Excellent score but lowest introduction rate

ThisnotThat

Sandtree said:

ThisnotThat said:
They offered you what they were happy with 

It's not your choice to make, it's not your money being lent out.

Fully agree its their decision alone and that I've no right to know their thinking... that doesn't mean I don't remain curious. 

Given you state first hand experience... what is the general thinking of limit -v- promotional period? There appears to be a level of independence/difference of weighting because as mentioned, have had big limit and reduced promotion and small limit but full promotional period. 

My experience is with lending in general, not specifically with credit card lending (in fact I had no experience with credit card lending specifically.)  However, the general principles are the same.

From my own personal experience, there does not appear to be any correlation between limits and promotional periods.  That is to say I've always been offered broadly similar starting limits regardless of whether there was a promotional rate or not.  I suspect they are calculated separately and there is no wiggle room to up the limit and reduce the promotional period or vice versa as the OP seems to want.

born_again

theroninhunter said:

Feels like a con, shouldn't their target criteria be public knowledge otherwise how can they be measured accordingly? 

Guessing similar to how they offer the typical lower APR to 51% of applicants but the other 49% get higher APR

Income to debt exposure.

As well as each lender has their own lending criteria/risk exposure to which your credit score means nothing to them. Which is all based on internal scoring.

callum9999

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

Maybe maybe not, nothing to lose by asking.

I asked on here because as a consumer it feels wrong but clearly its just my view. 

Not maybe not, absolutely not.  You do have something to lose by asking, your time. Although perhaps if you don't value that then maybe you don't.

It's not wrong.  They don't want people gaming the system by handing them a cheet sheet to acceptance. If you can't see why that's an entirely sensible thing to do I don't know what to say.

Then perhaps say nothing more, I see both points of the arguments.

People should be given a rough area of their report to improve for either rejected applications or accepted applications with different outcomes like lower months of introduction period. 

Feel free to close this thread , no point allowing comments anymore. 

Err, no they shouldn't.

Almost none of what is on your application can easily be changed.  Yes, you could earn more money but it's not just a case of going out and earning more money.  You could become a homeowner but you're not suddenly going to go out and buy a house because it'll make you a safer bet to lenders.  You can't just get rid of dependents for example.

What you can do, however, is lie about any of the above in order to increase your chances, and telling people why they were rejected is only going to encourage more of that.

Of course you can change your credit report (completely legitimately...).

If they think your average account age is too short you can stop opening new ones/closing old ones.
If they think your overall limit is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too low you can increase it.
If they don't like you having dormant/near-dormant accounts, you can close them.
If they don't like the number of accounts you have you can reduce them.
Plus many more.

I completely agree with your point about them not wanting to give exact reasons to avoid gaming, but claiming you wouldn't be able to do anything with that information without lying and committing fraud is absurd. 

ThisnotThat

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

Maybe maybe not, nothing to lose by asking.

I asked on here because as a consumer it feels wrong but clearly its just my view. 

Not maybe not, absolutely not.  You do have something to lose by asking, your time. Although perhaps if you don't value that then maybe you don't.

It's not wrong.  They don't want people gaming the system by handing them a cheet sheet to acceptance. If you can't see why that's an entirely sensible thing to do I don't know what to say.

Then perhaps say nothing more, I see both points of the arguments.

People should be given a rough area of their report to improve for either rejected applications or accepted applications with different outcomes like lower months of introduction period. 

Feel free to close this thread , no point allowing comments anymore. 

Err, no they shouldn't.

Almost none of what is on your application can easily be changed.  Yes, you could earn more money but it's not just a case of going out and earning more money.  You could become a homeowner but you're not suddenly going to go out and buy a house because it'll make you a safer bet to lenders.  You can't just get rid of dependents for example.

What you can do, however, is lie about any of the above in order to increase your chances, and telling people why they were rejected is only going to encourage more of that.

Of course you can change your credit report (completely legitimately...).

If they think your average account age is too short you can stop opening new ones/closing old ones.
If they think your overall limit is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too low you can increase it.
If they don't like you having dormant/near-dormant accounts, you can close them.
If they don't like the number of accounts you have you can reduce them.
Plus many more.

I completely agree with your point about them not wanting to give exact reasons to avoid gaming, but claiming you wouldn't be able to do anything with that information without lying and committing fraud is absurd. 

I said application, not credit report.  Do keep up.

callum9999

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

Maybe maybe not, nothing to lose by asking.

I asked on here because as a consumer it feels wrong but clearly its just my view. 

Not maybe not, absolutely not.  You do have something to lose by asking, your time. Although perhaps if you don't value that then maybe you don't.

It's not wrong.  They don't want people gaming the system by handing them a cheet sheet to acceptance. If you can't see why that's an entirely sensible thing to do I don't know what to say.

Then perhaps say nothing more, I see both points of the arguments.

People should be given a rough area of their report to improve for either rejected applications or accepted applications with different outcomes like lower months of introduction period. 

Feel free to close this thread , no point allowing comments anymore. 

Err, no they shouldn't.

Almost none of what is on your application can easily be changed.  Yes, you could earn more money but it's not just a case of going out and earning more money.  You could become a homeowner but you're not suddenly going to go out and buy a house because it'll make you a safer bet to lenders.  You can't just get rid of dependents for example.

What you can do, however, is lie about any of the above in order to increase your chances, and telling people why they were rejected is only going to encourage more of that.

Of course you can change your credit report (completely legitimately...).

If they think your average account age is too short you can stop opening new ones/closing old ones.
If they think your overall limit is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too low you can increase it.
If they don't like you having dormant/near-dormant accounts, you can close them.
If they don't like the number of accounts you have you can reduce them.
Plus many more.

I completely agree with your point about them not wanting to give exact reasons to avoid gaming, but claiming you wouldn't be able to do anything with that information without lying and committing fraud is absurd. 

I said application, not credit report.  Do keep up.

Well no, you said "what difference does it make as to why you were rejected? ... What would knowing that achieve? Either you'd get no benefit from knowing as you'd continue to tell the truth on your applications or you'd decide to start lying to up your chance."

Perhaps you misspoke and it's not what you meant, but the snark was clearly unnecessary - how else am I meant to interpret that?

phillw

Sandtree said:

so card issuers have to confirm the APRs being given in comparison to the stated APR to ensure they are meeting the requirement that at least 50% of successful applicants get the advertised rate or better.

Which probably means that if you apply when they are sweating that they haven't wanted to give the stated APR to at least 50% of applicants so far, then you're more likely to at least get the advertised rate.

phillw

callum9999 said:
Well no, you said "what difference does it make as to why you were rejected? ... What would knowing that achieve? Either you'd get no benefit from knowing as you'd continue to tell the truth on your applications or you'd decide to start lying to up your chance."

Perhaps you misspoke and it's not what you meant, but the snark was clearly unnecessary - how else am I meant to interpret that?

Average account age isn't something you can quickly change, by the time you've changed it then their rules may have changed.

All the other examples are gaming the system and I would consider deceptive as you're only doing them to obtain credit, while the whole point of what they are trying to do is figure out your actions when not trying to obtain credit.

If I were a lender then someone asking me what my criteria were, would be a huge red flag which I would keep on file & refer to during any future applications

callum9999

phillw said:

callum9999 said:
Well no, you said "what difference does it make as to why you were rejected? ... What would knowing that achieve? Either you'd get no benefit from knowing as you'd continue to tell the truth on your applications or you'd decide to start lying to up your chance."

Perhaps you misspoke and it's not what you meant, but the snark was clearly unnecessary - how else am I meant to interpret that?

Average account age isn't something you can quickly change, by the time you've changed it then their rules may have changed.

All the other examples are gaming the system and I would consider deceptive as you're only doing them to obtain credit, while the whole point of what they are trying to do is figure out your actions when not trying to obtain credit.

If I were a lender then someone asking me what my criteria were, would be a huge red flag which I would keep on file & refer to during any future applications

It doesn't necessarily need to be a "quick fix". I've previously waited years until my report was good enough for my chosen card before. That was by just making generic improvements, but "do X, Y, Z and you're in" absolutely would have been useful information.

That's even more absurd than the other claim. Trying to improve your credit report is not "gaming the system". 

Good job you aren't a lender then - utterly ridiculous. For clarity, not disclosing the information is perfectly rational, but blacklisting someone for expressing an interest in improving their credit management to suit your requirements is not.

phillw

callum9999 said:
That was by just making generic improvements, but "do X, Y, Z and you're in" absolutely would have been useful information.

And nobody for obvious reasons would allow you to game the system like that.

They have a set of "tells" that indicate whether you are a good or bad risk, if you know what they are then you can avoid them.

It's like asking someone how they tell if you're lying, if they say "I just look for people breaking eye contact as I believe that is the best way" then they need to look for another "tell" as you can focus on maintaining eye contact as you lie to them (it's actually not a sign of lying either, but people think it is and that is what counts).

There are very few ways of improving your attractiveness to a lender, so do them all, rather than looking to only focus on the specific one they are checking on that day. If people know they don't bother checking a particular thing, it's not necessarily because they don't care about it but may be because they think problems will usually show up elsewhere.

Similar issues would happen here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-33788264

Leicestershire police 'ignore' attempted burglaries at odd-numbered houses

It's not because they think it's ok to try to break into even numbered houses, but that the chances are that someone, who doesn't know the rule, will be trying to break into odd and even numbered houses. If you know the rule then you have an upper hand.

ThisnotThat

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

Maybe maybe not, nothing to lose by asking.

I asked on here because as a consumer it feels wrong but clearly its just my view. 

Not maybe not, absolutely not.  You do have something to lose by asking, your time. Although perhaps if you don't value that then maybe you don't.

It's not wrong.  They don't want people gaming the system by handing them a cheet sheet to acceptance. If you can't see why that's an entirely sensible thing to do I don't know what to say.

Then perhaps say nothing more, I see both points of the arguments.

People should be given a rough area of their report to improve for either rejected applications or accepted applications with different outcomes like lower months of introduction period. 

Feel free to close this thread , no point allowing comments anymore. 

Err, no they shouldn't.

Almost none of what is on your application can easily be changed.  Yes, you could earn more money but it's not just a case of going out and earning more money.  You could become a homeowner but you're not suddenly going to go out and buy a house because it'll make you a safer bet to lenders.  You can't just get rid of dependents for example.

What you can do, however, is lie about any of the above in order to increase your chances, and telling people why they were rejected is only going to encourage more of that.

Of course you can change your credit report (completely legitimately...).

If they think your average account age is too short you can stop opening new ones/closing old ones.
If they think your overall limit is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too low you can increase it.
If they don't like you having dormant/near-dormant accounts, you can close them.
If they don't like the number of accounts you have you can reduce them.
Plus many more.

I completely agree with your point about them not wanting to give exact reasons to avoid gaming, but claiming you wouldn't be able to do anything with that information without lying and committing fraud is absurd. 

I said application, not credit report.  Do keep up.

Well no, you said "what difference does it make as to why you were rejected? ... What would knowing that achieve? Either you'd get no benefit from knowing as you'd continue to tell the truth on your applications or you'd decide to start lying to up your chance."

Perhaps you misspoke and it's not what you meant, but the snark was clearly unnecessary - how else am I meant to interpret that?

And I stand by my statement.  What good would it achieve?

I'll bite and talk about credit files.

You can't change what's on your credit file easily.  Unless it's incorrect it isn't going to be changed and it'll be there for 6 years.  Yes, you can change what goes onto it, to an extent, but it'll take a while for any changes to have a meaningful impact.  At that point, the lender's criteria will almost certainly have changed and you're back to square one.

Similarly, knowing the reason for rejection (or less favourable terms) won't help you with other lenders, who will almost certainly have different weightings to elements of your credit files.

And lastly, I can absolutely guarantee that telling people why they were rejected will be a very efficient way of tying up your customer service reps time with people who absolutely will not agree with it, and will argue with you until the cows come home.  Been there, got the t-shirt.

So all in all, there is virtually no value, other than satisfying a curiosity, to a consumer knowing why they were knocked back. There are quite significant disadvantages to the bank in telling them why.  And that is why they don't, and won't.