Credit Card Churning May Get More Difficult.

[Renato1]

It's 'of course' because of the type of credit that is issued.

You can have 10million in the bank but it makes little difference in a credit card assessment, as the financial institution has no security over that asset.

As I said, if you want your wealth to be included in an assessment, apply for secured finance.

Why with $10,000,000 in the bank would ANYBODY get finance secured credit for $10,000 using the $10,000,000 as security?

You don't address the question of which individual would be more likely to repay the money.

And it's not like credit card applications don't ask how much wealth one has.
Regards,
Renato

 

[theblank]

Well, I learnt something new today!! Didn't realise some corporate cards require a personal credit check! I probably should've said that the two or three I've had don't require any credit checks and there isn't any liability with the employee. With my current employer, we're pushed to use our corporate card which means I miss out on points

If there is a credit check, it means the employee had to sign permission for a credit check.
If the employee is liable then its a credit facility in the employees name, and therefore have to fill out a credit application.

Neither of the above exist for corporate credit cards. If they did, then they are not 'corporate credit cards"

I dont think you have learnt something new at all.

 

[mviy]

28Degrees was added to Credit Savvy today for me. Looks like they are progressively reporting the information for this card for all customers.

 

[rock86]

Why with $10,000,000 in the bank would ANYBODY get finance secured credit for $10,000 using the $10,000,000 as security?

Urgh, you're completely missing the point.

You don't address the question of which individual would be more likely to repay the money.

I actually have through my explanation, but I'll make it simpler - the person earning the much higher income with no savings is more likely to be a safer option for a bank when issuing unsecured finance.

And it's not like credit card applications don't ask how much wealth one has.
Regards,
Renato

Yet it has very little bearing because of the type of finance being issued.

 

[AviationNZ]

Are you sure you're not liable if the employer falls over, have look at the Ts and Cs you would have agreed to at the time. I'm based in NZ and with the last few I looked at, the employee was the fall back. More than a couple got caught out by this after the Great NZ recession of the late 1980s and the clause was still there recently (but haven't heard of it being used recently FWIW).

I've checked the T&C's and there definitely isn't anything regarding liability for me personally. It's a rather large corporate I work for, so not sure if they're more inclined to exclude the employees from any liability.

I know that at least a couple of my colleagues have had a credit check from Amex for their card. We are allowed to accrue points on a company charge card but we have to pay the $79 rewards fee. I haven't bothered getting one yet. But that may change.

Unfortunately we're with Visa so there isn't the chance to pay a reward fee

If there is a credit check, it means the employee had to sign permission for a credit check.
If the employee is liable then its a credit facility in the employees name, and therefore have to fill out a credit application.

Neither of the above exist for corporate credit cards. If they did, then they are not 'corporate credit cards"

I dont think you have learnt something new at all.

Yeah, that was my thought all along and am sure it's the case for me. Phew.....

 

[cambriamarsh]

I've checked the T&C's and there definitely isn't anything regarding liability for me personally. It's a rather large corporate I work for, so not sure if they're more inclined to exclude the employees from any liability.

That's useful, can you tell me which bank it is?

 

[cambriamarsh]

That's useful, can you tell me which bank it is?

Another data point, this is from ANZ NZ's Ts and Cs

Principal refers to the person signing to authorise the additional cardholder.

 

[Renato1]

I actually have through my explanation, but I'll make it simpler - the person earning the much higher income with no savings is more likely to be a safer option for a bank when issuing unsecured finance.
.

Actually you haven't. You don't address the examples I provided, and rely instead on unsupported assertion.
Regards,
Renato

 

[ragingsheep]

There are different kinds of liability schemes in operation for corporate cards - and certain issuers may only offer a single liability scheme.

Amex and Diners will offer all 3 (personal, corporate, joint and several) where some of the majors may only offer one kind (corporate). It's up to the employer to decide what corporate card they will offer and their choice of issuer will be, in part, based on what liability arrangements that issuer offers.

 

[AviationNZ]

That's useful, can you tell me which bank it is?

It's an NZ business (although I'm in Australia) and the bank is BNZ

 

[rock86]

Actually you haven't. You don't address the examples I provided, and rely instead on unsupported assertion.
Regards,
Renato

Yeah, ok.

It just seems you're not getting the whole concept of different types of finance, which in turn require different types of lending assessments.

 

[Renato1]

Yeah, ok.

It just seems you're not getting the whole concept of different types of finance, which in turn require different types of lending assessments.

I get the concept, but it's irrelevant in the case of credit cards.where minuscule amounts of money are made available for the purpose of convenience, rather than any long term borrowing.
Regards,
Renato

 

[cove]

To get his Bank Of America credit card started in the US without a Social Security Number my family member covered his limit with a deposit of funds. This deposit has now been released so his journey into US credit cards has started. He figured that if we both dropped off the perch he would need a US bank to pay the household bills in the US.

 

[theblank]

This is where I'd disagree, we already have account switching regulation (admittedly it doesn't work well), in my view the problem is in the execution side rather than the governments ability or willingness to legislate.

the underyling technology for account switching has been in place for 30 years , probably longer and the exchanges systems for bank accounts is owned by the banks (or was, maybe privatised now). Cards systems are owned the Card schemes and is a completely different thing,, what you would be asking for is a system built from ground up and its unlikely any of them will care enough to do it.

Once comprehensive credit reporting comes completely into force, issuers will be able to see what accounts you still have open and will be able to base their information on that, rather than having to ask you.

No chance - applicants will always have to declare their financial position and sign off on it. All the comprehensive credit reporting will do is provide more information that the bank can check on, such as an undeclaried credit card limit. To which the applicant can just advise "I just cancelled it, or I am about too"

It makes no practical sense to enforce that an applicant cancels the credit card limit that he wants to transfer to a new provider, before he applies. Nobody will do this if the cancellation is irreversible. Then if it is reversible, then it was not really cancelled. Back to square 1.

 

[burmans]

the underyling technology for account switching has been in place for 30 years , probably longer and the exchanges systems for bank accounts is owned by the banks (or was, maybe privatised now). Cards systems are owned the Card schemes and is a completely different thing,, what you would be asking for is a system built from ground up and its unlikely any of them will care enough to do it.

Yes, I don't doubt no one in the financial industry wants to do this and its a lot of work, but then there have been a lot of things that fit into this category (Basel, NPP, Comprehensive Credit Reporting, Open Banking for a start) and yet these have been legislated anyway. With the mood in regards to financial services not exactly rosy my view is that there will be few things that may be forced despite strong objections against them.

 

[ragingsheep]

No chance - applicants will always have to declare their financial position and sign off on it. All the comprehensive credit reporting will do is provide more information that the bank can check on, such as an undeclaried credit card limit. To which the applicant can just advise "I just cancelled it, or I am about too"

It makes no practical sense to enforce that an applicant cancels the credit card limit that he wants to transfer to a new provider, before he applies. Nobody will do this if the cancellation is irreversible. Then if it is reversible, then it was not really cancelled. Back to square 1.

Give it 5 mins until the next inquiry when you get stories about how CBA gave a someone a $20k credit limit on their card (which they then blew on hookers and drugs) because the applicant promised that they'd close their existing cards with ANZ, NAB and Westpac.

The reality will be that the bank will go: We can see that you have $50k worth of credit on your existing cards. Based on your annual income and free cashflow according to the legislation, you can only support a limit of $40k in total (based on being able to pay off the entirety of your credit limit in 3 years using your free cash flow) so come back to us when you've reduced your existing exposure by $X.

 

[andye]

Give it 5 mins until the next inquiry when you get stories about how CBA gave a someone a $20k credit limit on their card (which they then blew on hookers and drugs)......

Are any of those retailers enrolled in Shop Small?

 

[nickfromeastryde]

Thought I would complete a couple of sneaky applications before the end of the year so applied for ANZ and Qantas Premier Cards within a few minutes of each other on Monday. Both approved within 24 hours and today received email from CreditSavvy that my score had changed. Both had completed checks on the Monday though only the Qantas Premier shows the new account details including limit. No change yet on the other reporting agencies

My score went from 822 to 798 so from a very low "excellent" to a very high "very good"

I don't know but I applied for both at the same time thinking that neither would see the other when reviewing the application. Not sure that actually worked but not too worried about the minor impact as it stands to my score which has held up pretty well over the year with 8 new applications a record for me in one calendar year

 

[cvmceg]

Thought I would complete a couple of sneaky applications before the end of the year so applied for ANZ and Qantas Premier Cards within a few minutes of each other on Monday.

Thanks for the report and well done! Ive been contemplating doing the same this week but have found limited info on chance of success

 

[theblank]

I don't know but I applied for both at the same time thinking that neither would see the other when reviewing the application.

The 2nd one will see first one. Its no simpler than that.

unless its one of the obscure circumstances where both lenders dont use the same credit bureau's, there is 3 now, some use 3, some use 2, and some use 1. roll a dice.