mrancier

Can I get a PM Please ?

I'm in VA, no problem at all. Thanks MRancier! Was your refinance an instant approval?? I'm just nervous..haven't applied for credit in ages but need to do the auto loan since my transmission is almost down the gutter and it's too expensive to replace. It was instant over the phone. They just needed the VINs and the features of the car to determine the value. They also give you a pre-approval amount and ask you how much you want to use.

I'm in VA, no problem at all. Cool, do they mail you a check or something? They sent checks to me and I could sign them and mail them to the current lender. (Checks were made to me AND the lender)

I'm in VA, no problem at all.

I joined PSECU in December and got the 20K combo. In early January I refinanced both of my cars with them : EX pull (of course), don't know my score at the time, but the their free EX fico ,after the fact, was 662. Super easy, and fast. Both my vehicles are now at 3.99%. Joy. I am paying for both less than what I used pay for one.

I kept trying to get the Discover card and was approved for 3 Walmart store cards. I turned one down and had 2 different store cards. Not sure if this answers your question.

I've had this problem for months. I can only pull it during choppage. I actually love this. Free stealth EQ security freeze. It has come in handy many times as, when someone pulls, they just get no data, no score, and, consequently, no inq , and some actually move on to the next bureau (TU in most cases). I discovered this when I applied for BB in store. They had to call in and, when I checked later, I saw a TU pull.

I am not sure if they would cancel the card, but I am able to apply for it and I am non-MIL. If you log into the site and go to the credit card section, you will not be able to apply for anything other than the MasterCard. However, if, BEFORE logging in, you navigate to the credit card section, select the AMEX, click on the Apply now button (selecting which version of the card you want), and then log in when prompted, you will be able to complete the application process. I was denied a while back, but based on my credit report, not because my membership is gimped. You are welcome to try it.

If you weren't instantly denied, you can call the customer service for the card you applied for and tell the agent you're a calling to complete the application process. If they ask why, tell them either the website told you to or that the people at the store you applied at told you to and gave you the number. This happens a lot with GEMB and ID verification. If, on the other hand, you were instantly denied, don't bother calling. They will just tell you that you will get a letter and to re-apply in 30 days.

My actual TU FICO (per myfico.com) is 675. This is good for a quick morale boost, but not much else. Wish it were true.

I agree, and what I am going to say is going to be unpopular here BUT if I was running a bank (obviously I am NOT). I would have a set limit for CC limits total. I don't know what they would be but for example if you make $100k I would only allow total credit lines of say $50k and if you already had total credit lines of that at my Bank or any other bank you would be denied. I know Available doesn't equal debt but total available does equal potential debt to a bank and if its more than you can reasonably payback that also equals potential losses. Then you are saying not one single day late in 30+ years means nothing So we are going to go only by INCOME So somebody who has 10 late payments and a couple of collections gets approved because they make $100,000 and only have $10,000 in credit limits...but I have been way over H/H INCOME for decades...SO I AM DENIED That's a very good point. I often see folks that get approved with COs, CAs, PRs. I try to apply and get denied with a clean report and numerous positive TLs. This sort of mentality is the opposite of what we are lead to believe by FICO and the others. You are NOT rewarded for managing your debt well. Apparently someone with a lot of available credit is a higher risk than someone with Collections, or BKs. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone deserves a second, third or fourth chance. I've had my share of those. I just wish we could really understand what the risk algorithms are taking into account. some things just don't make sense. Also, if we were only allowed to have as much credit as we could pay, their would be no need for credit cards. We would only have charge cards that would only allow us to purchase up to a fraction of our disposable income. To some this may sound like a great idea. To others it would be a nightmare. No Payment history would also play a part. Many people aren't late yet but are walking a tight rope, one thing goes wrong and they fall behind. So Paying on time doesn't tell the full story either. I am currently one of those people and I am working on mending my ways and will be out of debt besides car and house in the next few months. Then I plan on focusing on saving more so I do have more of a rainy day fund. Sorry OP, That does suck loosing that much in CLs. This is a valid point, however, aren't CAs, COs, PRs, signs of a poor payment history (regardless of the circumstances) ? Are you saying that a lender will assume that one will default even if one never has, but, on the other hand, a person with major derogatory items on their credit report, past or present, has a much lower probability of default, even though they have in fact defaulted already ? Underwriting goes by the Devil you know... mantra ? I know absolutely nothing about risk management or underwriting, but this does not seem plausible. Everyone is walking a tight rope with payments. You could lose everything tomorrow. You could get sued by a neighbor that tripped on your walkway and lose everything you have.

I agree, and what I am going to say is going to be unpopular here BUT if I was running a bank (obviously I am NOT). I would have a set limit for CC limits total. I don't know what they would be but for example if you make $100k I would only allow total credit lines of say $50k and if you already had total credit lines of that at my Bank or any other bank you would be denied. I know Available doesn't equal debt but total available does equal potential debt to a bank and if its more than you can reasonably payback that also equals potential losses. Banks were lending the money to the subprime because they were greedy. People couldn't pay their bills and bank lost a lot of money during the recession. So they ratejacked good customer or carried balances to make up their loss. We're paying their loss now. Ron. They also made quite a bit of money in the process. Their biggest loses were not in the sub-prime consumer lending segment. Even in the battered mortgage market the biggest loses came from the prime segment, Credit default swaps, etc. Credit cards have remained a very profitable business, specially the sub-prime ones. Even the banks that have admittedly under-performing consumer credit portfolios are not letting them go (not completely, anyway). BOA, HSBC, capital one, etc. They complain, but they don't give 'em up.

I agree, and what I am going to say is going to be unpopular here BUT if I was running a bank (obviously I am NOT). I would have a set limit for CC limits total. I don't know what they would be but for example if you make $100k I would only allow total credit lines of say $50k and if you already had total credit lines of that at my Bank or any other bank you would be denied. I know Available doesn't equal debt but total available does equal potential debt to a bank and if its more than you can reasonably payback that also equals potential losses. Then you are saying not one single day late in 30+ years means nothing So we are going to go only by INCOME So somebody who has 10 late payments and a couple of collections gets approved because they make $100,000 and only have $10,000 in credit limits...but I have been way over H/H INCOME for decades...SO I AM DENIED That's a very good point. I often see folks that get approved with COs, CAs, PRs. I try to apply and get denied with a clean report and numerous positive TLs. This sort of mentality is the opposite of what we are lead to believe by FICO and the others. You are NOT rewarded for managing your debt well. Apparently someone with a lot of available credit is a higher risk than someone with Collections, or BKs. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone deserves a second, third or fourth chance. I've had my share of those. I just wish we could really understand what the risk algorithms are taking into account. some things just don't make sense. Also, if we were only allowed to have as much credit as we could pay, their would be no need for credit cards. We would only have charge cards that would only allow us to purchase up to a fraction of our disposable income. To some this may sound like a great idea. To others it would be a nightmare.

BUT I DID NOTHING WRONG IN 30+ YEARS George, They usually say it's economy, enough available credit or adjust to CL for past usage. Ron. Don't get me wrong, I think it sucks what the banks are doing BUT changes needed to be made. And if there was anybody that did not see this day coming, well you need to get your head out of the sand. I know. Banks don't care about their customers. All they cared is their profit and their main goal is to make shareholder happy. The CLD, ratejacking, account closure is all about profit for the company and shareholders. They don't care about losing customer. They're going to be fine without us. If they lose too much money, government will bail them out. Ron. BUT WHERE IS THE FINE LINE THAT ALL THE CLD/TOTAL CLOSURE/APR JACKAGE SCARED AWAY ONE TOO MANY CUSTOMERS Does it really ? It scares away those that had no use for credit to begin with. Those that can afford to just close it and forget it. Those that are the minority. Most of us here, will probably be hurt, upset, but will ultimately either get another credit line, or play the lenders game and pay down your debt, beg to have your line reinstated, etc. It seems a lot of people eventually go right back to the companies that wrong them. Didn't the OP get his accounts closed at one point and then applied again, only to get the new lines closed again ?

2.2 billion is not a "minor loss" The loses they speak off are related to not being able to racketeer their customers with fees (an organized illegal activity, such as bootlegging or the extortion of money from legitimate business people by threat or violence. Dishonest scheme, trick, business, activity, etc.). These are not "real" loses, as much are they will no longer be gains. They aren't losing anything, they just aren't getting all the extras. This is essentially punishment for daring to regulate their extortion. And with a portfolio of over 200 Billion, a "loss" of less than a billion is really not bad. Look at their stock. At the end of the year if they have 2.2 billion less in thier pocket it's a loss. Spin it any way you want, it's a loss. I understand what you're saying. On paper things look pretty grim. And someone has to pay the price for it. The Wall street mentality has made the "Loss" concept (What you could have made, but didn't) popular. It's like saying that you were going to sell your car this year for 2K, so your revenue will be 2K higher, but at the end of the year you don't sell it, and then say you lost 2K, but in reality you lost nothing. There is no spin, that seems to be the way it works. I am sorry for the silly analogy, and I hope I am not coming of as confrontational. I'm just tired of the excuses, and I don't feel banks need to be seen as "justified" for any of their moves. They are doing business and they care nothing about any of us. Even with these so called loses, they will get gigantic bonuses at the end of their fiscal year. So evidently, they made money. Not confrontational at all, good discussion. Actually I think looking at it on paper shows it’s not as bad as someone saying 2.2 billion in losses. Again against 163 billion, it's very small but this is their ay of weeding out who they consider "high risk / sub prime" customers. They use the 2.2 billion loss as their excuse We are in agreement. Thank you. I also agree that changes had to be made. There were and are a lot of irresponsible lenders out their, and this changes will help fend off a lot of bad practices (will probably create new ones, though) . It will hurt for a while, until they feel they aren't going to get anything to change by oppressing the consumer, and go back to business.