No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
Does anyone have an opinion as to whether a PIF (statement balance) is any "worse" than a PIF of current (total) balance when viewed from the lens of the lender? Either way they aren't making interest. I would assume that both are equally as appealing in terms of being a Transactor and a low risk borrower.
You often hear that certain creditors "like PIF" ... Amex is a good example. "Amex likes when people PIF." Are we just talking statement balance here, or are there certain lenders out there that legitimately prefer zero statement balances on revolvers?
I can't really think of any difference from the perspective of the lender in question in terms of how they would view the borrower.
However, I would think that any creditor would be preferred to be repaid sooner rather than later. There's less risk of default and it improves their balance sheet and cash flow. For lenders that depend more on ABS for funding, earlier repayments may mean that they can potentially lend more for the same amount of funding raised which is good for them in that their funding costs go down. So from a macro point of view, I can't imagine why they wouldn't prefer being paid ASAP.
That's sort of what my opinion on it is. Naturally a lender is always going to prefer getting their money back faster, assuming no interest is being paid.
I guess my real question here is whether or not paying current balance verses just statement balance actually buys you anything. Is there a chance on their internal scoring or assessment model it could result in a better interest rate, better CLI potential, etc? I personally doubt it, but would like to hear other opinions.
I think that's a reasonable way to look at it and one that I tend to share.