I'm looking to hear from members that have received AA from a creditor only because of high utilization. I know this question is a bit loaded as there are always other factors that go into "why" a creditor takes AA, but if you feel the catalyst was high utilization I'd like to hear about it. What I definitely want to rule out is the #1 reason, missing a payment. Even if the payment wasn't missed very recently, the fact that a file is dirty makes high utilization "matter" even more... so such a person that thinks they received AA because of high utilization it's really because it's high utilization on a dirty file. So, I guess for simplification purposes here, I'm looking for those that have received AA on a clean file as to rule out adverse Payment History as a factor.
It's also important to rule out other unrelated causes, such as a CC being closed down for non-use, or AA being taken following a huge purchase being made when the card has been barely used or unused much lately, etc.
So, if you feel you've received AA related to utilization, what I'd like to know is:
Thank you to anyone that contributes!
Nice thread idea, BBS!
I agree with IMD that it would be useful to hear whether the person had made the bare minimum payment on even one card in the last six months. If so, more details would be helpful, like:
* Was it the card on which the AA was taken?
* Had at least three MPs occured in a row?
* Were minimum payments on at least one other card also occuring at the same time?
To dovetail on your emphasis on the issue of lates, I think it would also be useful to find out whether the person has been late by even a few days with that issuer (the one that took the AA) in the last 25 months. A 2-day late would not appear on the credit report but might affect how that issuer views the riskiness of that customer. A pattern of multiple lates (by a few days) could really affect the issuer's perception. Especially interesting to know would be if one of these "invisible" lates happened in the 120 days prior to the AA.
Excellent suggestions above guys. I'll add bullet points to my original post list.
My gut theory and part of the reason why I started this thread is because I think that non-Payment History AA is [relatively] rare and that AA from just high utilization is quite uncommon. I think that we'll find that in many cases there will always be an "in addition to" qualifier to go along with the high utilization. Perhaps someone has a really young or thin file for example. Maybe they've opened or attempted to open a bunch of new accounts recently. Those things among many others could definitely serve to magnify the risk factor of an extended period of high utilization.
I've only got one file to reference to support my gut theory above. My Ex went a period of over 12 months with all of her revolvers (I believe she had 7) being maxed out. Some were actually over the limit due to interest being tacked on. Aggregate utilization was steady 96%-98% over this 12 month period. She did also have a few late payments on her CR, but none in the last 12 months and perhaps not the last 24 months either; I can't recall exactly. Her file was thick/aged though. Anyway, none of her creditors took AA until she finally missed a payment with either Chase or Capital One (I forget which) and then they all started the AA process. 2 of the cards were closed almost immediately where the other 5 started the balance-chase game and probably are still doing that to this day.