@wmarat wrote:
Credit is neither right nor privilege, credit is a product. Credit company extends credit according to certain set of conditions ( FICO score, length of history, income, eye color, accent, whatever). I as a customer have my own set of conditions to use credit (initial credit line, CLI's, APR, rewards, customer service, online banking, hold time, etc.) Besides, being thanks to myfico.com, educated customer I have an additional condition: to spend $X on credit card, my credit limit must be 10 times more than spent sum. So, if CCC wants me to spend my money using its credit card, they have to provide me with appropriate credit limit. Chase has refused to do so, which is their right. But I charge $6.00 monthly on their card, get monthly paper statement and ask for 2 replacement cards every 3 months.
@Anonymous wrote:
This won't be a popular response, and I'm prepared for the thrashing I'll get, but...
Why is it that people think they are entitled to the credit lines that they have had in the past? Or why do they think they are entitled to a CLI? These are private businesses that need to make decisions based on their particiular business models. No private business should be required to give credit just because somebody's a "good customer". And before somebody starts talking "bailout", read up. The gov't appears to be making money off their bailout investments.
To an extent, yes. However, claims that a credit grantor is free to use any criteria they can think of is an old wives tale.
Countless individuals have used the ECOA, supported by numerous court decisions, to bring home the message that a creditor can only use criteria that is shown to accurately predict credit risk. Unless your hypothetical credit grantor can show empirical evidence that having a certain eye color accurately predicts risk, they'd better have mighty deep pockets.
