UPDATE:Ge back at it

[youngandcreditwrthy]

Not real sure why you're going off topic here, FinStar but okay lol

As per the topic on this post, I was providing the OP insight and guidance with my personal experience.
Furthermore, while GECRB has the authority to practice its business as it sees fit, that's not what I was suggesting should be limited.
What I'm suggesting is that, just as lenders are required to give reasons for denial of credit, it would be helpful for creditors to be required to give reasons for silly situations like this. There has to be a reason!
The CFPB studies consumer financial products and markets to learn how to better assess frequent occurring situations and solutions therein. They do much more than that too.
I think GECRB just thought that someone had stolen my ID and was committing fraud as a result of my aggressive credit building strategy, but I provided them with everything they asked so nbd. Additionally, they were unprofessional all around.
Point is- just comply and go about your business. It was easy for me to replace the $38k+of credit I lost with them with better credit, although only about half. Luckily, I had already cut $30k + of GE cred before they went bats*** crazy on me LOL

[CreditExpressNJ]

@young how long did it take for them to do the process for you

[youngandcreditwrthy]

I noticed they were shutdown early July iirc. And I got em back around the second week of September. They gave me no time frame.
They kept telling they'd review them day after day after day. I spent HOURS on the phone, and the person reviewing my accounts apparently went on vacation two-three weeks. The corp office kepting pawning me off on the foreign reps. They were just 110% unprofessional. I recall several instances where they would just tell me whatever to get me off of the phone. They would promise to call me back, and then never did on multiple occassions. Just remembering it burns my blood. Horrible experience all around. The reality is they had no reason to do that. Again, I admit an aggressive credit stratgy, but 5+ years of no defaults and mostly pif w GE, not to mention my super low util with GE- I'd just love to know the true reason they did that to me.

[CreditExpressNJ]

Wow can you pm me the corp office number I'll give it a shot but seeing as your profile is better then mine I don't see why they'd care about me I actually just arranged my wallet with no ge cards guess I won't be seeing those anytime soon and what really burns me is that they said you can still make your payments with a rep on the phone

[B335is]

---

@youngandcreditwrthy wrote:
Not real sure why you're going off topic here, FinStar but okay lol

As per the topic on this post, I was providing the OP insight and guidance with my personal experience.
Furthermore, while GECRB has the authority to practice its business as it sees fit, that's not what I was suggesting should be limited.
What I'm suggesting is that, just as lenders are required to give reasons for denial of credit, it would be helpful for creditors to be required to give reasons for silly situations like this. There has to be a reason!
The CFPB studies consumer financial products and markets to learn how to better assess frequent occurring situations and solutions therein. They do much more than that too.
I think GECRB just thought that someone had stolen my ID and was committing fraud as a result of my aggressive credit building strategy, but I provided them with everything they asked so nbd. Additionally, they were unprofessional all around.
Point is- just comply and go about your business. It was easy for me to replace the $38k+of credit I lost with them with better credit, although only about half. Luckily, I had already cut $30k + of GE cred before they went bats*** crazy on me LOL

---

I really agree, they should provide some insight for AA.  It's like they're paranoid the general population will figure out their superior internal risk analyses.  Good grief it's not top secret intel on an enemy state.

Yeah yeah I get it, they hold the gold, it's business, they're the all mighty rulers of everything that be, etc...  Then again the reasons given for denial are typically pulled from the proverbial hat.

[youngandcreditwrthy]

Yeah, I mean Citi aa'ed me due to "too much open credit" I hate Chiti, but I don't agree. At least they were honest that time
. Did you see that Duck Card denial reason the other day?
A poster owed like 66/8000 cl and got denied for "too many balances"
I think what the real reason was is: " too many myFico'ers opened accounts recently, so our Duck/Beaver card quota has been met this month" lmfao.

You have to know when everyone here goes crazy app'ing for one card, a bank's alarms/red flags go off. Lmao.

[navigatethis12]

---

@B335is wrote:

---

@youngandcreditwrthy wrote:
Not real sure why you're going off topic here, FinStar but okay lol

As per the topic on this post, I was providing the OP insight and guidance with my personal experience.
Furthermore, while GECRB has the authority to practice its business as it sees fit, that's not what I was suggesting should be limited.
What I'm suggesting is that, just as lenders are required to give reasons for denial of credit, it would be helpful for creditors to be required to give reasons for silly situations like this. There has to be a reason!
The CFPB studies consumer financial products and markets to learn how to better assess frequent occurring situations and solutions therein. They do much more than that too.
I think GECRB just thought that someone had stolen my ID and was committing fraud as a result of my aggressive credit building strategy, but I provided them with everything they asked so nbd. Additionally, they were unprofessional all around.
Point is- just comply and go about your business. It was easy for me to replace the $38k+of credit I lost with them with better credit, although only about half. Luckily, I had already cut $30k + of GE cred before they went bats*** crazy on me LOL

---

I really agree, they should provide some insight for AA.  It's like they're paranoid the general population will figure out their superior internal risk analyses.  Good grief it's not top secret intel on an enemy state.

Yeah yeah I get it, they hold the gold, it's business, they're the all mighty rulers of everything that be, etc...  Then again the reasons given for denial are typically pulled from the proverbial hat.

---

Why would they tell people what they find risky so they can avoid doing it? Say they said that if someone requests a limit of 25000 or more they freeze accounts and review income and other information. Obiviously people would request 24999 and let it be done. What's to stop someone from asking for 24999 and running the card up and defaulting. This is probably a poor example, but no lender is going to give insight as to wha the see as risky, because again, people would just avoid it.

Most likely any lender would become suspicious if all of a sudden someone was rapidly increases their limits on all of their accounts. It's not a normal thing for people to do and could very likely be something that someone who plans to default would do. American Express put me under financial review and wouldn't tell me why, but from what I read it seems that obtaining a business card and running it up can be a trigger. The card was only for 3000 , but it's 3000 they could lose so it's understandable. They restored the cards but a few months later decreased a 10800 limit to 1000 for "non use". I'm sure that wasn't the reason as it has only been about two months since I used it, but I just let it go because I couldn't care less. Most likely something I did was risky to them and they reduced exposure. They were the highest of limits back then, so perhaps they just didn't like that and with all of the new accounts it was too much.

I've not had adverse action from anyone else so far, but I believe it is understood that the people here who apply for multiple cards all of the time are risking be shut down. I'm one of them, so I'm not looking down or criticising anyone for it. Just saying that a lot of people here aren't normal customers and don't have a normal credit profile of only a few accounts.

[TXinandout]

If this ever happens to me, accounts will be closed by me.

[CreditExpressNJ]

Wow so i just spoke with a Fraud Specialist and she told me that it was due to a recent CLI i requrested on my SHOPHQ card for $700 to make the total limit $2000 LMFAO ... she said she wants to look at the accounts more and call me back incredible...

[FinStar]

---

@youngandcreditwrthy wrote:
Yeah, I mean Citi aa'ed me due to "too much open credit" I hate Chiti, but I don't agree. At least they were honest that time
. Did you see that Duck Card denial reason the other day?
A poster owed like 66/8000 cl and got denied for "too many balances"
I think what the real reason was is: " too many myFico'ers opened accounts recently, so our Duck/Beaver card quota has been met this month" lmfao.

You have to know when everyone here goes crazy app'ing for one card, a bank's alarms/red flags go off. Lmao.

---

@ young - an item to keep in mind, we don't know nor have that poster's CR data (and other contributing factors) to determine the full reasons for why the application was not approved.  I would have to assume other factors besides just "66/8000 - too many balances".  I had no issues getting approved for $17,500 last week and my utilization was around 1%-2%.  And, just this morning other folks reported were being approved for high CLs for both OCCU products.  Again, YEMV.