exarkun

Nice. Now tell us how you feel about the scientific method...

unkn0wns0ldier

Depends on what department you spoke to.. Was it "Lending Services" or simply the people who answer 1800 number on the back of the card?

RNE

Well, OK. But only because you asked so nicely. Here you go. The sampling is not random. That fact alone means any conclusions drawn from the data are unsupported. Doesn't mean they are wrong, only means they are not supported. A guess can be correct, after all. But guesswork is not science. Science, requires us to reject unsupported conclusion—which are rife in this thread.

RNE, uncomplicated and incontrovertible.

Sedentary

Anyone (read: a credit analyst) looking at your credit report can see every card you've closed in the last 10 years.

unkn0wns0ldier

BTW I know some of you will lose your minds over this but just reporting my application decision:
July 31 - Applied for United Biz. Initially had the 2 weeks response on automated line.
Aug 14 - Automated response changes to "notify in 7 - 10 days"
Today - Got a letter in the mail stating reasons for denial as
* "Too many credit accounts have been opened recently"
* "Too many recent requests / review of your credit"
* "You have too many active accounts or too much credit"

So I called the Business Recon line listed in Wiki, talked to an agent who said I wasn't even eligible for moving credit around because I have too many open accounts in the past 24 months.

Of course this is 1 agent and I plan on HUCA but I thought I would report back my findings.

BTW Chase pulls EXP, EQ in my area. Both above 770 for me.

sdsearch

No, RNE, oversimplifying.

That the sampling is not random doesn't mean that any conclusions drawn from the data are unsupported.

An absolute statement such as "this thing always happens" can be be disproved by a single documented example of "this thing" not happening, and an absolute statement such as "that thing never happens" can be disproved by a single documented example of "that thing" happening. Thus you don't need big samples for propositions which only require an example to disprove them.

Thus a statement like "Chase won't approve anyone with more than about 5 cards opened in the last 24 months for a Freedom card public online offer" can be easily disproved by a single case of someone with way more than 5 cards opened in the last 24 months getting approved for a Freedom card public online offer. Obviously, with a word like "anyone", such as statement is impossible to prove, only possible to disprove.

So no improvement in sampling could help the provability of such an overly absolute statement, and no improvement in sampling would change the easy dis-provability of such a statement.

Thus is depends on exactly what the claim is, as to whether the distorted self-sampling we have here matters much or not at all.

It's only if the statement was less absolute and had a number that needed testing, such as "at least 99% of people who have more than 5 cards opened in the last 24 months will be denied for a Freedom card public online offer", that sampling methodology would matter. But that's the not kind of statements I see being posted in this thread.

But some people pose it in a way that's even easier to prove and disprove without any impact of sampling methodology: "We have no reports in this thread of people who applied for way more than 5 cards in the past 24 months being approved for a Freedom card public online offer since about May of this year." Since such a statement makes no claims about people who didn't report in this thread, it is tied to whatever the sampling was that happened in thread, no matter how "distorted" it was. The sampling thus has no bearing on the validity of such a claim (even though it may have a bearing on the extrapolations other people may make from such a claim ).

sdsearch

Item 1 is the only one that could possibly relate to 5/24.

But since you seem to have been denied also for item 2, which is inquiries (hard pulls), and also for item 3 (which has to do with your overall credit profile, perhaps your total CL either at Chase or overall?), then it's impossible to say if any one of those 3 items alone would have done it, if the other two items hadn't also been present.

A true 5/24 denial is one where there are not also claims of too inquiries or too much total CL.

It's well known that bank sometimes deny you for just one reason, but when it comes writing the letter, they do a further analysis and come up with additional reasons. But the letter never makes clear which was the initial reason for denial, and which were the additional reasons for denial.

btk2333

except that OP was asking about a business card which DOES NOT show up on your personal credit reports. I would personally be shocked if they had no way to look further back in their records for business credit cards. Just think if they got audited they would need records that went further back than they indicated

Sedentary

Business cards appear on business credit reports, which Chase business credit analysts look at when making business credit decisions. You're the first person to bring "personal credit reports" into this particular conversation. Since we were obviously discussing business cards I didn't feel the need to write out "business credit report" - assumed it was implied. Not a mistake I'll likely make in the future.

pritomd

Got auto-approved for CSP. Got a Freedom at end of June. Got a Premier at start of June. Got a Premier at start of May. Nothing since 2012 before that (so CSP was my 4th in 2 years).

snic

Very cogent analysis. I think we all recognize that the sample of FTers is biased towards people who tend to churn credit cards for points. That doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions from their experiences. In fact, because we are all members of that subpopulation, it is precisely the experience of FTers (and NOT that of the population as a whole) that is most relevant for forming a theory regarding what will happen to our own applications. That is why an unbiased sample is not required.

The only form of bias that is relevant to the question would be one in which FTers tend to report failures to get Chase applications approved but not successes. There is no evidence for such a form of bias, and in fact there is evidence against it: just a cursory glance at this thread tells you that pleny of FTers are willing to report their successes (e.g., the post just above this one). So why, then, has no one reported something along the lines of "I opened 7 personal cards in the last 24 months and yesterday I opened a CSP"?

My scientific conclusion is that a 5/24 rule exists.

RevYoung

Not sure how much it will help, but I wanted to submit my data point:

Instant approval for Hyatt card with $33k credit line.

5 cards in last two years. 2 of those 5 are Chase (Southwest business and personal). I've also had Sapphire Preferred and Freedom for many years now. Regular spending on Sapphire Preferred. Only bonus category spending on Freedom.

Who knows if it helped get an instant approval or not, but I lowered credit lines on all Chase cards (SW Biz, SW Personal, Freedom) to $5k except Sapphire Preferred which I only lowered to $10k.

My wife will be applying a couple weeks. Will report back on hers as well. In general, we each only apply for one new card every 90+ days.

barschools

Data point:

I did a small AOR yesterday and was instantly approved for Hyatt with 27k CL. I have 9 open accounts from 12/14 to 04/15, 3 with Chase. Freedom, SW Plus and SW Premier, all personal. I lowered CL on the Freedom from 20k to 15k and lowered the SW Plus from 19k to 12k and left the SW Premier at its original 12k a couple weeks ago. I was also approved for Cap One Venture for 30k and Fidelity Amex for 18k. I have a 785 Fico and modest 6 figure income.

After the Hyatt approval I went for the IHG figuring I had nothing to lose if they combined the hard pull. Didn't get instant approval and was told to call in. I didn't prepare myself for the call and did a poor job of coming up with reasons for wanting the card other than for its rewards. The rep said everything looked good except for all the recent cards I'd opened and that he was going to pass my app to a senior analyst for further review and a decision would be made in 24 to 48 hours.

I called back a few hours later to suggest lowering the CL on the Hyatt to make room for the IHG and the rep informed my that my app had been denied due to too many open accounts in the last 24 months, too much existing credit with Chase, (which I tried to remedy by lowering the CL on the Hyatt to no avail) and I can't remember the third reason exactly, seems like it was either too much overall credit and/or not enough history with Chase. I'll post when I get the denial letter. The rep said they want to see how things go on my existing cards before issuing anymore new ones. I've only been a Chase customer since 12/14 but I think if I'd said the right things during the phone call I would've been approved. Overall a successful day though.

joscofra

I encouraged presidentnick to post here, but didn't happen...
https://www.reddit.com/r/churning/co...on_chases_524/

I was interested in more specifics. I suppose you could pm if you want to follow up.

RNE

How perplexing. The 24-month "rule" is not supposed to be a factor in denial of non-UR cards. Yet Chase specifically cited it as one factor: "denied due to too many accounts in the last 24 months." Doesn't Chase know non-UR cards are strictly excluded from this factor by the wiki—an inerrant source of knowledge.

RNE, suggesting you contact Jamie Dimon forthwith and instruct him to read this thread's wiki. It clearly states exactly how Chase is and is not allowed to function. Inform him that any deviation from the wiki will result in severe chastisement.