Sep 4, 2015, 8:47 am
Last edit by: beltway
This thread is now archived. For ongoing discussion and the current/updated wiki, see Applying for Chase Credit Cards, 2017 onward. For the archived predecessor thread, see Applying for Chase Credit Cards- Archived 2008-5/2015
Archived: Applying for Chase Credit Cards- May 2015- Jan 2017
Jun 3, 2015, 10:44 pm
#151
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 276
I spoke to three normal recon, a senior lending analyst (whatever that is), and a supervisor over the course of a week. Only the senior lending agent and supervisor discussed my CR with me.
The first three normal agents parroted the same BS..."they cannot reconsider the application at this time" and told me that there were no other options, until I asked for a supervisor.
The senior lending analyst seemed as if she had more power, but she also told me that the only denial reason was # of accounts. She specifically said Chase consider my DTI, other Chase accounts, payment history, or even utilization on other accounts. Oddly enough, when I pressed her and the supervisor on what Chase wanted me to do (stop applying for other cards, close cards, move credit lines, etc) and why they can't consider my DTI, utilization, and AoA, they both said, multiple times, "I am not a financial advisor, and I cannot tell you what to do with your financial portfolio, only that at this time, we cannot open a new line of credit".
It's very obvious that a memo went out. I've had to call Chase recon probably 10-15 times since I started MSing years ago and I've never had so many similar calls. These guys are reading from a script and they are literally pushing the same response. The question is how long will this last...
Edit: I should note that I am calling again tomorrow, as I never got a callback from a higher level supervisor that I asked for. I have nothing to lose on these applications and I don't MS chase, just get some bonuses and put my main daily spend on most of their cards.
The first three normal agents parroted the same BS..."they cannot reconsider the application at this time" and told me that there were no other options, until I asked for a supervisor.
The senior lending analyst seemed as if she had more power, but she also told me that the only denial reason was # of accounts. She specifically said Chase consider my DTI, other Chase accounts, payment history, or even utilization on other accounts. Oddly enough, when I pressed her and the supervisor on what Chase wanted me to do (stop applying for other cards, close cards, move credit lines, etc) and why they can't consider my DTI, utilization, and AoA, they both said, multiple times, "I am not a financial advisor, and I cannot tell you what to do with your financial portfolio, only that at this time, we cannot open a new line of credit".
It's very obvious that a memo went out. I've had to call Chase recon probably 10-15 times since I started MSing years ago and I've never had so many similar calls. These guys are reading from a script and they are literally pushing the same response. The question is how long will this last...
Edit: I should note that I am calling again tomorrow, as I never got a callback from a higher level supervisor that I asked for. I have nothing to lose on these applications and I don't MS chase, just get some bonuses and put my main daily spend on most of their cards.
Please keep us updated, not sure whether I want to fight this or not. Chase always double pull me (EX & EQ), I don't want 2 hard pulls going to waste.
Jun 3, 2015, 11:34 pm
#152
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,762
In an ideal world, things should work the way both you and Brugge pointed out.
Unfortunately in a world where cost trump customer service, and even the sensitive Fraud Prevention / Security Dept has been outsourced to Philippines, all the banks care is to have a computer model that they hope to standardize the approval process in credit card applications to reduce the number of folks only gaming for the sign up / spend bonuses (the BA $50K spend is a good example as you earn 10K on $25K spend up to 2x within 12 months, on top of the initial 50K). Please tell me if there is no such 10Kx2 spend bonus, would Brugge's wife spend her $50K on the BA> And why would she not keep the card once the spend be done?
Anyone who insists this is good customer is being dishonest. Please call a spade a spade and stop finding excuses.
Now if you are talking about getting a line of credit in the form of personal loan, mortgages, and small business loans, then I 100% agree with you that the banks totally lose out if they only rely on a computer model to analyze applications.
However, let's not kid ourselves being valuable customers to the banks by charging X amount of $$$$$ that the banks earn their swipe fee - the sign up and spend bonus often negate those swipe fees from the reward cards.
95% of the folks frequent the credit card forums are gunning for the sign up bonus - no need to sugar-coat this sheer fact that by and large, we are definitely NOT the ordinary customers the banks want to attract. The banks would be lucky to make a few dimes on us, but it is the ordinary customers who keep their cards year after year after year without seeking new sign up bonus the banks want to have.
Pure math - 40K CSP at the minimum value of 1 penny is $400. You can earn it with $4K spend - how much swipe fee Chase gets on that $4K? Not to mention the account maintenance cost? And how many of you would continue to charge that CSP or that Freedom to the tune of 50K a year to make up for the initial sign up bonuses and the rewards earned on the spend?
The arguments are all good, but being applied at the WRONG business that is Reward Credit Cards with sign up bonuses. The same analysis is perfect fit in other areas of the financial products, just not the topic of this forum!
Unfortunately in a world where cost trump customer service, and even the sensitive Fraud Prevention / Security Dept has been outsourced to Philippines, all the banks care is to have a computer model that they hope to standardize the approval process in credit card applications to reduce the number of folks only gaming for the sign up / spend bonuses (the BA $50K spend is a good example as you earn 10K on $25K spend up to 2x within 12 months, on top of the initial 50K). Please tell me if there is no such 10Kx2 spend bonus, would Brugge's wife spend her $50K on the BA> And why would she not keep the card once the spend be done?
Anyone who insists this is good customer is being dishonest. Please call a spade a spade and stop finding excuses.
Now if you are talking about getting a line of credit in the form of personal loan, mortgages, and small business loans, then I 100% agree with you that the banks totally lose out if they only rely on a computer model to analyze applications.
However, let's not kid ourselves being valuable customers to the banks by charging X amount of $$$$$ that the banks earn their swipe fee - the sign up and spend bonus often negate those swipe fees from the reward cards.
95% of the folks frequent the credit card forums are gunning for the sign up bonus - no need to sugar-coat this sheer fact that by and large, we are definitely NOT the ordinary customers the banks want to attract. The banks would be lucky to make a few dimes on us, but it is the ordinary customers who keep their cards year after year after year without seeking new sign up bonus the banks want to have.
Pure math - 40K CSP at the minimum value of 1 penny is $400. You can earn it with $4K spend - how much swipe fee Chase gets on that $4K? Not to mention the account maintenance cost? And how many of you would continue to charge that CSP or that Freedom to the tune of 50K a year to make up for the initial sign up bonuses and the rewards earned on the spend?
The arguments are all good, but being applied at the WRONG business that is Reward Credit Cards with sign up bonuses. The same analysis is perfect fit in other areas of the financial products, just not the topic of this forum!
From an IT perspective you are probably correct - it doesn't surprise me that banks don't have the ability to see spending put on closed accounts and are therefore unable to take that spending into account when evaluating a new application.
From a business perspective you are completely wrong. In summary Brugge's point was that in this scenario Chase is evaluating two distinct types of customers:
Customer 1: Spent $50,000 on a chase card but recently closed that account for whatever reason (perhaps travel patterns changed and they are no longer flying BA but will be flying UA, or used to stay exclusively with Marriots but now will be staying exclusively with Hyatt).
Customer 2: Has had zero AF chase Freedom card for an extended period of time but puts a minimal amount of spend on that card and most of the spend falls into bonus categories. As you may know Chase loses money on 5% bonus categories - this is what is known in business as a loss leader - they are counting on the fact that they will recoup their losses (and make some profit) from people putting non-bonused spend on their Freedom cards.
Would you really argue from a business perspective that you think customer 2 is more valuable than customer 1?
In 9 out of 10 scenarios customer 1 is going to be a much more valuable customer.
Obviously, people who churn cards on a regular basis complicate the cost-benefit analysis since the big sign-up bonuses Chase offers cost them a lot of money...but for the purposes of this argument I'm just responding to your point(s) about whether or not closed accounts should carry weight
From a business perspective you are completely wrong. In summary Brugge's point was that in this scenario Chase is evaluating two distinct types of customers:
Customer 1: Spent $50,000 on a chase card but recently closed that account for whatever reason (perhaps travel patterns changed and they are no longer flying BA but will be flying UA, or used to stay exclusively with Marriots but now will be staying exclusively with Hyatt).
Customer 2: Has had zero AF chase Freedom card for an extended period of time but puts a minimal amount of spend on that card and most of the spend falls into bonus categories. As you may know Chase loses money on 5% bonus categories - this is what is known in business as a loss leader - they are counting on the fact that they will recoup their losses (and make some profit) from people putting non-bonused spend on their Freedom cards.
Would you really argue from a business perspective that you think customer 2 is more valuable than customer 1?
In 9 out of 10 scenarios customer 1 is going to be a much more valuable customer.
Obviously, people who churn cards on a regular basis complicate the cost-benefit analysis since the big sign-up bonuses Chase offers cost them a lot of money...but for the purposes of this argument I'm just responding to your point(s) about whether or not closed accounts should carry weight
Last edited by Happy; Jun 3, 2015 at 11:39 pm
Jun 3, 2015, 11:48 pm
#153
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,762
Exactly what does that mean - "unspoken agreement"?
Did the banks ever "promise" you that if you do this and that, they would keep their end of the "bargain" in your mind? Or it is all just wishful thinking over the years and now it is shattered by the new policy Chase adopts?
Or really you have an understanding/thought in your mind, that if you do this and that, they should treat you well? And now you feel being betrayed?
As for spending huge amount with any bank - you also reap huge amount of miles in return - it is not as if your spend does not yield you anything valuable - far from that, what you got definitely is much more than the swipe fee the banks can earn from you, especially not paying that $450 fee to Citi... I think we should at least be honest when it comes to the discussion on how much "business" the banks got from us... The FTers got a lot more back from the banks. It is quite lopsided to the FTers side. Period.
This is business decision by the banks - whether they want all out to acquire market shares or they want to rein it in so they can improve the profitability of their business. Banks would do whatever it takes to keep their profitability when push comes to shove.
FYI, Chase just announced a lay off of 5000 employees. One-third of the shareholders dont approve the compensation package Dimon receives. The management is desperate to improve profitability.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102716956
I dont think Chase 24 months policy is to encourage churning - rather, they want to test the measure to see if it would manage the acquisition costs comparing to when in the past they handed out bonuses like candies. Obviously they now realize, after about 6 to 9 months practice of the new policy, the cost is still too high - so they tweak their model. We do whatever we believe would work to stay on the good side of them so we can continue to take advantage of lucrative offers. Can't cry foul when the perceived strategies suddenly do not pan out.
For one thing, you have to give AMEX credit - they re-introduce the lifetime bonus policy on consumer cards for well over a year now and do not seem to budge at all. Apparently said policy has proven working for them when it comes to weed out the undesirable customers from their regulars.
Did the banks ever "promise" you that if you do this and that, they would keep their end of the "bargain" in your mind? Or it is all just wishful thinking over the years and now it is shattered by the new policy Chase adopts?
Or really you have an understanding/thought in your mind, that if you do this and that, they should treat you well? And now you feel being betrayed?
As for spending huge amount with any bank - you also reap huge amount of miles in return - it is not as if your spend does not yield you anything valuable - far from that, what you got definitely is much more than the swipe fee the banks can earn from you, especially not paying that $450 fee to Citi... I think we should at least be honest when it comes to the discussion on how much "business" the banks got from us... The FTers got a lot more back from the banks. It is quite lopsided to the FTers side. Period.
This is business decision by the banks - whether they want all out to acquire market shares or they want to rein it in so they can improve the profitability of their business. Banks would do whatever it takes to keep their profitability when push comes to shove.
FYI, Chase just announced a lay off of 5000 employees. One-third of the shareholders dont approve the compensation package Dimon receives. The management is desperate to improve profitability.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102716956
I dont think Chase 24 months policy is to encourage churning - rather, they want to test the measure to see if it would manage the acquisition costs comparing to when in the past they handed out bonuses like candies. Obviously they now realize, after about 6 to 9 months practice of the new policy, the cost is still too high - so they tweak their model. We do whatever we believe would work to stay on the good side of them so we can continue to take advantage of lucrative offers. Can't cry foul when the perceived strategies suddenly do not pan out.
For one thing, you have to give AMEX credit - they re-introduce the lifetime bonus policy on consumer cards for well over a year now and do not seem to budge at all. Apparently said policy has proven working for them when it comes to weed out the undesirable customers from their regulars.
^
I have an unspoken agreement with Barclays, (which I used to have with Chase), that I keep a new card open for at least a year, and 2 years if it's particularly useful for spend ie CSP, Freedom. During the time I have it open, I put significant spend on the card. When the AF comes up, I cancel the card, wait 6 months, and then reapply. Barclays seems quite content with this, and Chase even seemed to be encouraging it with their recent '2 years after a bonus' rule. Then overnight they put up a 'churners need not apply' sign.
My unspoken agreement with Citi is quite different. It's that I apply for @12 new cards a year, quickly make the min spnd, lower the CL, and if it has a AF I cancel unless I get a good retention bonus. Since most of my Citi apps the past year and a half have been EXEC cards, I've spent a huge amount of $ with them.
Now with the Chase and AMEX anti-churn policies, we'll be spending $6K a year on Freedom bonus categories, and $6K a year on groceries with the AMEX Everyday Preferred card. The other 90% of our spend, natural and MS, will go entirely to Barclays and Citi. Somehow that doesn't impress me as a brilliant business plan for Chase and AMEX, but that's just me.
I have an unspoken agreement with Barclays, (which I used to have with Chase), that I keep a new card open for at least a year, and 2 years if it's particularly useful for spend ie CSP, Freedom. During the time I have it open, I put significant spend on the card. When the AF comes up, I cancel the card, wait 6 months, and then reapply. Barclays seems quite content with this, and Chase even seemed to be encouraging it with their recent '2 years after a bonus' rule. Then overnight they put up a 'churners need not apply' sign.
My unspoken agreement with Citi is quite different. It's that I apply for @12 new cards a year, quickly make the min spnd, lower the CL, and if it has a AF I cancel unless I get a good retention bonus. Since most of my Citi apps the past year and a half have been EXEC cards, I've spent a huge amount of $ with them.
Now with the Chase and AMEX anti-churn policies, we'll be spending $6K a year on Freedom bonus categories, and $6K a year on groceries with the AMEX Everyday Preferred card. The other 90% of our spend, natural and MS, will go entirely to Barclays and Citi. Somehow that doesn't impress me as a brilliant business plan for Chase and AMEX, but that's just me.
Last edited by Happy; Jun 4, 2015 at 12:15 am
Jun 4, 2015, 7:03 am
#155
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 80
I'm a finance guy and it occurs to me that this might not have to do with churners at all. T
The balance of unredeemed Ultimate Rewards sits on Chase's balance sheet, and they have to value each one with a dollar amount. From time to time, they themselves or their auditor, will revalue these based on experience. Or key suppliers like United have renegotiated for higher transfer rates.
I'm speculating here, but a revaluation could easily have raised the eyebrows of a financial risk department who got authority to clamp down on new applications (at the cost of some new business, but it's a trade off.) They chose the 'no new apps in 2 years' route because it's the easiest way to reduce the volume of generated UR in the next 12 months. If I'm right, this will continue for a while until they feel comfortable with the UR balance on their liabilities.
The point here is not to claim that this is the case - I have no idea that it is. But that there are a million reasons aside from 'clamping down on churners' that they could be doing this. One of the idiosyncratic, self-absorbed, myths in the churner community is that every action Banks take is about our little hobby.
As a final point, remember that they don't lose money on every churner. They only lose money on the successful ones, and there are many many unsuccessful churners that end up running balances, incurring fees and not redeeming smartly. They just aren't on these forums.
The balance of unredeemed Ultimate Rewards sits on Chase's balance sheet, and they have to value each one with a dollar amount. From time to time, they themselves or their auditor, will revalue these based on experience. Or key suppliers like United have renegotiated for higher transfer rates.
I'm speculating here, but a revaluation could easily have raised the eyebrows of a financial risk department who got authority to clamp down on new applications (at the cost of some new business, but it's a trade off.) They chose the 'no new apps in 2 years' route because it's the easiest way to reduce the volume of generated UR in the next 12 months. If I'm right, this will continue for a while until they feel comfortable with the UR balance on their liabilities.
The point here is not to claim that this is the case - I have no idea that it is. But that there are a million reasons aside from 'clamping down on churners' that they could be doing this. One of the idiosyncratic, self-absorbed, myths in the churner community is that every action Banks take is about our little hobby.
As a final point, remember that they don't lose money on every churner. They only lose money on the successful ones, and there are many many unsuccessful churners that end up running balances, incurring fees and not redeeming smartly. They just aren't on these forums.
Jun 4, 2015, 7:49 am
#156
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: ORD
Programs: AAdvantage, UA, Avios
Posts: 637
They're doing it because the credit card business is not as profitable as it used to be. There are tons of reasons from new regulatory rules to shifting industry dynamics to competitive pressures. We all know that churners cost banks money, we just try to slip in through the cracks. When a product is not as extremely lucrative as it was, they start to pay closer attention and focus to cut costs / maximize profits.
Anyway, it seems we have some new and valuable info - Chase-specific products like CSP or Freedom have one set of rules, while cards like United or Hyatt have another set of rules. The latter seem to be more lenient in their approval process.
Anyway, it seems we have some new and valuable info - Chase-specific products like CSP or Freedom have one set of rules, while cards like United or Hyatt have another set of rules. The latter seem to be more lenient in their approval process.
Jun 4, 2015, 7:52 am
#157
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: Marriott Platinum, Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum
Posts: 3,720
Except, they have approved certain individuals over the threshold. So the threshold is not a hard rule.
Jun 4, 2015, 7:56 am
#158
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: Marriott Platinum, Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum
Posts: 3,720
Afraid it does, at least in some circumstances. I am living proof.
Jun 4, 2015, 8:17 am
#159
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 83
Chalk me up (actually, my wife) as another example of getting declined for a CSP for having opened 5 new cards in the last 24 months. Only one of those five was a Chase card (Freedom) and that was opened in January 2015. The other four were three citi execs in the spring/summer of 2014 and an SPG last fall. CSR said credit was spotless and it would have been approved in the past but this is a new Chase rule that applies to Chase branded cards and was implemented in the last two weeks. She said it's a computer rejection and cannot be reversed no matter how much I try to escalate it. I still requested to try again with a supervisor but they were all tied up at the time and I am supposed to get a call back sometime today. I don't expect approval, but I have a few more questions on the new rules and if I can glean any new helpful info I will report back.
I tried every excuse I could think of: 1.) We have been good Chase customers for several years; our mortgage is with Chase; 2.) This isn't a case of wanting/needing more credit, it was the card's benefits we desired and wanted to use Chase more; 3.) offered to shift credit from another card; 4.) offered to close another card. Hard line "no" to each.
CSR said the five new accounts in the last 24 months is rolling tally month to month and invited me to apply again when one of those five new cards had reached 25 months.
I tried every excuse I could think of: 1.) We have been good Chase customers for several years; our mortgage is with Chase; 2.) This isn't a case of wanting/needing more credit, it was the card's benefits we desired and wanted to use Chase more; 3.) offered to shift credit from another card; 4.) offered to close another card. Hard line "no" to each.
CSR said the five new accounts in the last 24 months is rolling tally month to month and invited me to apply again when one of those five new cards had reached 25 months.
Jun 4, 2015, 9:18 am
#161
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: DFW
Posts: 520
Hmm - given the data points I guess I should keep my Ink that I was about to cancel - its my only premium UR card and don't want to risk losing the transfer option to other programs should they stick with this for the long term.
However, also makes me wonder if I shouldn't go ahead and do a couple of partner cards in case they expand the rules.
However, also makes me wonder if I shouldn't go ahead and do a couple of partner cards in case they expand the rules.
Jun 4, 2015, 9:26 am
#162
Moderator: Travel Buzz
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sunny San Diego
Posts: 3,099
I did get my co-branded Marriott card on Monday after a call to recon. I've had more than 5 new accounts... at least 6 or 7 open lines in 12 months, including a new Ink and a new IHG. It's at least double that in 24 months.
BTW-Where do you find out how many hard pulls you've had? I no longer subscribe to myfico.com
BTW-Where do you find out how many hard pulls you've had? I no longer subscribe to myfico.com
Jun 4, 2015, 9:27 am
#163
Join Date: Sep 2013
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold
Posts: 3,677
Sorry, but I am not at liberty to repeat things Jamie and I may have discussed when sitting in the cart, waiting our turn at the tee for #7. 
And no, of course I don't feel betrayed by Chase changing it's rules on apps. It's their business, and they can run it as they wish. I do somewhat feel sucker punched though with the 2 years after a bonus being held out, and then abruptly pulled away, much like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football.
By unspoken agreement, I meant that one could see what Chase was doing, based on what the OP reported doing. Both Happy and RNE have recently posted their understanding of this agreement, as it was up until now.
You could figure out that by keeping cards open at least a year, and often for 2 years, and doing significant spend on them, Chase considered you a "good customer", and would give you more cards, which you would in turn keep open a year or two and put significant spend on. Until one day, with no notice, they decided change all of that.
For me this is the ideal time for them to change it all though. I was happy doing gratuitous spend on every Chase card we had open, because with RB taking ccs, and T-M refunding RL fees, we had $25K a month of totally free MS between the two of us. Now with RB costing 1% for OVs, and Reloadit apparently in the process of going cash-only on their new cards, gratuitous spend is getting costly. We are going to have to do a cost/benefit analysis on all of our MS, and with cards like IHG the spend is not anywhere near worth it. Sure, we will keep that card open forever, since the certificate is well worth the AF, but put actual spend on it? No way....
So yeah, Chase broke our unspoken agreement that keeping cards like UA and B/A open, with significant spend, would mean we would be approved for more cards in the future. So now I'm no longer bound by that agreement to pay AF renewals, nor to spend on cards where the miles and points aren't worth the cost. Freedom will get $1500 a quarter in bonus spend, just like Everyday Preferred gets $6K a year of grocery spend. But no dining spend on my DWs CSP at 2X, when that same spend on my TYP Premier gets us 3.45% with the CitiGold extra bonus.
Their new acquisition policy is to reject high income, high CR individuals, who need and use various hotel and airline cards for their specific benefits. Instead they are going to approve folks with little credit history, and little past usage of ccs. I do wonder how that policy is going to work out for them? Luckily, though, that's not my problem.
And no, of course I don't feel betrayed by Chase changing it's rules on apps. It's their business, and they can run it as they wish. I do somewhat feel sucker punched though with the 2 years after a bonus being held out, and then abruptly pulled away, much like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football.
By unspoken agreement, I meant that one could see what Chase was doing, based on what the OP reported doing. Both Happy and RNE have recently posted their understanding of this agreement, as it was up until now.
You could figure out that by keeping cards open at least a year, and often for 2 years, and doing significant spend on them, Chase considered you a "good customer", and would give you more cards, which you would in turn keep open a year or two and put significant spend on. Until one day, with no notice, they decided change all of that.
For me this is the ideal time for them to change it all though. I was happy doing gratuitous spend on every Chase card we had open, because with RB taking ccs, and T-M refunding RL fees, we had $25K a month of totally free MS between the two of us. Now with RB costing 1% for OVs, and Reloadit apparently in the process of going cash-only on their new cards, gratuitous spend is getting costly. We are going to have to do a cost/benefit analysis on all of our MS, and with cards like IHG the spend is not anywhere near worth it. Sure, we will keep that card open forever, since the certificate is well worth the AF, but put actual spend on it? No way....
So yeah, Chase broke our unspoken agreement that keeping cards like UA and B/A open, with significant spend, would mean we would be approved for more cards in the future. So now I'm no longer bound by that agreement to pay AF renewals, nor to spend on cards where the miles and points aren't worth the cost. Freedom will get $1500 a quarter in bonus spend, just like Everyday Preferred gets $6K a year of grocery spend. But no dining spend on my DWs CSP at 2X, when that same spend on my TYP Premier gets us 3.45% with the CitiGold extra bonus.
Their new acquisition policy is to reject high income, high CR individuals, who need and use various hotel and airline cards for their specific benefits. Instead they are going to approve folks with little credit history, and little past usage of ccs. I do wonder how that policy is going to work out for them? Luckily, though, that's not my problem.
Jun 4, 2015, 10:52 am
#165
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: FL
Programs: BA, AA, DA, UA, CO
Posts: 212
So, does Chase consider opened Business Cards from other banks for the 5 opened accounts/24 months?
I am pretty sure they would see/consider their own Business accounts, but perhaps they can't see from the credit report, let say, an AMEX Gold Business card that was opened in the last 24 months and thus their system would not 'punish' us for such accounts.
I am pretty sure they would see/consider their own Business accounts, but perhaps they can't see from the credit report, let say, an AMEX Gold Business card that was opened in the last 24 months and thus their system would not 'punish' us for such accounts.