cai24

Having worked in the credit card industry, I would never recommend applying by telephone. There is no advantage, and as a previous poster mentioned, there is the possibility of an input error (spelling, address, etc). That can prevent an instant approval and cause unnecessary delays.

That doesn't surprise me. When the soft isn't coded for account review, they cannot pull through the freeze.

I was not referring to Amex specifically. I was talking about issuers in general. The A/R coded inquiries will pull with no trouble. On the operations side, there can be issues depending on how the soft is coded.

Usually, yes they can pull through it. I have seen exceptions though, mainly due to how the inquiry is coded.

Lol. These days, with free FICOs everywhere (brilliant marketing move by FICO to make their scores available for free by creditors that use the scores for tracking AR purposes and multiple sources of paid FICOs from all three CRAs) the days of FAKOs are numbered. Now, if creditors would be more transparent about their particular cutoffs and how they tweak FICOs for initial account approvals their scores would be more useful. Not holding my breath. As for the OP, I would expect very strong FICO recovery, probably to around 770 or so after Oct. when the one baddie drops off. Should be over 800 if he gets the Util below 5% or so though, at that level, it doesn't matter very much. Where I have worked, I've never seen FICO scores used as a major factor in account approval. In my experience, they are primarily used for account pricing. I know that contradicts common belief on this board. I worked for one issuer that didn't even have a score floor (at least not on the automated underwriting side). This was a "prime" lender, and based on anecdotes on this forum, you would think that they were a lot more stringent. FICO scores are the only practical shorthand way to convey to each other on this board where our credit stands, which is largely why you see scores so heavily emphasized in the discussion. The alternative on the other end of the spectrum would be: "Hey, I've attached complete copies of all three of my credit reports, plus my tax returns for the past four years, and statements detailing my entire eleven-year banking history with Chase. Please study this, compare the documentation to everyone else's you've seen in your lifetime, and then tell me if you think I can get a Slate. I really want to do a BT from my Lowe's card. I got a little carried away buying particle board last month." I agree with you. I'm just commenting that, in my experience, the perceived value from a lender's standpoint is exaggerated.

Lol. These days, with free FICOs everywhere (brilliant marketing move by FICO to make their scores available for free by creditors that use the scores for tracking AR purposes and multiple sources of paid FICOs from all three CRAs) the days of FAKOs are numbered. Now, if creditors would be more transparent about their particular cutoffs and how they tweak FICOs for initial account approvals their scores would be more useful. Not holding my breath. As for the OP, I would expect very strong FICO recovery, probably to around 770 or so after Oct. when the one baddie drops off. Should be over 800 if he gets the Util below 5% or so though, at that level, it doesn't matter very much. Where I have worked, I've never seen FICO scores used as a major factor in account approval. In my experience, they are primarily used for account pricing. I know that contradicts common belief on this board. I worked for one issuer that didn't even have a score floor (at least not on the automated underwriting side). This was a "prime" lender, and based on anecdotes on this forum, you would think that they were a lot more stringent. Is this the same for both automated approval and human approval? In my experience, yes. The score itself is of minimal importance. You're not going to be approved/declined based on that factor alone. The underlying credit criteria is what drives the decision. It's not the 620 that's getting you declined; it's the charge offs, late payments, etc. You can indirectly set score thresholds by adjusting the rigidity of your approval criteria.

Lol. These days, with free FICOs everywhere (brilliant marketing move by FICO to make their scores available for free by creditors that use the scores for tracking AR purposes and multiple sources of paid FICOs from all three CRAs) the days of FAKOs are numbered. Now, if creditors would be more transparent about their particular cutoffs and how they tweak FICOs for initial account approvals their scores would be more useful. Not holding my breath. As for the OP, I would expect very strong FICO recovery, probably to around 770 or so after Oct. when the one baddie drops off. Should be over 800 if he gets the Util below 5% or so though, at that level, it doesn't matter very much. Where I have worked, I've never seen FICO scores used as a major factor in account approval. In my experience, they are primarily used for account pricing. I know that contradicts common belief on this board. I worked for one issuer that didn't even have a score floor (at least not on the automated underwriting side). This was a "prime" lender, and based on anecdotes on this forum, you would think that they were a lot more stringent.

I have noticed a big difference with CLIs with my TU08 FICO going from 716 to 756. As I mentioned earlier, Chase was generous with me and had no problem approving me with what I considered very generous limits with an EX08 of 660. With the CSP, the UW even told me that his decision was based in what he saw on my reports, not my score. FICOs definitely matter for mortgages. I don't see how that can be denied. They matter, although probably to a lesser extent, with auto loans as well. I think that that the difference you've seen with your CLIs has more to do with your improved credit quality, rather than the actual score increase. The bump in FICO is simply a reflection of that improvement. Either way, FICO is at the very least an indicator of that. Would you agree? Yes, absolutely. All that I'm saying is that banks are typically taking action based on the credit changes (not the increase in score). The FICO increase reflects these improvements, but it's not the driving force behind the CLI. It's your credit profile that's qualifying you for additional credit, not the score itself.

I have noticed a big difference with CLIs with my TU08 FICO going from 716 to 756. As I mentioned earlier, Chase was generous with me and had no problem approving me with what I considered very generous limits with an EX08 of 660. With the CSP, the UW even told me that his decision was based in what he saw on my reports, not my score. FICOs definitely matter for mortgages. I don't see how that can be denied. They matter, although probably to a lesser extent, with auto loans as well. I think that that the difference you've seen with your CLIs has more to do with your improved credit quality, rather than the actual score increase. The bump in FICO is simply a reflection of that improvement.

The perceived use of FICO scoring in credit card lending is exaggerated, especially on this forum. I see so many posts where people believe their score is the determining factor for approval. I've worked in the credit card industry, and I haven't seen an overwhelming reliance on FICO scores. With most large banks, you are being approved/declined based on set credit criteria. One of the "prime" banks where I worked didn't even have a credit floor. Theoretically, someone could have been approved with a 540. This would have been unlikely, but it was entirely possible (ie. lower tier product aimed at someone with a recently discharged bankruptcy, someone with numerous medical collections, etc). A higher score is typically indicative of a cleaner profile, so it certainly makes sense to manage it carefully. Nevertheless, banks rely on their own analytics. The underwriting is far more sophisticated than simply utilizing credit score ranges. From what I've seen, 10,000 customers with a 750 FICO are not viewed as having the same credit/risk attributes. FICO scores are merely a tool and have limitations like any other product. One of the more prominent areas where I've seen scoring used is in the risk review process. It's an easy way to detect credit deterioration (750 FICO at approval, 640 now), but again, it's not the only factor. I think much of the emphasis on FICO scores has been the result of strong marketing.

cai24, Looking at if from the POV of a data scientist: With payment and balance historical info data analytics can instantly : 1. Discriminate between revolvers and transactors. 2. Identify people that are paying only minimum or near minimum payments. 3. Determine the interest rate people are paying on accounts they revolve on. 4. Accurately determine the total debt load over time and whether it is trending up. 5. Make accurate predictions on the expected profit and risk of extending specific credit terms. 6. Earlier detection of potential financial stress, likely by several months. Without payment information none of this can be determined with any degree of accuracy for any given individual. This can be easily completely automated and the results presented to an underwriter or accept/decline and CL decisioning. For the institutional credit rating agencies this data is enormously valuable for rating portfolios and detecting macro trends. That said, change in financial institutions is slow and rapid change has to be justified by offering significant profit increase or risk reduction. There are training issues and rollout problems in addition to the usual implementation requirements where security and accuracy rule. However, the case for using this information is compelling. You make excellent points, but as you mentioned, implementation is always more complicated than it appears. There are many limitations that are not apparent from a cursory glance. Strategy changes carry potential risks. Historical balance detail and payment amounts are still relatively new data. Using this information for future underwriting would require significant analysis. This is not an overnight process. From an outside perspective, not using this data seems foolish. However, it's not that simple. I'll try to clarify by using one of the lines written in your post: "Without payment information none of this can be determined with any degree of accuracy for any given individual." While the factors that you listed are insightful, they may or may not be predictive of risk in the portfolio. Lenders are looking for patterns, and how those patterns correlate to risk. As you indicated, It would be helpful to see the trend of a borrower's revolving debt. More importantly, though, what is the significance of this event? What is the rate or interval where this trend correlates to increased loss/profit? If you can't demonstrate a relationship based on this trend, then it's not a viable factor. Finding a predictive pattern that is relevant to the lender's risk profile is what I foresee as the major challenge. Having historical balance/payment information available is convenient, but it is far more valuable if it can be used to show statistical significance.

Thanks much for this info. You seem to say that even now, underwriters who actually care about your historical payment information can only see the last month's data?? What could they possibly conclude from such a small sample of your payment history? They can't conclude very much! That's why, at this point, it's not widely used. At one of my employers, payment history was only available on one bureau. If that wasn't the bureau that was pulled, you would have had to obtain an additional report. From a practical standpoint, there are certain times when the information is more valuable. One example is someone who has a thin file (maybe one or two revolving lines that show high utilization). If you can see that they are paid in full, it helps to give you a better perspective. For someone with 2% utilization and 10 open revolving trades, it becomes less important.

Where I've worked in the credit card industry, I haven't seen historical payment information be widely used. It is helpful from a judgmental standpoint (manual underwriting), but it's merely an enhancement. I think there are still very few lenders who consider it a key factor in credit line assignment. It appears that standard reports are commonplace (likely due to cost), so the historical payment information will be limited (1 month typically, if it is available at all). The comprehensive reports are cumbersome, and I don't foresee them having widespread appeal just yet. It will happen eventually, because payment history has value. I'd prefer it more for risk purposes, but it would be beneficial for new applications too.

At the places where I've worked (in the credit card industry), we can see the same information on a soft/hard pull. The reports are identical. There have been times where I've accidentally pulled the wrong type. I understand that the subscriber has discretion over the content, but I've not experienced any variation between the two reports.

I forgot to mention a suggestion in my previous post. Apply for the new card. If you are not happy with the limit, you can call the backdoor number. As long as the account has been opened within the last 30 days, they can generally review for a CLI with a soft pull. You can then reallocate your limit from the new card to the old card.