Jump to content

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


HoustonLynne
 Share

The last post in this topic was posted 3021 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

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. :glare:

 

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:

 

Barclays1_zps849dd3c3.jpg

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:

 

Barclays2_zps2c07d724.jpg

 

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 by HoustonLynne
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :dntknw:

Edited by HoustonLynne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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. :dntknw:

 

 

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 by cv91915
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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. :wave:

We can negotiate an app cease fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :wave:

We can negotiate an app cease fire

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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. :wave:

We can negotiate an app cease fire
Don't be ridiculous, Lucky. :rolleyes: 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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 3021 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      185007
    • Most Online
      2046

    Newest Member
    bobinch
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines