Is it easier to get a CLI carrying a balance vs not?

[Anonymous]

So i'm curious if anybody has any opinions here. Is it easier to get a CLI carrying a balance vs not? Not that i'm suggesting doing it or will do it myself.

It seems like lenders would have far more incentive to give CLI to people that pay more then just the min payment but not the full amount every month. Along with not showing much risk of defaulting. The ideal customer to a lender. They see no reason to give people more capital that PIF as they are not going to make anything from it beyond the swipe fees they already are getting. More risk for no gain vs risking it on people that will pay interest. 

Perhaps they still want to give these people CLIs in hopes they will carry a balance?

Figure there is some middle ground here to this. 

Any thoughts? 

[Anonymous]

Less risk, more CL.

I PIF and get CLI's like candy.  Those that carry small to moderate balances tend to get CLI's as well.  If you carry larger balances on 0% or even regular APR's you're less likely to get a CLI.

Each bank is different in what they're looking for though when it comes to CLI's.  Some look at your spend like Cap1 where if you're using it you're more likely to get a CLI than if you're not using it.  Other banks could care less about the percentage of your CL you use and give you huge CLI's.  

CLI's tend to come easier if you have higher CL's to compete with.  If you have a few 50K CC's and the new one is only 10K there's incentive to move your CL upwards to match your higher CL in the hopes of moving spend over to the lower card.  When you're a PIF'er banks are just looking to get swipes and know you're not going to be risky with carrying a balance long term.  

When a bank pulls my CR they'll see consistent use but not balances.  There will be some higher use watermarks from larger purchases but, it doesn't sit there very long.  The key to pushing limits up is generating activity every month between spend / payments and in most cases the amount doesn't matter much when it comes to moving up the CL ladder.

[CreditInspired]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

So i'm curious if anybody has any opinions here. Is it easier to get a CLI carrying a balance vs not? Not that i'm suggesting doing it or will do it myself.

It seems like lenders would have far more incentive to give CLI to people that pay more then just the min payment but not the full amount every month. The ideal customer to a lender. They see no reason to give people more capital that PIF as they are not going to make anything from it beyond the swipe fees they already are getting. More risk for no gain.

Perhaps they still want to give these people CLIs in hopes they will carry a balance?

Any thoughts? 

---

And they are raking in millions from swipe fees! So IMO, CLIs go to those who are PIF and still swiping their cards.

[Openwater]

Post BK, I've been a PFI, 95% of the time. Carry a balance when Iife hands me a couple of unexpected bills, but never more than 2 months and I have recieved CLI, without requesting on my oldest account. It took 2 years of good habits. My newer cards have been high limits so I haven't recieved any yet.

[Anonymous]

I get the most success when I have been PIF my cards or after I just paid off a big balance. I hardly ever ask when I have much of a balance because it's usually a no. 

Lenders like to give you credit when you don't actually need it so best practice is to ask when you have been PIF on that card. 

[Anonymous]

I'm sure it's very bank- and profile-dependent, but here's a relevant DP from Discover:

• February: Opened Discover it with a starting limit of $8,000. It comes with 15 months of 0% APR, so I'm only making minimum payments.
• June: Requested a CLI and got a $500 bump. Balance was at $2,338 or 29.2%.
• September: Requested a CLI and got a $3,000 bump (!). Balance was at $3,262 or 38.4%.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Less risk, more CL.

I PIF and get CLI's like candy.  Those that carry small to moderate balances tend to get CLI's as well.  If you carry larger balances on 0% or even regular APR's you're less likely to get a CLI.

Each bank is different in what they're looking for though when it comes to CLI's.  Some look at your spend like Cap1 where if you're using it you're more likely to get a CLI than if you're not using it.  Other banks could care less about the percentage of your CL you use and give you huge CLI's.  

CLI's tend to come easier if you have higher CL's to compete with.  If you have a few 50K CC's and the new one is only 10K there's incentive to move your CL upwards to match your higher CL in the hopes of moving spend over to the lower card.  When you're a PIF'er banks are just looking to get swipes and know you're not going to be risky with carrying a balance long term.  

When a bank pulls my CR they'll see consistent use but not balances.  There will be some higher use watermarks from larger purchases but, it doesn't sit there very long.  The key to pushing limits up is generating activity every month between spend / payments and in most cases the amount doesn't matter much when it comes to moving up the CL ladder.

---

One of the ways I get large CLIs is to max out a 0% offer. Then pay the entire balance before the 0 expires. This shows that I can run up large balances (have ample spend) and still have the ability to PIF,  even if its $20K.

Paying the minimum will likely not get you CLIs very often. Cap 1 not as likely to give CLIs when paying the minimum. 

[kdm31091]

I think it's really somewhere in between. On one hand, if you show virtually no usage on the card, there's no reason for the issuer to give you a CLI. On the other hand, if you're carrying a balance, and making small payments, you appear more risky, so the bank isn't going to want to extend you more credit.