WF CLI - hard vs. soft pull?

[LooksAreDeceiving]

I was on the phone yesterday morning with a WF CSR for an unrelated reason, and decided to (once again) ask about their CLI process for the Propel.  The rep told me that they would initiate a SP.  If the SP wasn't sufficient to determine whether a CLI should be granted, they would then give me the option of performing a HP.

On the one hand, this was good news, since it seemed that there was no option to back out of the HP the last times I spoke to the reps on two separate occasions; the current info actually makes sense (which is why I questioned it with them at the time), and is consistent with what AJC mentioned here in the forums (so it's probably just a comprehension issue with me, apparently).

My question is this: What are they getting from the HP that they wouldn't see with the SP? 

It was my (limited) understanding that the info was the same, with the exception of the HP "credit seeking flag."

Or are they just two separate processes, and if the newer SP process turns you down, you can then utilize the older, legacy HP process, which will flag your profile.  (Note: this is total speculation...I have absolutely no idea how this works.)

I'm just trying to understand why they have two options for a CLI.

Any insight is appreciated!

[Remedios]

There is no difference is data received between SP and HP 

Some don't do regular SPs, like Cap One. They may do AR every 3-4 months. Some lenders go by existing SP (already present) or perform a new one to make sure there were no significant changes since last one 

Mostly, SP vs HP battle is all about how "seeking additional credit" guidelines are interpreted, unless you get an auto CLI.  

Just like any lending policy, SPs and HPs for CLIs are subject to change. 

Some like Chase and US Bank will pull for parking around their branches.

Five cards with Amex, hefty number of CLIs,  and you may not see any HPs past the initial one.

Go figure 🤷‍♀️

[LooksAreDeceiving]

---

@Remedios wrote:

There is no difference is data received between SP and HP 

Some don't do regular SPs, like Cap One. They may do AR every 3-4 months. Some lenders go by existing SP (already present) or perform a new one to make sure there were no significant changes since last one 

Mostly, SP vs HP battle is all about how "seeking additional credit" guidelines are interpreted, unless you get an auto CLI.  

Just like any lending policy, SPs and HPs for CLIs are subject to change. 

Some like Chase and US Bank will pull for parking around their branches.

Five cards with Amex, hefty number of CLIs,  and you may not see any HPs past the initial one.

Go figure 🤷‍♀️

---

I have no problem accepting the inconsistencies across creditors.  After all, if I ask for a CLI, I AM seeking credit and should expect a HP -- receiving a SP instead is just a nice bonus.

I just don't understand WF's process.  Either way, I'm "credit seeking," right?  I just don't get how their CLI method starts off as a SP, and possibly, if you're declined (based on what I have no idea, since, as you mentioned, the data is the same) proceeds to a HP.  If the data is the same, how could the HP overturn a SP decline?

After typing all this out, I just thought of another possibility -- that their SP is just referencing their existing reviews and is not "on demand."  Therefore, the SP data could very well be different from a current HP.

That may be what you were alluding to, so excuse my ignorance.

[Remedios]

---

@LooksAreDeceiving wrote:

---

@Remedios wrote:

There is no difference is data received between SP and HP 

Some don't do regular SPs, like Cap One. They may do AR every 3-4 months. Some lenders go by existing SP (already present) or perform a new one to make sure there were no significant changes since last one 

Mostly, SP vs HP battle is all about how "seeking additional credit" guidelines are interpreted, unless you get an auto CLI.  

Just like any lending policy, SPs and HPs for CLIs are subject to change. 

Some like Chase and US Bank will pull for parking around their branches.

Five cards with Amex, hefty number of CLIs,  and you may not see any HPs past the initial one.

Go figure 🤷‍♀️

---

I have no problem accepting the inconsistencies across creditors.  After all, if I ask for a CLI, I AM seeking credit and should expect a HP -- receiving a SP instead is just a nice bonus.

I just don't understand WF's process.  Either way, I'm "credit seeking," right?  I just don't get how their CLI method starts off as a SP, and possibly, if you're declined (based on what I have no idea, since, as you mentioned, the data is the same) proceeds to a HP.  If the data is the same, how could the HP overturn a SP decline?

After typing all this out, I just thought of another possibility -- that their SP is just referencing their existing reviews and is not "on demand."  Therefore, the SP data could very well be different from a current HP.

That may be what you were alluding to, so excuse my ignorance.

---

Yes, you're seeking additional credit either way

SP may be used to establish if you're eligible in a first place, and HP is a notification to others that additional/new credit is being asked for. Same data, different purpose. 

Credit decision may be based on SP, but HP narcs on you. 

Think of it in terms of solid preapproval, SP is done and that's introduction and a  handshake. HP is a signature. 

[LooksAreDeceiving]

---

@Remedios wrote:

---

@LooksAreDeceiving wrote:

---

@Remedios wrote:

There is no difference is data received between SP and HP 

Some don't do regular SPs, like Cap One. They may do AR every 3-4 months. Some lenders go by existing SP (already present) or perform a new one to make sure there were no significant changes since last one 

Mostly, SP vs HP battle is all about how "seeking additional credit" guidelines are interpreted, unless you get an auto CLI.  

Just like any lending policy, SPs and HPs for CLIs are subject to change. 

Some like Chase and US Bank will pull for parking around their branches.

Five cards with Amex, hefty number of CLIs,  and you may not see any HPs past the initial one.

Go figure 🤷‍♀️

---

I have no problem accepting the inconsistencies across creditors.  After all, if I ask for a CLI, I AM seeking credit and should expect a HP -- receiving a SP instead is just a nice bonus.

I just don't understand WF's process.  Either way, I'm "credit seeking," right?  I just don't get how their CLI method starts off as a SP, and possibly, if you're declined (based on what I have no idea, since, as you mentioned, the data is the same) proceeds to a HP.  If the data is the same, how could the HP overturn a SP decline?

After typing all this out, I just thought of another possibility -- that their SP is just referencing their existing reviews and is not "on demand."  Therefore, the SP data could very well be different from a current HP.

That may be what you were alluding to, so excuse my ignorance.

---

Yes, you're seeking additional credit either way

SP may be used to establish if you're eligible in a first place, and HP is a notification to others that additional/new credit is being asked for. Same data, different purpose. 

Credit decision may be based on SP, but HP narcs on you. 

Think of it in terms of solid preapproval, SP is done and that's introduction and a  handshake. HP is a signature. 

---

Are you saying that with WF (and perhaps other creditors), I would receive a HP regardless, once I accepted ("signed") their offer?

It was my understanding that it was possible (albeit not always so) to get a CLI with only a SP, and that this was what the rep was referencing.  However, it wouldn't be the first time that there was a communication gap between me and the CSR.

[FinStar]

One thing to consider, as @Remedios pointed out, the SP is a factored element that is tied with your account's behavioral score. This can include any internal data such as relationship, lending or otherwise, with determining whether a CLI is in line. The SP is something that would've been gathered as part of a standard AR and automation.

If the internal behavioral score along with the SP do not produce the desired threshold, a CLI would be declined.
Typically, if an individual decides to balk $@!*#.... errrr, I mean, pursue the reconsideration option through a HP, then manual in-depth UW review will occur which can still yield the same results. In some cases, depending on judgemental UW, there can be some wiggle room for the CLI to be approved, but the outcome and $$ would vary.

[LooksAreDeceiving]

---

@FinStar wrote:
One thing to consider, as @Remedios pointed out, the SP is a factored element that is tied with your account's behavioral score. This can include any internal data such as relationship, lending or otherwise, with determining whether a CLI is in line. The SP is something that would've been gathered as part of a standard AR and automation.

If the internal behavioral score along with the SP do not produce the desired threshold, a CLI would be declined.
Typically, if an individual decides to balk $@!*#.... errrr, I mean, pursue the reconsideration option through a HP, then manual in-depth UW review will occur which can still yield the same results. In some cases, depending on judgemental UW, there can be some wiggle room for the CLI to be approved, but the outcome and $$ would vary.

---

Originally, I was thinking the SP was done at the time of my request (as if I did a Discover prequal check, for example), which is why I didn't understand the need/value of the HP.  I did know that creditors perform SPs regularly to review accounts, just not that the CSR was referring to that process.

At least now I won't have to worry about cleaning up my util just for my CLI request, since I have no way of knowing how old their info is.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think you were misunderstanding from previous conversations with CSRs, as I’ve gotten different explanations from them.

I’m wondering if they use the last SP on file to determine the CLI or not? That’d be my only thought as to why they’d do a HP if the SP wasn’t good enough

[LooksAreDeceiving]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I don’t think you were misunderstanding from previous conversations with CSRs, as I’ve gotten different explanations from them.

I’m wondering if they use the last SP on file to determine the CLI or not? That’d be my only thought as to why they’d do a HP if the SP wasn’t good enough

---

It does seem like they're using the previous SP on file, which would make it understandable that a HP would be a viable option if you received a SP decline.  I may never know for certain; I'm not about to ask a CSR directly, given my track record with them.

I'm glad it wasn't just me!  I had previously spoken to them about their CLI process, got the impression that I couldn't opt out of the HP, so I declined.  I then read AJC's post about their process (and how the HP was avoidable), so I contacted them again (and explicitly tried to clarify what they were telling me in lieu of what I had just read here)...nope, no way to avoid it if the SP declines.

Third time must be the charm, since yesterday the rep mentioned I could avoid the SP.  I didn't ask, since I still (incorrectly) assumed the SP would be done at that time, and I'm currently reporting maxed utils.  I was considering waiting until my util is < 8.9%, but now unsure since I don't know how often (or when, obviously) they update their SP info (no point in making a request once my reports look good if they're looking at last month's data).

[RobertEG]

In order to pull your credit report without an explicit written authorization, the creditor must include with their inquiry a statement of their "permissible purpose" for the inquiry, which must be one or more of the purposes specifically set forth under FCRA 604.

For a CLI, there are two different permissible purposes.

First, FCRA 604 authorizes creditors to pull reports on existing accounts for purposes of internal review of the consumer's performance with other creditors.  While the FCRA per se does not mention soft or hard pull coding of such inquiries, CRA public policy is that inquiries that are made solely based on internal account reviews are coded as soft, meaning they are not viewable in any credit report issued to anyone other than the named consumer.

Second, FCRA 604 also lists as a permissible purpose any consumer initiated request for new or increased credit.

Such inquiries are coded as hard pulls unless the inquiring creditor specifies otherwise.  There are no published rules regarding when a creditor can code a consumer-initiated request for a CLI as hard or soft, so there is variation that is not technically disputable.

Either type of inquiry receives the same data within the credit report itself.