Since the Synchrony account closure thread appears closed ...

[SUPERSQUID]

---

@CCrew wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

Of course, this doesn't say very much meaningful!  At LTL Bank, we utilise proprietary credit tools which we call LTL LASER for the sharp focus it brings on each decision.   At core, the algorithm, leveraging several data sources is:

1) Take customers SSN, Date of Birth, current balance +1, last balance + 3, and multiply together

2) Divide by 3

3) If the result is even do nothing.

4) If the result is odd:

   a) if customers zip + 4 (treated as one number) is divisible by 7, close the account

    b) if is also divisible by 5, close all customer's LTL accounts

    c) if divisible by 41, CLD

---

Wait. It doesn't matter if I have a Dog or a Cat?  (grin)

---

It depends on the number of dogs and cats you have, hamsters count too, add them all together then divide them by 3.14 and multiply by 2.5 to the 9th power. if the number is above 10 then close all the accounts

[Anonymous]

---

@SUPERSQUID wrote:

---

@CCrew wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

Of course, this doesn't say very much meaningful!  At LTL Bank, we utilise proprietary credit tools which we call LTL LASER for the sharp focus it brings on each decision.   At core, the algorithm, leveraging several data sources is:

1) Take customers SSN, Date of Birth, current balance +1, last balance + 3, and multiply together

2) Divide by 3

3) If the result is even do nothing.

4) If the result is odd:

   a) if customers zip + 4 (treated as one number) is divisible by 7, close the account

    b) if is also divisible by 5, close all customer's LTL accounts

    c) if divisible by 41, CLD

---

Wait. It doesn't matter if I have a Dog or a Cat?  (grin)

---

It depends on the number of dogs and cats you have, hamsters count too, add them all together then divide them by 3.14 and multiply by 2.5 to the 9th power. if the number is above 10 then close all the accounts

---

Don't be silly. 

Without revealing more than is prudent, our team, (The LTL Bank Excellence Team, motto "Excellence is our first, middle and last names". We paid $200M to a branding consultant for the name and motto so it must be good) conducted  wide ranging, large scale studies.   In some cases, our sample size was as much as 3!!!   Anyway, somewhat to our surprise, historical data shows that the number of household cats, dogs and hamsters has almost no impact on default probability, until it rises above 50 cats, and these hoarders, sad to say, tend not to admit having that many.

So we are LTL Confident (TM)  (cost $1M) that the existing LTL Laser algorithm already takes into account all important data.   And if anyone who passes nonetheless defaults, well, that's bad people for you.

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Drifter73 wrote:

Could it be possible that sync dumps bulk accounts as part of their lose management initiatives? Maybe compensating for a partnership lose or stock market dip?

In theory, a reduction in lending reserves seems like a logical reason to dump accounts (lowering availability to match the dipped lending reserves over all accounts).

How they select which accounts to do that with remains the mystery. Those data points would be very useful in navigating their algorithm to remain in the keep folder.

---

1. It's logical if one considers it logical to dump perfectly good accounts in order to dress up one's quarterly financial statement. To me that's logical only if people who work there are trying to make themselves look good in the short term while damaging the institution in the long run.

2. It's pretty clear from the many posts in this forum that the primary selection filter is customers who have multiple large unused credit limits with Synchrony.

3. If Synchrony were doing it to manage risk, it would be going after accounts with over utilized limits, because those are the customers who are in distress and at risk of default.  But closing those accounts would not get rid of the loan loss reserves and therefore would not pretty up the financial statements.

MyFICO forum members are in a particularly good vantage point to observe this Synchrony phenomenon, because there is more 'utilization padding' going on here than in the general credit card holding population.

[Drifter73]

Interesting oct. 2021 read on Synchrony financial: https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4461800-synchrony-financial-efficient-busi...

[Drifter73]

Also, a Nasdaq Mar. 2021 read: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nasdaq.com/articles/synchrony-financial%253A-underappreciated-and-u...

[Drifter73]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

---

@Drifter73 wrote:

Could it be possible that sync dumps bulk accounts as part of their lose management initiatives? Maybe compensating for a partnership lose or stock market dip?

In theory, a reduction in lending reserves seems like a logical reason to dump accounts (lowering availability to match the dipped lending reserves over all accounts).

How they select which accounts to do that with remains the mystery. Those data points would be very useful in navigating their algorithm to remain in the keep folder.

---

1. It's logical if one considers it logical to dump perfectly good accounts in order to dress up one's quarterly financial statement. To me that's logical only if people who work there are trying to make themselves look good in the short term while damaging the institution in the long run.

2. It's pretty clear from the many posts in this forum that the primary selection filter is customers who have multiple large unused credit limits with Synchrony.

3. If Synchrony were doing it to manage risk, it would be going after accounts with over utilized limits, because those are the customers who are in distress and at risk of default.  But closing those accounts would not get rid of the loan loss reserves and therefore would not pretty up the financial statements.

MyFICO forum members are in a particularly good vantage point to observe this Synchrony phenomenon, because there is more 'utilization padding' going on here than in the general credit card holding population.

---

I can see in the following myfico closed synch thread that it does seem to effect low Utilization files in bulk. https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Credit-Cards/Master-Synchrony-Account-Closure-Thread/td-p/6119157

There's one with 86.9k in combined credit lost that was only using 3.7k of it. Which seems consistent with other bulk closures. 

Could most be files that kept clicking the cli love button, even though they had no intention to use a good chunk. Just to manipulate overall Utilization?

Potentially equating to bulk closures for a combination of not enough usage, manipulation of Utilization, and not enough merchant swipe revenue to justify the accounts/limits.

[BallBounces]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

---

@Drifter73 wrote:

Could it be possible that sync dumps bulk accounts as part of their lose management initiatives? Maybe compensating for a partnership lose or stock market dip?

In theory, a reduction in lending reserves seems like a logical reason to dump accounts (lowering availability to match the dipped lending reserves over all accounts).

How they select which accounts to do that with remains the mystery. Those data points would be very useful in navigating their algorithm to remain in the keep folder.

---

1. It's logical if one considers it logical to dump perfectly good accounts in order to dress up one's quarterly financial statement. To me that's logical only if people who work there are trying to make themselves look good in the short term while damaging the institution in the long run.

2. It's pretty clear from the many posts in this forum that the primary selection filter is customers who have multiple large unused credit limits with Synchrony.

3. If Synchrony were doing it to manage risk, it would be going after accounts with over utilized limits, because those are the customers who are in distress and at risk of default.  But closing those accounts would not get rid of the loan loss reserves and therefore would not pretty up the financial statements.

---

The problem is that the only "un-used" sync line I had was CareCredit, and frankly I am not sure why there would be an expectation that it would get regular revolving use.   

The other lines got very regular use, I can not stress this enough, even as I paid them down.  And, as I prep for a mortgage, they were getting significantly paid down individually, as well as my aggregate  UTL.  UTL just dipped below 9%.  If these are part of the Sync logic, they need a recode.

My advice to other sync heavy folks is to stop mashing the CLI button, and pay attention to having tradelines totaling more than $50,000 with them.  

[GApeachy]

---

@BallBounces wrote:

---

My advice to other sync heavy folks is to stop mashing the CLI button, and pay attention to having tradelines totaling more than $50,000 with them.  

---

Agreed.  Did you keep up with your vs4?

[BallBounces]

---

@Drifter73 wrote:

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

---

@Drifter73 wrote:

Could it be possible that sync dumps bulk accounts as part of their lose management initiatives? Maybe compensating for a partnership lose or stock market dip?

In theory, a reduction in lending reserves seems like a logical reason to dump accounts (lowering availability to match the dipped lending reserves over all accounts).

How they select which accounts to do that with remains the mystery. Those data points would be very useful in navigating their algorithm to remain in the keep folder.

---

1. It's logical if one considers it logical to dump perfectly good accounts in order to dress up one's quarterly financial statement. To me that's logical only if people who work there are trying to make themselves look good in the short term while damaging the institution in the long run.

2. It's pretty clear from the many posts in this forum that the primary selection filter is customers who have multiple large unused credit limits with Synchrony.

3. If Synchrony were doing it to manage risk, it would be going after accounts with over utilized limits, because those are the customers who are in distress and at risk of default.  But closing those accounts would not get rid of the loan loss reserves and therefore would not pretty up the financial statements.

MyFICO forum members are in a particularly good vantage point to observe this Synchrony phenomenon, because there is more 'utilization padding' going on here than in the general credit card holding population.

---

I can see in the following myfico closed synch thread that it does seem to effect low Utilization files in bulk. https://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Credit-Cards/Master-Synchrony-Account-Closure-Thread/td-p/6119157

There's one with 86.9k in combined credit lost that was only using 3.7k of it. Which seems consistent with other bulk closures. 

Could most be files that kept clicking the cli love button, even though they had no intention to use a good chunk. Just to manipulate overall Utilization?

Potentially equating to bulk closures for a combination of not enough usage, manipulation of Utilization, and not enough merchant swipe revenue to justify the accounts/limits.

---

I think your are partially correct.  My point is they are NOT accurately factoring in those merchant swipes, and weighting too much on "low utilization".  I had a dozen monthly swipes across a few cards, despite "prudent balances".   AMAZON, PP, VZN all getting substantial use.  They have a bad algorithm.

I would not care much about any of this and would just move on, if not for the mortgage timing.

[BallBounces]

---

@GApeachy wrote:

---

@BallBounces wrote:

---

My advice to other sync heavy folks is to stop mashing the CLI button, and pay attention to having tradelines totaling more than $50,000 with them.  

---

Agreed.  Did you keep up with your vs4?

---

VS4 is virtually unchanged for the last 12+ months.  I check it a few times a week .....