@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Remedios wrote:I'm really having a lot of 🥴😒🤦♀️ moments with these threads
Why would any lender let the credit lines go unused or be impressed with $100.00 spend on $25,000.00 card?
If you're not going to use it, someone else will.
Most lenders seem to be done with padding utilization, it's as simple as that.
In all of the comments from that article, it appears if Chase only left $1000.00 in available credit, it would still be sufficient.
Its unreasonable and irrational to think they would just leave it sit there because someone collected SUB 3 years ago, and bought a mandatory pack of gum twice a year.
I on the other hand think it's "unreasonable and irrational" for the banking system to (a) with one hand, reward people with superior credit scores for keeping their percentage utilization low, and (b) with the other hand, penalize them with credit limit decreases and account closures for keeping their percentage utilization low.
Limits have very little to do with one's credit worthiness. I'm not sure where that impression came from TBH, but once you get above the UW hurdle at all from a credit scoring perspective limits at mature lenders are tied to income and usage as a general rule.
Sure there's some psychology as we've seen on these forums to giving CLI's, and in the sunshine world when it doesn't matter why not give out the warm fuzzies to customers knowing you can claw it back later if necessary? Same applies to beating other tradelines you already have, it's just psychological games to try to get you to use the card.
On the flipside see how that's come back on Synchrony with people crying foul here on the forums, allthough to be perfectly honest we are all outliers in terms of our behavior.
End of the day Chase wants to be your bank for as much as possible, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest they would cut back on people that aren't falling into that demographic.
Calling it what it is, if they whack me when I do use them for everything except my 401K and a Rollover IRA currently, and they know this, I won't be crying foul but it means they're cutting back on the consumers that wrapped their arms around them too. At that point I'll think the sky is falling from a Chase and CLD perspective coming to a whole lot of people, but until then /shrug.
Use it or lose it should be understood.
@K-in-Boston wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:I on the other hand think it's "unreasonable and irrational" for the banking system to (a) with one hand, reward people with superior credit scores for keeping their percentage utilization low, and (b) with the other hand, penalize them with credit limit decreases and account closures for keeping their percentage utilization low.
But we don't know if all three of the many Chase cardholders did in fact keep their utilization low on other accounts. As for keeping utilization low on the individual cards, usually that means under 30%, or better - under 10%. From the comments section we have a person whose line was cut in half because they were really maxing it out each month with 0.00588% utilization.
I was responding to a specific post which assumed that the reason for the closures was low utilization:
"I'm really having a lot of 🥴😒🤦♀️ moments with these threads
Why would any lender let the credit lines go unused or be impressed with $100.00 spend on $25,000.00 card?
If you're not going to use it, someone else will.
Most lenders seem to be done with padding utilization, it's as simple as that.
In all of the comments from that article, it appears if Chase only left $1000.00 in available credit, it would still be sufficient.
Its unreasonable and irrational to think they would just leave it sit there because someone collected SUB 3 years ago, and bought a mandatory pack of gum twice a year."
@Revelate wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Remedios wrote:I'm really having a lot of 🥴😒🤦♀️ moments with these threads
Why would any lender let the credit lines go unused or be impressed with $100.00 spend on $25,000.00 card?
If you're not going to use it, someone else will.
Most lenders seem to be done with padding utilization, it's as simple as that.
In all of the comments from that article, it appears if Chase only left $1000.00 in available credit, it would still be sufficient.
Its unreasonable and irrational to think they would just leave it sit there because someone collected SUB 3 years ago, and bought a mandatory pack of gum twice a year.
I on the other hand think it's "unreasonable and irrational" for the banking system to (a) with one hand, reward people with superior credit scores for keeping their percentage utilization low, and (b) with the other hand, penalize them with credit limit decreases and account closures for keeping their percentage utilization low.
Limits have very little to do with one's credit worthiness. I'm not sure where that impression came from TBH, but once you get above the UW hurdle at all from a credit scoring perspective limits at mature lenders are tied to income and usage as a general rule.
Sure there's some psychology as we've seen on these forums to giving CLI's, and in the sunshine world when it doesn't matter why not give out the warm fuzzies to customers knowing you can claw it back later if necessary? Same applies to beating other tradelines you already have, it's just psychological games to try to get you to use the card.
On the flipside see how that's come back on Synchrony with people crying foul here on the forums, allthough to be perfectly honest we are all outliers in terms of our behavior.
End of the day Chase wants to be your bank for as much as possible, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest they would cut back on people that aren't falling into that demographic.
Calling it what it is, if they whack me when I do use them for everything except my 401K and a Rollover IRA currently, and they know this, I won't be crying foul but it means they're cutting back on the consumers that wrapped their arms around them too. At that point I'll think the sky is falling from a Chase and CLD perspective coming to a whole lot of people, but until then /shrug.
Use it or lose it should be understood.
While "limits" may have little to do with credit worthiness, they have a great deal to do with FICO scores, since they represent half of the equation for revolving utilization.
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Revelate wrote:
@SouthJamaica wrote:
@Remedios wrote:I'm really having a lot of 🥴😒🤦♀️ moments with these threads
Why would any lender let the credit lines go unused or be impressed with $100.00 spend on $25,000.00 card?
If you're not going to use it, someone else will.
Most lenders seem to be done with padding utilization, it's as simple as that.
In all of the comments from that article, it appears if Chase only left $1000.00 in available credit, it would still be sufficient.
Its unreasonable and irrational to think they would just leave it sit there because someone collected SUB 3 years ago, and bought a mandatory pack of gum twice a year.
I on the other hand think it's "unreasonable and irrational" for the banking system to (a) with one hand, reward people with superior credit scores for keeping their percentage utilization low, and (b) with the other hand, penalize them with credit limit decreases and account closures for keeping their percentage utilization low.
Limits have very little to do with one's credit worthiness. I'm not sure where that impression came from TBH, but once you get above the UW hurdle at all from a credit scoring perspective limits at mature lenders are tied to income and usage as a general rule.
Sure there's some psychology as we've seen on these forums to giving CLI's, and in the sunshine world when it doesn't matter why not give out the warm fuzzies to customers knowing you can claw it back later if necessary? Same applies to beating other tradelines you already have, it's just psychological games to try to get you to use the card.
On the flipside see how that's come back on Synchrony with people crying foul here on the forums, allthough to be perfectly honest we are all outliers in terms of our behavior.
End of the day Chase wants to be your bank for as much as possible, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest they would cut back on people that aren't falling into that demographic.
Calling it what it is, if they whack me when I do use them for everything except my 401K and a Rollover IRA currently, and they know this, I won't be crying foul but it means they're cutting back on the consumers that wrapped their arms around them too. At that point I'll think the sky is falling from a Chase and CLD perspective coming to a whole lot of people, but until then /shrug.
Use it or lose it should be understood.
While "limits" may have little to do with credit worthiness, they have a great deal to do with FICO scores, since they represent half of the equation for revolving utilization.
And you know as well as anyone you can easily manage even ridiculously low limits if required when it comes to being a FICO strategist.
You've pushed the boundaries with having a much larger revolving balance than most people, as I understand it that was a concious choice you made. I've made a different one (PIF), and others still (Cassie etc.) are paying in advance AZEO style sometimes multiple times a month.
End of the day don't expect lenders to accomodate your outlier behavior on this one... just like I don't expect lenders to accomodate mine and compared to some on this forum I look positively normal.
