@galahad15 wrote:So I went to the BB&T prequal page, just to try to see what (if any) offers were available. I was given offers of the Spectrum Cash Rewards card of 17.24% V, also 17.24% V for the Spectrum Travel Rewards card, and 15.24% V for the Bright card. The thing is, these offers have go-to APRs that are 2% higher than the lowest-available rates for each card (i.e., 15.24%, 15.24%, and 13.24%, respectively). My FICO8 scores are currently 796 (EQ), 794 (TU), and 781 (EX), so tbh, not really sure why the higher rates were offered, and why the scores would not potentially merit the lowest-available rates?
Also not sure if this is a recent pattern of sorts by the cccs, where near-800 or even 800+ FICOs will no longer guarantee the lowest go-to rates? IME, this has occurred with several recent apps for me now, including WF Propel from less than a year ago (given 17.49% V), and BoA Amtrak (given 21.24% V). Although at the time of each app, I was super-close to 800s (and in some cases, over 800+) across all 3 bureaus.
I know, I know lol, PIF makes the APR irrelevant
At the same time however, I cannot seem for the life of me seem to figure out why FICO scores across all 3 bureaus that are only a few points plus or minus 800 consistently approved or preapproved me for 3 cards at higher rates, vs. in the past, it would have seemed to be a slam-dunk for the very lowest rates? Do super-high FICO scores no longer matter as much to the cccs like they did in past years, in terms of being able to qualify for the best-possible terms and conditions, and is there maybe perhaps some sort of changing trend going on here?
That may just be the initial APR they would offer based on what they see with a SP. Maybe when/if they approve the card, you will qualify for the lowest rate. If you don't, they have to provide you with a notice as to why you did not qualify for the lowest rate.
I am assuming that you were just wondering and are not actually interested in getting a BB&T card. You have a very good line up of cards as it is; and besides, BB&T is merging with SunTrust and they are going to rename themselves something stupid.
Echo what others are saying with alot of banks/cu's i am getting towards higher end of apr's now.. 500k in personal credit scores in or around 800's.. Amex use to give me near best apr around 700 score now get their higher APR's. This doesn't apply to all banks or CU's by any means, but score alone certainly with some lenders dont get best apr for example recently got PenFed Amex at near the highest apr with 780ish score where-as others in the 700 range have gotten 14% for example. Although with some lenders aprs are certainly score base this more so is on the CU side as you can call alot of them and ask score threshholds for best APR, etc. Understand their logic, but at same time they rather offer a better apr to a more risky lender say 700 fico is kinda backwards as well.. I suppose it is their sandbox though so whatever, but principle still plays a role to me and dang well ill be hounding them for apr reductions when possible
@wasCB14 wrote:
@galahad15 wrote:
@NRB525 wrote:FICO score is only one factor in an application being considered.
How much total limit do you already have? A little over $400k
How many cards do you already have? 23-24 cards, plus PayPal Credit
As noted above, how many new cards recently? 1 new card plus PayPal Credit, within the last 6 months
Those metrics are all available, quickly, from your file, in addition to FICO score.
Hi, thanks for your feedback, please see answers to questions above in bold font style.
Assuming your income is less than $250k, I could also see some issuers getting a little uneasy about the total amount of credit you have available.
I haven't really seen total revolving credit being an issue with the usual suspects; generally just someone reaching max exposure with an individual lender, or getting that reason from one of the credit unions. (I did get that reason from NFCU's computer (something cryptic like MAX REVOLVING CREDIT which a loan officer translated for me upon successful recon) the very first time I asked for a CLI, but that was about $6-700k ago and they've given me another $52k or so since then.) Amex, Chase, and NFCU have been consistent about "low" APRs. Everyone else that I have multiple accounts with is either all over the map, or in the case of BoA I have two $90k+ cards with APRs in the 20s, which doesn't really make any sense to me at all. Between what's in my signature, AU cards, CLOCs, PLOCs, and HELOCs, I'm many multiples of income at this point.
The FiCO score has slid in the accuracy of predictability over time. The average FiCO score is now higher that it used to be. For example the average FiCO in MA is 708. The 700+ range is where you want to be if you want access to almost any account. Think about that for a sec as the rest of the post can wait.
Lenders update their ranges and some are more cruel than others. As time goes by what your FiCO score is able to get you will erode since everyone else will get smarter. If you look you will notice there are quite a lot of people in the rebuilder section of the forum. These are the people suffering from BK's and accounts in collections. They are living a decent life with high FiCO scores. A few certainly are recently in trouble but otherwise flipping their life around. You just need a higher FiCO now than in the past for the same thing.
hope that's not the case for autos, my FICO 8 Auto enhanced is @ 855! Had to screen shot that!
@wasCB14 wrote:There's more to an application than the FICO score.
With "several recent apps" maybe some issuers see it as aggressive credit seeking?
This is definitely true, but I do not think it should be the case in general. Of course, issuers can do what they like.
But on average, isn't the point of FICO scores to give a good idea of risk? So if "several recent apps" don't hurt FICO scores much, but they freak out issuers, maybe the FICO formula should be adjusted to align with real-world lender decisions? Or more broadly speaking, what is the point of a FICO score if every lender is going to analyze your report anyway?
Exceptions are ok, but seems like everything is an exception. Then again, my personal experience is pretty skewed by unusual credit-building activity. I don't mind that, I just think my FICO scores should be lower, to align with reality.
@galahad15 wrote:So I went to the BB&T prequal page, just to try to see what (if any) offers were available. I was given offers of the Spectrum Cash Rewards card of 17.24% V, also 17.24% V for the Spectrum Travel Rewards card, and 15.24% V for the Bright card. The thing is, these offers have go-to APRs that are 2% higher than the lowest-available rates for each card (i.e., 15.24%, 15.24%, and 13.24%, respectively). My FICO8 scores are currently 796 (EQ), 794 (TU), and 781 (EX), so tbh, not really sure why the higher rates were offered, and why the scores would not potentially merit the lowest-available rates?
Also not sure if this is a recent pattern of sorts by the cccs, where near-800 or even 800+ FICOs will no longer guarantee the lowest go-to rates? IME, this has occurred with several recent apps for me now, including WF Propel from less than a year ago (given 17.49% V), and BoA Amtrak (given 21.24% V). Although at the time of each app, I was super-close to 800s (and in some cases, over 800+) across all 3 bureaus.
I know, I know lol, PIF makes the APR irrelevant
In my complete outsider opinion, what if they have quotas for the number of cards they can have at certain APRS. Knowing that you are a PIF cardholder they figure "why waste it on him". Especially when it doesn't cost you any more money. Now if mortgage and car loan rates start getting higher, I would start to worry. 😂
@KJinNC wrote:
@wasCB14 wrote:There's more to an application than the FICO score.
With "several recent apps" maybe some issuers see it as aggressive credit seeking?
This is definitely true, but I do not think it should be the case in general. Of course, issuers can do what they like.
But on average, isn't the point of FICO scores to give a good idea of risk? So if "several recent apps" don't hurt FICO scores much, but they freak out issuers, maybe the FICO formula should be adjusted to align with real-world lender decisions? Or more broadly speaking, what is the point of a FICO score if every lender is going to analyze your report anyway?
Exceptions are ok, but seems like everything is an exception. Then again, my personal experience is pretty skewed by unusual credit-building activity. I don't mind that, I just think my FICO scores should be lower, to align with reality.
That's the first time I have read "I just think my FICO scores should be lower" anywhere. 
@Gollum wrote:
@KJinNC wrote:
@wasCB14 wrote:There's more to an application than the FICO score.
With "several recent apps" maybe some issuers see it as aggressive credit seeking?
This is definitely true, but I do not think it should be the case in general. Of course, issuers can do what they like.
But on average, isn't the point of FICO scores to give a good idea of risk? So if "several recent apps" don't hurt FICO scores much, but they freak out issuers, maybe the FICO formula should be adjusted to align with real-world lender decisions? Or more broadly speaking, what is the point of a FICO score if every lender is going to analyze your report anyway?
Exceptions are ok, but seems like everything is an exception. Then again, my personal experience is pretty skewed by unusual credit-building activity. I don't mind that, I just think my FICO scores should be lower, to align with reality.
There are a few times I've seen it around here from people with thin files that can't get approved for the same things that a thick file with same or lower score could.