Synchrony doesn't like to see a lot of spend (I'm kidding of course)
it sounds like you're applying the scientific definitions of "data" and "anecdotal evidence" to a non scientific forum.
There way too many variables to account for trying determine who gets CLIs and when. Instead the goal here is for people to share their experiences and situations in the hope that a pattern emerges and/or common denominators are found. So far the most common factor is "lots of spend".
@elboullee wrote:I'm not singling anyone out here, because I see this a lot. But I've had this question, rhetorical though it may be, for a while now.
What bank/card doesn't "like to see lots of spend"? Are there any banks out there that are going to actually penalize someone for "lots of spend" so long as there are no red flags for illicit behavior?
I'm just having a hard time imagining someone writing a bankcard alogithm like if: >>> <$10:month = :$20K CLI<<<
Sure, there are some things that are so pervasive, that the banks don't announce, like Chase 5/24 and Apple/TU, that they can be counted on to be accurate ~95% of the time. But I feel like a lot what get reported here as "DPs", absent specific language from the issuer, are really a lot closer to anecdotes, that there are so many variables to a bank's algorithm that there's no way to point to what exactly might trigger a CLI for one person and not for another.
You had me at 'a lot', vs the all-too-common 'alot'. Not sure what you said after that. 
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
@elboullee wrote:I'm just having a hard time imagining someone writing a bankcard alogithm like if: >>> <$10:month = :$20K CLI<<<
Picturing it as someone writing an algorithm for Amex might be a help to the imagination here.
