The "Chase" and the "5/24" rule: An open discussion of credit discrimination

[JSS3]

All I know is that BooBoo(sp) poster made out like a bandit with something like 14 Chase approvals recently.

[Anonymous]

---

@Darinox wrote:

Chase is treating everybody the same except people with equal or more than 5 accounts opened in a 24 months.

"(n)  Discriminate against an applicant means to treat an applicant less favorably than other applicants." How is Chase treating applicants with 5 accounts or more having the same qualifications as applicants that have less than <5? Favorably or unfavorably? 

---

They're putting everyone up against the test "Does the applicant have 5 or more new accounts?" If no, continue checking other qualifications. If not, kick out*. 

Just as they've some other kind of tests for income vs outstanding credit and credit score and debt to income and..and...

*Now there have been some reports with others being approved with 5 or more accounts, I think the true thing we've found is that one can't recon to get a denial overturned with that as the rule. 

[bldmt]

But, it did liven up a lazy Sunday afternoon/evening!

[Anonymous]

---

@bldmt wrote:

But, it did liven up a lazy Sunday afternoon/evening!

---

I agree.  It was an interesting discussion.  I am always up for a good healthy debate..

[Anonymous]

---

@myjourney wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@StartingOver10 wrote:

I agree with hum above....we are being baited into a healthy debate

---

Or I am going on a wild guess that OP is a new lawyer and using us a test the easeof his ability to argue. It is the only conclusion I arrive at as he keep quoting the law Thus the law this, that law that...

---

When I first saw this post that was my impression dissertation due on credit law 

---

Agreed. I had to get me some coffee as I settled to debate.. It was fun OP..  Lets do this again soon!!

[yfan]

If you truly believe that the 5/24 rule is legally prohibited, I suggest you file a lawsuit and see how that goes.

The 5/24 rule does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age, national origin, marital status, or good faith. It is simply a risk calculation. Of the bank, and the law does not compel banks to give credit as long as you have a low enough utilization. You cannot force a bank to calculate risk differently unless it is using one of the outlined categories as a risk factor. But there is no proteciton for "this rule excludes to too many people so it is illegal."

[StartingOver10]

---

@Darinox wrote:

Chase is treating everybody the same except people with equal or more than 5 accounts opened in a 24 months.

"(n)  Discriminate against an applicant means to treat an applicant less favorably than other applicants." How is Chase treating applicants with 5 accounts or more having the same qualifications as applicants that have less than <5? Favorably or unfavorably? 

---

You have misquoted the qualifying criteria again:  The rule is not >5, but >5 within 24 months.  Two totally different criterion.  

Lender guidelines have limits and beyond the limit set by the lender is a denial. By definition, the guidelines set the limits. How can you pick and choose which limits to enforce and which to not enforce? That would be discrimination - selective enforcement of a given guideline.

[myjourney]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@myjourney wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@StartingOver10 wrote:

I agree with hum above....we are being baited into a healthy debate

---

Or I am going on a wild guess that OP is a new lawyer and using us a test the easeof his ability to argue. It is the only conclusion I arrive at as he keep quoting the law Thus the law this, that law that...

---

When I first saw this post that was my impression dissertation due on credit law 

---

Agreed. I had to get me some coffee as I settled to debate.. It was fun OP..  Lets do this again soon!!

On that note off to dinner definitely an intriguing conversational debate 

---

[Anonymous]

---

@myjourney wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@myjourney wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@StartingOver10 wrote:

I agree with hum above....we are being baited into a healthy debate

---

Or I am going on a wild guess that OP is a new lawyer and using us a test the easeof his ability to argue. It is the only conclusion I arrive at as he keep quoting the law Thus the law this, that law that...

---

When I first saw this post that was my impression dissertation due on credit law 

---

Agreed. I had to get me some coffee as I settled to debate.. It was fun OP..  Lets do this again soon!!

On that note off to dinner definitely an intriguing conversational debate 

---

---

Enjoy your Dinner..  

[Darinox]

Why don't you evaluate yourself? Why do you think it's not? I am looking forward to hearing your arguments.

'No one is convinced' is not a proper way to justify yourself.