rt 有些不理解
如果你cycle n次一定是有足够钱把n-1* CL全额付完，高消费不是好吗？
释放出的信号不应该是，我有钱但是我CL不够？为什么许多银行会选择杀全家而不是提高你CL？
2 个赞
万一后面payment被return了，银行给了你的CL是那么多，就不愿意承担更多风险了
1 个赞
把CL改成收到payment再补充不就完了？
正常来讲中间不就几天ach差别？我之前忘了哪家来着我记得付款也是这么算的，可能后来改成实时的了。
这个risk aversion可以理解，但从customer naive perspective感觉这个一点都不apparent是bad behavior啊。
毕竟是credit limit not monthly spending limit，如果被杀全家noone told me before that its bad
2 个赞
美国银行系统脑抽的地方多了， 不少这一项。
9 个赞
Why Chase has 5/24? 
7 个赞
if you report income of 50k a year, but cycle $50k charge in a month for a personal card (not business card), why wouldn’t the bank raise their eyeballs? banks are risk adverse and they do not want behavior that they do not understand.
不要天真的以为，“顾客就是上帝”。顾客, esp retail customer, 只是庞大分母中的一个，少一个不少。 for banks, risk is always #1
3 个赞
释放的信号是：你的消费行为超过了我们为你评估安全边界，说明你不是我们最想要的客户。
换个说法，银行不会为了一个异常值去调整自己的模型。
10 个赞
Edge case，难道被杀的都是MS/BG？
I guess 问题 framing有问题
我说的可以分成 -》 比如你cycle 1x 2x vs 你 cycle like 5x or 10x your CL
第二种被杀我能理解因为明显too aggressive
我没统计过DP所以说实话我也不清楚界限在哪儿，is it very arbitrary?
3 个赞
申卡的时候你报了资产和收入，银行给你一个ta觉得安全的额度。
你超额了的话，即使你能还上either你报的有问题你的收入来历不明/你有额外负债 or 你超过了银行觉得安全的额度
3 个赞
if bank give you credit limit of $2k, it means they do not want you to spend more than 2k a month (until they determine a new limit), period.
if you need to bend something to spend more than 2k a month, that is what the bank wants.
what YOU think it is okay, is not the same as what the bank thinks it is okay.
your opinion does not matter to the bank
My point is this isn’t clear
Is this apparent in text anywhere in a cardmember agreement or document that you sign?
2 个赞
banks have the rights to interpret all the terms and conditions, so it does not have to explicitly list everything out explicitly.
especially the word “abuse”. the bank can decide what it means. it will not written out as a definition somewhere.
How is there no incentive then to preemptively prevent “abuse” rather than close people’s accounts at a whim after the fact under unclear terms? Is this actually that much of an edge case?
Maybe it’s just selection bias because I see people 杀全家 way too often on this forum.
界限当然arbitrary，这不奇怪啊。
我们又不是银行内部员工，内部员工也未必知道“杀全家”的模型怎么跑，即使创造这个模型的人说不定只是搞了个black box模型。
我们消费者只是通过经验知道，cycle或者接他人BP都是这个“杀全家”模型的重要影响因素。
7 个赞
don’t understand what u typed.
but a bank, or any company, has the right to decide what kind of customer they want. it is their right. when customer sign up, they should know they are at-will customer only.
not all such behavior will be terminated either. some banks will only trigger a financial review, and some will terminate. all their rights, and they have a right to exercise their rights
No shit. But isn’t it better from a risk-averse perspective to prevent abuse beforehand rather than do this sort of stuff?
If CL is an actual cap, then shouldn’t you disallow all purchases when you hit the monthly max regardless of payment status? Or at least inform that further cycling is likely to lead to increased scrutiny?
Or is this such an edge case/ cost inefficient that noone cares?
I never said or implied that the bank doesn’t have the right to choose who to serve.
1 个赞
business is business, and they decide what they “should” do.
there are good reasons for insiders (of the bank) to choose what they do, and the reasons are not disclosed or understood by the outsiders. (rightfully so)
as outsiders, we do not see the full pictures and full complexity. so it is easy for us to say “haha, so simple, you should do this and shouldn’t do that.”
有人tldr下吗。下班了不想读英文
10 个赞
basically, you are saying, banks, i know better than you how to do risk mgmt.
but the reality is, a normal retail customer does not even know how many types of risks there are, and how many sub-categories of risk there are, and how to balance the risks, and especially how to balance risk and revenue. everything is a huge topic.