@kdm31091 wrote:
I disagree that the examples cited are "not something CCC's care about", because sometimes they do. Typically, buying (some) store gift cards is fine, because they aren't cash equivilants. I don't think issuers would say they "don't care" if you buy a ton of Amex/Visa/MC gift cards to meet bonus spend or to earn extra rewards. But it's not really within the scope of this form to discuss the ins and outs of it, so I'm leaving it at that. Bonus churning has nothing to do with the question at hand, so I'm not even going to discuss that, either.
With regard to Citi saying the card is low profit, I determined such a thing from a thread awhile back where a poster mentioned talking to Citi's EO because they'd gotten a low limit on DC. The rep responded with basically what I said -- low profit means people get low limits/bad APRs. It stands to reason the card cannot possibly be a good profit for them. Lots of ads don't mean it will be around forever, I remember seeing commercials for the Forward and it didn't stick around. Also, I had a Double Cash very briefly before cancelling due to the $1K limit and 22% APR. My conversation with the EO was pretty similar too and basically confirmed they do not give out large limits on the card, period. You can infer what you want, but the obvious reasoning seems to be they aren't making out well profit wise with it. There is no official source of Citi saying it, but it makes sense.
I rdoubt that you would get totally truthful answers from reps or the EO. "We give good rates and CLs to people whose credit profile we like, but we don't like yours" really isn't going to be said. And the ads do matter IF Citi had already determined it was going to be low profit . If it is low profit (rather than a loss) you would give good people high CLs so there would be volume to make a decent profit. If you suspect you are making a loss, you don't start an expensive advertising campaign to convince people to get the card, to increase your losses. THAT "stands to reason"!
And my comment should have been: neither of those examples are the type of MS that CCCs really look out for, as they don't lead to huge losses, as they lack the [deleted] factor that is essential.
