, so I made a decision to let the cards report.

Since that pattern was outside of my normal, going from 1 card with small balance to 10 cards reporting caused a flurry of activity of the lender's end.

Just about the only person not doing SPs was my mother (though, I have doubts about that, too)

After about three months it slowed down since everyone got their money, but it was not a pretty sight, and I'm sure if I had dealings with extra twitchy lenders, at least one would have jumped the gun. I can totally understand it, there is a huge difference between letting a $100 report and letting $10,000.00 report, but nothing really changed other than when I pay and tiny little alarms were going off on the other end. 

I really think it causes more damage than good unless you're about the buy the house. 

You might be setting yourself up for future issues (not to mention wasting a grace period and time involved in micromanagement) only to keep Fico happy enough to give a few points. 

[Anonymous]

Agreed with the above post regarding [unnecessary] micromanagement in many cases.

I wonder how the above example would be handled/considered by Fico 10 with the used of trended data.  If the trend for a length of time was only AZEO and then one went from 1 of 10 cards with reported balances to 10 of 10 cards with reported balances, could the penalty potentially be greater due to deviating from what had become the norm from micromanagement?

If so, could the converse then be true... where if one allows all cards to report a balance for an extended period of time and then they finally do go to AZEO for a mortgage app.  Perhaps then the gaming gain could be greater?