Credit limit reduction: reality vs. bureaucracy

Paul_Herring

praxisizer wrote: »

The issue I raised that seems to baffle everybody merely relates to the fact that additional information modifies the rationally-assessed risk, by changing the probability of default (according to Bayes' theorem).

There is no issue. People who can't pay on time, in general, tend to be unreliable in the view of credit companies, regardless of other circumstances the creditor could provide.

The thinking goes, that if you can prove that you have the money to pay the bills, then you should really be paying those bills. On time.

praxisizer

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Just because you're not getting the answers you want, that's no reason to discount them.

It's not that I'm not getting the answers I want. Instead, you made up the questions that you're giving answers to

zppp

praxisizer wrote: »

It's not that I'm not getting the answers I want. Instead, you made up the questions that you're giving answers to

What would you like to know that you haven't already had an answer to?

CannyJock

praxisizer wrote: »

I should be a credit card company's perfect customer. I'm low risk, since I'm never in (net) debt and I always have money lying around in my bank account, but I'm disorganized and so pay their interest and fines.

I'd be the perfect Alcoholics Anonymous mentor if it wasn't for my tendency to invite people to talk about their problems over a nice cold pint.

Your definition of low risk and credit providers defintion don't seem to match. Was that the gist of the answer you didn't want? Or do you want to hear that you're a profitable customer for them and that you make them a lot of money so you're really good?

On the appeals question, last appeal I put in was with Tesco card, appealed and had limit increased to 10k. So yes, it can be worthwhile if you have grounds for an appeal.

Paul_Herring

praxisizer wrote: »

It's not that I'm not getting the answers I want. Instead, you made up the questions that you're giving answers to

You claim in your first post that
1) you should be a perfect credit card company's customer and
2) you miss/make late payments.

These are two contradictory statements, which people are explaining why one does not follow from the other.

Ok, you didn't ask a question directly regarding this state of affairs, but if you don't like being disabused of your wrong opinions, you should perhaps stop making/defending them?

BadgerFace_2

Look at it like this.

Your mate lends you £20 at work, which you say you'll give him back next week. Next week comes and goes, but you don't give him the cash back till much later.

Next time you ask him to lend you some cash, he's going to say NO and waving a statement in his face saying 'look at me I've got the money to pay you back' ain't going to make a rats !!! of difference, you don't stick to your word, you're a poor risk.

praxisizer

Paul_Herring wrote: »

You claim in your first post that
1) you should be a perfect credit card company's customer and
2) you miss/make late payments.

These are two contradictory statements, which people are explaining why one does not follow from the other.

You're simply parroting current procedures. You've made a statement, not given an explanation. They're different things, you know!

praxisizer

BadgerFace wrote: »

Look at it like this.

Your mate lends you £20 at work, which you say you'll give him back next week. Next week comes and goes, but you don't give him the cash back till much later.

Folksy analogies aside, do you have an actual argument to make?

Proof by analogy is fraud.

praxisizer

CannyJock wrote: »

Your definition of low risk and credit providers defintion don't seem to match.

I think that's false, and I don't think that the definition of "risk" is a fruitful area for discussion.

Was that the gist of the answer you didn't want? Or do you want to hear that you're a profitable customer for them and that you make them a lot of money so you're really good?

It's true that I'm a profitable customer for them. If I had a business where I got paid 20 quid or so a throw for mailing automated responses, I'd be richer than I am

As far as I recall, I made a point relating to efficiency, not a point relating to anybody's state of mind, so I guess I'll leave you to yourself to mull over your thoughts about that.

On the appeals question, last appeal I put in was with Tesco card, appealed and had limit increased to 10k. So yes, it can be worthwhile if you have grounds for an appeal.

Interesting -- thanks!

praxisizer

Paul_Herring wrote: »

There is no issue. People who can't pay on time, in general, tend to be unreliable in the view of credit companies, regardless of other circumstances the creditor could provide.

The thinking goes, that if you can prove that you have the money to pay the bills, then you should really be paying those bills. On time.

This is another restatement of current practice, followed by a form of words that would be construed by most people to be reproachful. But the question of whether I should be reproached has no bearing on the question of the efficiency of banking systems. So your statement is rhetoric; it's another way of not presenting any argument about the point that you were responding to.