"Too Many INQs" really means "He's Just Not That Into You"

[HoustonLynne]

I see posts every week wherein a CBer laments over their INQs after allegedly being denied credit for having too many HPs. I say "allegedly" because this is almost never the real reason. It's just the "on-the-record" or "official" reason the lender slaps onto the AA (adverse action) Letter to explain the decision -- a decision based entirely upon different info that isn't listed in their drop-down menu of excuses reasons.

 

I think of it like the world of dating. When s/he says, "It's not you...it's me," that's my cue to read between the lines and take a hard look at reality. When a lender says it's about INQs, it's (almost always) a cop-out.

 

Here's my take on the meanings behind a lender using "Too Many INQs" as a denial factor:

1. If few or none resulted in approvals, then my credit file is still too dirty for most lenders...including THIS one. I need to be cleaning, not app-ing.
2. If they're from approvals that haven't yet reported, my profile is decent (or maybe even excellent) and the lender is nervous about my low AAOA. They see it as an indication of escalating exposure risk. I need to be gardening, not app-ing.
3. If they're from new accounts already listed on my profile, they'll tell me to "let those age" and will suggest that I apply again in X months. Plus -- and this is where it gets fun for them -- they'll take great pleasure in tacking on the following reasons:
   • Time Since Most Recent Account Opening Is Too Short
   • Length Of Time Revolving Accounts Have Been Established

Another bogus reason I often see is "Proportion Of Loan Balances To Loan Amounts Is Too High" -- of course my newly refinanced vehicle loan is at nearly 100% utilization. Duh. And those student loans I look forward to paying off in 2097...? Yup. Those, too, are proportionately high, Captain Obvious.

 

So here's what happens when you spend a lot of time and money to B* your INQs and the lender CAN'T slap "excessive HPs" onto the list:

 

NOTE: More than $150K in revolving lines; 2 cards (yes, TWO) reported balances of less than $20

 

And here's how "adversely affected" my credit score was by the factors listed above:

 

 

Still denied, because #3 applies, sans the "Too Many INGs" BS. It only means the list of reasons for "no" is one line shorter.

 

In summary, inquiries are not your problem.

 

 

[For full disclosure, this is the AA notice on a failed attempt to recon the starting limit ($10K) on my most recent Barclays approval.]

Edited August 17, 2014 by HoustonLynne

[Platystemon]

[Allisson0605]

You hit that one right on the nail, it's absolutely true.

[mendelssohn]

This should be a Master Thread. I wonder if the mods would consider editing the title.

[HoustonLynne]

Thanks, guys & gals. When I get a "denial letter" and my score is, for the first time EVER, listed in the 800s...makes me start pondering The Meaning of Life.

[cv91915]

In other words, just because no one wants to date you because you have a horrible personality, that doesn't automatically mean that you don't also smell like rotting garbage.

[mizliz1011]

HL- this is too funny. I recently opened an account with Navy Federal Credit Union. I warned them that there had been a fraud on my account (I applied on line). They contacted EQ (fraud alert) and then contacted two other CRA's- fraud alert as well. the account was opened. I then opened a money market account with them- $25K,no less. Two CRA hard pulls for this one. my intention to open a small credit card with them?///

 

TOO MANY RECENT CREDIT PULLS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>no chocolate. the only other one was Barclays (still waiting on them, btw).

 

When I call NFCU, she said that a secured credit card would result in 1-3 credit inquiries. as we say in NYC... FUGEDDABOTIT. Now to B* diligently. At least i got into NFCU but it has been a trial. When I called SDFCU, they said to add to my secured credit card ($10K) would be another pull...

 

The Peter Principle is in full evidence here, I believe.. Goodness Gracious.

[PrimoCredit]

HL- this is too funny. I recently opened an account with Navy Federal Credit Union. I warned them that there had been a fraud on my account (I applied on line). They contacted EQ (fraud alert) and then contacted two other CRA's- fraud alert as well. the account was opened. I then opened a money market account with them- $25K,no less. Two CRA hard pulls for this one. my intention to open a small credit card with them?///

 

TOO MANY RECENT CREDIT PULLS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>no chocolate. the only other one was Barclays (still waiting on them, btw).

 

When I call NFCU, she said that a secured credit card would result in 1-3 credit inquiries. as we say in NYC... FUGEDDABOTIT. Now to B* diligently. At least i got into NFCU but it has been a trial. When I called SDFCU, they said to add to my secured credit card ($10K) would be another pull...

 

The Peter Principle is in full evidence here, I believe.. Goodness Gracious.

 

I've read that it takes another app to increase the limit of a secured card with SDFCU, but not another pull. They don't pull to open a secured card either, from what I've read. I'll be getting one soon from them, I hope.

[Platystemon]

.... Now to B* diligently. ....

 

[HoustonLynne]

HL- this is too funny. I recently opened an account with Navy Federal Credit Union. I warned them that there had been a fraud on my account (I applied on line). They contacted EQ (fraud alert) and then contacted two other CRA's- fraud alert as well. the account was opened. I then opened a money market account with them- $25K,no less. Two CRA hard pulls for this one. my intention to open a small credit card with them?///

 

TOO MANY RECENT CREDIT PULLS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>no chocolate. the only other one was Barclays (still waiting on them, btw).

 

When I call NFCU, she said that a secured credit card would result in 1-3 credit inquiries. as we say in NYC... FUGEDDABOTIT. Now to B* diligently. At least i got into NFCU but it has been a trial. When I called SDFCU, they said to add to my secured credit card ($10K) would be another pull...

 

The Peter Principle is in full evidence here, I believe.. Goodness Gracious.

Frustrating indeed, Liz...I feel your pain. But I'm hoping you glean the real message here -- any denial reason involving HPs is not about the HPs. That's a lender's excuse.

 

In your case, I know you're working diligently on cleaning your reports while trying to rebuild, and you're in a unique situation with income vs. cash. I just wanted to use your post for illustrative purposes. We tend to zero in on the "too many inquiries" reason and find a fix for that. But the images I posted above are proof that one can -- and WILL -- be denied with a FICO of 802 and zero HPs.

 

So if my "repair" approach were to focus on the INQs, but the lender used INQs as a smoke-n-mirror trick, I would have wasted my time and money. Predictable results: Still denied and scratching my head.

 

I encourage anyone who reads this to look at everything BUT the inquiries when given this denial reason, and to focus efforts there. It will render far better use of "fix-it" resources.

[cv91915]

I disagree with the word "excuse," and you aren't being tricked.

 

It's just an uninformative notice if your intended use for the notice is to isolate and fix the underlying issues for your denial.

[HoustonLynne]

I disagree with the word "excuse," and you aren't being tricked.

 

It's just an uninformative notice if your intended use for the notice is to isolate and fix the underlying issues for your denial.

I can always count on cv to make semantic corrections.

 

And he's definitely correct: it is not an excuse nor are you being tricked. It is merely a vague way of delivering unpalatable news.

 

The "news" is that there's a whole lot of "something else" going on that needs your immediate attention. Any time/money spent on B* would not only be pointless at the moment, but it would delay progress by diverting efforts from the real issue(s) at hand.

 

The "trick" is what our brains to to us when we see this. We humans often look for the easy fix, and this reason added to a list is like a beacon for the frustrated, overwhelmed person in repair mode. No matter how many times and ways the tenured CBers insist that B* is not a repair tool, the message doesn't seem to sink in.

Edited August 17, 2014 by HoustonLynne

[cv91915]

 

I disagree with the word "excuse," and you aren't being tricked.

 

It's just an uninformative notice if your intended use for the notice is to isolate and fix the underlying issues for your denial.

I can always count on cv to make semantic corrections.

 

And he's definitely correct: it is not an excuse nor are you being tricked. It is merely a vague way of delivering unpalatable news.

 

The "news" is that there's a whole lot of "something else" going on that needs your immediate attention. Any time/money spent on B* would not only be pointless at the moment, but it would delay progress by diverting efforts from the real issue(s) at hand.

 

The "trick" is what our brains to to us when we see this. We humans often look for the easy fix, and this reason added to a list is like a beacon for the frustrated, overwhelmed person in repair mode. No matter how many times and ways the tenured CBers insist that B* is not a repair tool, the message doesn't seem to sink in.

 

 

I know that you know... but too many other people personalize this stuff and actually believe that "Creditor X hates me." I don't want to fuel that.

 

The same people would be prone to believing that they are being "tricked," or to draw other anthropomorphic conclusions about how credit card issuers "behave."

 

These are just computers processing your data against approval rules, and then generating a decision, which is then poorly explained.

Edited August 17, 2014 by cv91915

[nysbadmk8]

If amex can look past 22 INQs... it's you not me...

 

 

And gardening... what's this?

 

 

BTW hl... nail, head, you hit it.

Edited August 17, 2014 by nysbadmk8

[HoustonLynne]

I know that you know... but too many other people personalize this stuff and actually believe that "Creditor X hates me." I don't want to fuel that.

 

The same people would be prone to believing that they are being "tricked," or to draw other anthropomorphic conclusions about how credit card issuers "behave."

 

These are just computers processing your data against approval rules, and then generating a decision, which is then poorly explained.

You're right, and it was an important redirection. Thank you.

 

And it bears mentioning that it can go the other way, too. Once I reached a certain benchmark in my journey, I started having far better success in some cases with the computers. The humans used too much "reason" and sixth-sense stuff for me to slide past them. Any UW worth his salt can clearly see that I'm trying to build Rome in a day. Understandably, it makes them a tad on the leery side.

 

Rather than develop a huge resentment and arrive at the conclusion that all credit analysts hate me, my solution was to remove the factors that were preventing automated responses in most cases.

 

Of course, the most rational and sustainable approach would have been for me to follow my own advice mentioned in #2 of OP. Gardening. But that's a whole other thread, so I will try to stay on course here, although nysbadmk8 isn't helping.

[nysbadmk8]

 

I know that you know... but too many other people personalize this stuff and actually believe that "Creditor X hates me." I don't want to fuel that.

 

The same people would be prone to believing that they are being "tricked," or to draw other anthropomorphic conclusions about how credit card issuers "behave."

 

These are just computers processing your data against approval rules, and then generating a decision, which is then poorly explained.

You're right, and it was an important redirection. Thank you.

 

And it bears mentioning that it can go the other way, too. Once I reached a certain benchmark in my journey, I started having far better success in some cases with the computers. The humans used too much "reason" and sixth-sense stuff for me to slide past them. Any UW worth his salt can clearly see that I'm trying to build Rome in a day. Understandably, it makes them a tad on the leery side.

 

Rather than develop a huge resentment and arrive at the conclusion that all credit analysts hate me, my solution was to remove the factors that were preventing automated responses in most cases.

 

Of course, the most rational and sustainable approach would have been for me to follow my own advice mentioned in #2 of OP. Gardening. But that's a whole other thread, so I will try to stay on course here, although nysbadmk8 isn't helping.

We can negotiate an app cease fire

[hegemony]

If amex can look past 22 INQs... it's you not me...

 

 

And gardening... what's this?

 

 

BTW hl... nail, head, you hit it.

 

also, often people conflate too many inquiries with too many new accounts...

[HoustonLynne]

I know that you know... but too many other people personalize this stuff and actually believe that "Creditor X hates me." I don't want to fuel that.

 

The same people would be prone to believing that they are being "tricked," or to draw other anthropomorphic conclusions about how credit card issuers "behave."

 

These are just computers processing your data against approval rules, and then generating a decision, which is then poorly explained.

You're right, and it was an important redirection. Thank you.

 

And it bears mentioning that it can go the other way, too. Once I reached a certain benchmark in my journey, I started having far better success in some cases with the computers. The humans used too much "reason" and sixth-sense stuff for me to slide past them. Any UW worth his salt can clearly see that I'm trying to build Rome in a day. Understandably, it makes them a tad on the leery side.

 

Rather than develop a huge resentment and arrive at the conclusion that all credit analysts hate me, my solution was to remove the factors that were preventing automated responses in most cases.

 

Of course, the most rational and sustainable approach would have been for me to follow my own advice mentioned in #2 of OP. Gardening. But that's a whole other thread, so I will try to stay on course here, although nysbadmk8 isn't helping.

We can negotiate an app cease fire

Don't be ridiculous, Lucky. I meant the topic staying on course and how any addition of the word "gardening" (particularly by you or me) would take it south.

[HoustonLynne]

If amex can look past 22 INQs... it's you not me...

 

 

And gardening... what's this?

 

 

BTW hl... nail, head, you hit it.

also, often people conflate too many inquiries with too many new accounts...

Yep -- and an excellent contribution for hege's Post #68K.

[nysbadmk8]

 

 

 

I know that you know... but too many other people personalize this stuff and actually believe that "Creditor X hates me." I don't want to fuel that.

 

The same people would be prone to believing that they are being "tricked," or to draw other anthropomorphic conclusions about how credit card issuers "behave."

 

These are just computers processing your data against approval rules, and then generating a decision, which is then poorly explained.

You're right, and it was an important redirection. Thank you.

 

And it bears mentioning that it can go the other way, too. Once I reached a certain benchmark in my journey, I started having far better success in some cases with the computers. The humans used too much "reason" and sixth-sense stuff for me to slide past them. Any UW worth his salt can clearly see that I'm trying to build Rome in a day. Understandably, it makes them a tad on the leery side.

 

Rather than develop a huge resentment and arrive at the conclusion that all credit analysts hate me, my solution was to remove the factors that were preventing automated responses in most cases.

 

Of course, the most rational and sustainable approach would have been for me to follow my own advice mentioned in #2 of OP. Gardening. But that's a whole other thread, so I will try to stay on course here, although nysbadmk8 isn't helping.

We can negotiate an app cease fire

Don't be ridiculous, Lucky. I meant the topic staying on course and how any addition of the word "gardening" (particularly by you or me) would take it south.

Wait... you saying we garden bad?

[cashnocredit]

HL,

 

Give up on gardening. That clearly is outside your skill set.

 

Take up your real strength, writing.

[HoustonLynne]

HL,

 

Give up on gardening. That clearly is outside your skill set.

 

Take up your real strength, writing.

My Hero to the rescue with a backhanded compliment! Awww...shucks.

Edited August 17, 2014 by HoustonLynne

[HoustonLynne]

Wait... you saying we garden bad?

On the contrary, we're world-class gardeners.

 

We just ascribe to a somewhat unconventional definition of the word gardening.

[nysbadmk8]

 

Wait... you saying we garden bad?

On the contrary, we're world-class gardeners.

 

We just ascribe to a somewhat unconventional definition of the word gardening.

If ya don't put a seed in the ground ya can't grow $hit

[shifter]

We just ascribe to a somewhat unconventional definition of the word gardening.

It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.