Originally Posted by
Happy
People should get rid of the outdated concept of minimizing HPs.
In 2017 it is risky with BofA, Chase (which now has a new dept to manually review accounts), never works with Citi and IIRC, Barclays as well.
HPs has much less impact since 2015 due to Chase implements 5/24 and Citi changed to 24 months cycle that is more restrictive than Chase. The issuers evolve so as the players need to do the same, i.e. learn the new reality.
In what way is the concept
outdated? I was denied by Citi last Fall due to too many HPs. Not even "accounts opened" as I also had a couple of apps denied by other banks due to technical reasons, which put my HPs in 6 months over the generous limit that Citi typically gives me. I waited things out until my HPs/6 dropped much lower, and then easily got approved by first US, and then Barclays, both of which are known to be stricter on apps than Citi. Sure you do need to understand the rules of an app, whether it's 5/24, 24 months, 8/65 or whatever. But too many HPs might mean your app doesn't even get checked for those rules, it just gets denied outright for too many HPs.
And I totally don't understand what you mean when you say about something being "risky" with some banks, and never working with others. What's risky?
