My CC Portfolio - To expand or hold off?

[YudiG]

Hoping one of the DDF experts can weigh in and help me make my mind up....I got three Chase cards this year. One at the beginning of the year, one in middle and one in October.

My wife got one at the beginning and one also in October.

Any reason we should hold off from doing a 3BM?

I'm thinking to go for the Hyatt, Southwest and Marriott Premier...

My only concern is that the reported income on the app doesn't show up on a tax return so I wouldn't want to risk anything and wouldn't mind waiting until next year to continue the CC journey.

TIA
 

[elikay]

I don't remember anyone being asked to prove income on a Chase app.

[sim]

Hoping one of the DDF experts can weigh in and help me make my mind up....I got three Chase cards this year. One at the beginning of the year, one in middle and one in October.

My wife got one at the beginning and one also in October.

Any reason we should hold off from doing a 3BM?

I'm thinking to go for the Hyatt, Southwest and Marriott Premier...

My only concern is that the reported income on the app doesn't show up on a tax return so I wouldn't want to risk anything and wouldn't mind waiting until next year to continue the CC journey.

TIA

I just did a 2bm with chase and when i called recon they asked me specifically how much i make not household income. just giving a heads up

[AsherO]

I don't remember anyone being asked to prove income on a Chase app.

+1 I've never heard of that.

I just did a 2bm with chase and when i called recon they asked me specifically how much i make not household income. just giving a heads up

Seems this is the new 'law'... We'll see how it all unfolds.

@YudiG, consider the Chase cards offering UR points, those are quite valuable and have some interesting (regular) spend bonuses (besides for the signup bonuses). Also consider applying with other issuers.

[YudiG]

+1 I've never heard of that.

Seems this is the new 'law'... We'll see how it all unfolds.

@YudiG, consider the Chase cards offering UR points, those are quite valuable and have some interesting (regular) spend bonuses (besides for the signup bonuses). Also consider applying with other issuers.

Thanks for the help...I got an FR with Amex last Pesach which I closed my cards before they closed them for me as the income reported would not show up on a tax return as its support not earned per se...same happened to my wife as she's listed at the same address and then they went after my father too who passed w/o any issues after he sent in the form.

I've been holding off since then...should I try and get back to Amex or wait a little more?

As far as Chase should I just stay put at this point due to this new 'law' and wait it out despite the temptations? Should I hit up the business cards as they apparently don't effect my credit?

Citi - I've never had any luck and on a recent app for my wife they immediately asked for income verification...

Thanks again AsherO!
 

[clownaparte]

Thanks for the help...I got an FR with Amex last Pesach which I closed my cards before they closed them for me as the income reported would not show up on a tax return as its support not earned per se...same happened to my wife as she's listed at the same address and then they went after my father too who passed w/o any issues after he sent in the form.

I've been holding off since then...should I try and get back to Amex or wait a little more?

As far as Chase should I just stay put at this point due to this new 'law' and wait it out despite the temptations? Should I hit up the business cards as they apparently don't effect my credit?

Citi - I've never had any luck and on a recent app for my wife they immediately asked for income verification...

Thanks again AsherO!
 

I don't see why you are putting "law" in quotes. We may not like it, but it is the law...
See: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/stay-at-home-moms-and-the-need-for-credit/

[AsherO]

As far as Chase should I just stay put at this point due to this new 'law' and wait it out despite the temptations? Should I hit up the business cards as they apparently don't effect my credit? 

Chase doesn't typically verify income AFAIK.

I don't see why you are putting "law" in quotes. We may not like it, but it is the law...
See: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/stay-at-home-moms-and-the-need-for-credit/

NYT blogs are where are laws are spelled out. I put it in quotes because I haven't seen the statute myself and for all I know it's an interpretation of something else.

[clownaparte]

NYT blogs are where are laws are spelled out. I put it in quotes because I haven't seen the statute myself and for all I know it's an interpretation of something else.

Will the federal reserve website do? Perhaps they are interpreting it wrong... http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20110318b.htm

[AsherO]

Will the federal reserve website do? Perhaps they are interpreting it wrong... http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20110318b.htm

If it's the law, maybe someone can link to the statute and we can all see what it actually says. I'm not saying it doesn't say what people are saying it says, I'm just saying I haven't seen it.

Edit: Have you read that page. It's seems they have 'rules' (I'm not familiar with this, maybe someone who is can chime in) which are not the law. These rules seem to 'implement' the law. I don't mean to be a stickler but I suspect the law doesn't quite spell it out the way it's being and the irony is that the law is (ostensibly) intended to protect consumers yet in this case the CC issuers use it against us (allowing us less flexibility during our first year as cardholders).

[clownaparte]

If it's the law, maybe someone can link to the statute and we can all see what it actually says. I'm not saying it doesn't say what people are saying it says, I'm just saying I haven't seen it.

What I quoted is the statute. To be more accurate, it is the ruling of the fed, clarifying the original HR 627, a.k.a. The card act of 2009. These points were not clear in the original resolution, and the fed issued a ruling clarifying them. In other words, that fed post is the law.

[AsherO]

What I quoted is the statute. To be more accurate, it is the ruling of the fed, clarifying the original HR 627, a.k.a. The card act of 2009. These points were not clear in the original resolution, and the fed issued a ruling clarifying them. In other words, that fed post is the law.

The Fed is a legislative body? They are interpreting the law.

[clownaparte]

If it's the law, maybe someone can link to the statute and we can all see what it actually says. I'm not saying it doesn't say what people are saying it says, I'm just saying I haven't seen it.

Edit: Have you read that page. It's seems they have 'rules' (I'm not familiar with this, maybe someone who is can chime in) which are not the law. These rules seem to 'implement' the law. I don't mean to be a stickler but I suspect the law doesn't quite spell it out the way it's being and the irony is that the law is (ostensibly) intended to protect consumers yet in this case the CC issuers use it against us (allowing us less flexibility during our first year as cardholders).

Sorry, my original reply was before you edited your post. Yes, I did read the page. apparently, the Federal Reserve has the power to make rules . Regardless, my point is only that it is not someone's  misinterpretation. The banks that require this are in fact complying with a law or "rule", if you prefer.

[clownaparte]

The Fed is a legislative body? They are interpreting the law.

Yes, and guess who's interpretation will hold up in court? AsherO or the Federal Reserve?

[clownaparte]

Besides, it seems to be more of a rule as you said, and less of an interpretation.

[clownaparte]

I quote the first paragraph:

The Federal Reserve Board on Friday approved a rule amending Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) to clarify aspects of prior Board rules implementing the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (Credit Card Act). This rule is intended to enhance protections for consumers who use credit cards and to resolve areas of uncertainty so that card issuers fully understand their compliance obligations

[AsherO]

Yes, and guess who's interpretation will hold up in court? AsherO or the Federal Reserve?

Irrelevant, it's still their interpretation.

Besides, it seems to be more of a rule as you said, and less of an interpretation.

And less of a law. The law (as stated there) is the "Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009", which probably doesn't say exactly what they're saying it does.

Edit: This seems to be the law:

‘‘(a) LIMITATION ON INCREASES WITHIN FIRST YEAR.—Except
in the case of an increase described in paragraph (1), (2), (3),
or (4) of section 171(b), no increase in any annual percentage
rate, fee, or finance charge on any credit card account under an
open end consumer credit plan shall be effective before the end
of the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the account
is opened.

Unfortunately, it does seem to spell it out pretty clearly, though for another card type with the same AF, they shouldn't have a problem switching it.

[clownaparte]

Irrelevant, it's still their interpretation.

And less of a law. The law (as stated there) is the "Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009", which probably doesn't say exactly what they're saying it does.

Edit: This seems to be the law:

Unfortunately, it does seem to spell it out pretty clearly, though for another card type with the same AF, they shouldn't have a problem switching it.

Merriam-Webster defines "law" as:

1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

So yes, if the fed has rules, and the banks are required to follow them, it is law.

As an aside I'm not sure how fees came into the discussion here? IIRC we were discussing personal vs. household income?

[AJK]

Goodness...

Simple: After certain laws are passed, some bodies (in this case the Fed Reserve) are given rule-making authority to try an explain and clarify the law. Their interpretations are normally given deference by a reviewing court, but are not the "Gd given gospel."

HTH.

[AsherO]

Goodness...

Simple: After certain laws are passed, some bodies (in this case the Fed Reserve) are given rule-making authority to try an explain and clarify the law. Their interpretations are normally given deference by a reviewing court, but are not the nullGd given gospel.null

HTH.

You guys can't (easily anyway, as evidenced by your posts) say what you're saying without using the word interpretation

[clownaparte]

You guys can't (easily anyway, as evidenced by your posts) say what you're saying without using the word interpretation

  I do think that we are getting too far off on a tangent... Nebach the OP wanted to know about applying for more cards, and here we are making him meshuga about the intricacies of personal vs. household income which apparently wouldn't help him either way!