Is it really a "DP" - or is it an anecdote?

[Anonymous]

---

@Remedios wrote:

I always wondered why "splitting hairs" is used to describe unnecessary distinctions especially since the splitting method is not further described. Therefore, cutting hair is splitting one end from another,  it's absolutely necessary unless one wants to end up with split hair ends, and we're right back where we started - splitting hairs 

Or something like that. 

---

A quick Google search turns up many articles basically saying the same thing, which might mean they are all sourcing the same false reference, but...

Origin:  17th Century, British English - This expression came about because in the Middle Ages and earlier it was thought that a single human hair was so thin and so fine that it would be a waste of time to try to split it. Therefore this concept became associated with any similar futile efforts. It first appeared in print in reference to a scholar who was skilled in winning arguments with this technique. This is pretty much the case today.

Oh, and in those times people used to pay the barber with a credit card (0.025% rewards on the first 13/4 d)

So it is credit card related

[elboullee]

---

@Slabenstein wrote:Picturing it as someone writing an algorithm for Amex might be a help to the imagination here.

---

I think you're missing my point.

I don't doubt that there are banks/cards out there that will grant CLIs with realtively little spend - perhaps even generous ones. But every single bank or card out there "loves lots of spend".

And one person who got a genrous CLI with little spend is no more of an insight into a particular card's algorithm or that individual's complete profile than is one where a person reports putting thousands of dollars a month on the same card and can't get a CLI to save their life.

[Slabenstein]

---

@elboullee wrote:

---

@Slabenstein wrote:Picturing it as someone writing an algorithm for Amex might be a help to the imagination here.

---

I think you're missing my point.

I don't doubt that there are banks/cards out there that will grant CLIs with realtively little spend - perhaps even generous ones. But every single bank or card out there "loves lots of spend".

And one person who got a genrous CLI with little spend is no more of an insight into a particular card's algorithm or that individual's complete profile than is one where a person reports putting thousands of dollars a month on the same card and can't get a CLI to save their life.

---

If we're talking about CLI specifically, some issures do seem to care a lot more about it than others.  As an example, Capital One CLIs seem to be pretty tightly related to spend: spend by itself won't get you a CLI, but for many people CLIs are declined until Cap1 sees several months of decent usage of current limit.  Amex, on the other hand, doesn't seem to weight spend very strongly for CLI: they'll give large CLI with little to no spend, and regular substantial usage of limit doesn't seem to move their needle.  What Cap1 or Amex does for one person by themselves isn't going to tell you much about their underwriting generally, and knowing something about their underwriting generally isn't going to tell you what they're going to do in one person's specific case.  But for issuers like them that have some consistency in their behavior when it comes to CLI, I think it is helpful to say that they do "like spend" for CLI or that spend doesn't seem to be a big factor.

All issuers "like spend" in general--Cap 1 and Amex both want the swipe fees from your transactions and they both want you to pay them interest on their revolvers--but different issuers do weight it differently in their CLI underwriting.

[youngandcreditwrthy]

@elboullee  in economics, we use the term "ceterus parabis" all else equal..

so if there are no other changes ie no dynamics at work. in real life it's almost impossible to isolate one factor.

think about the reasons for denial you might see on a credit card app letter.. there are usually at least 2-4. and even the 5/24 can be overcame.