#2
It only applies to card, not loans.



It's to avoid the minimum payment flag that is applied to those account only making the minimum payment, which other lenders may interpret as a sign of stress, if the card isn't at 0%.

#4
The thing is, you'll never know whether they have affected you or not. It's not just used for acquisition, but also by your existing lender.



Every data selection for a promotional offer or credit limit increase that I've ever seen has included minimum payments as some kind of exclusion criteria, whether that be the last 6 payments have been minimum, or more than 5 in the 12 months etc.



Regulators are so down on minimum payments that lenders are very wary of extending further credit to these customers, in the event of it leading to a complaint.

#5



The thing is, you'll never know whether they have affected you or not. It's not just used for acquisition, but also by your existing lender.



Every data selection for a promotional offer or credit limit increase that I've ever seen has included minimum payments as some kind of exclusion criteria, whether that be the last 6 payments have been minimum, or more than 5 in the 12 months etc.



Regulators are so down on minimum payments that lenders are very wary of extending further credit to these customers, in the event of it leading to a complaint.
Originally posted by zx81




Me personally, I think it's a myth. I can only speak for myself and my experience in obtaining credit from various providers over the many years. I only ever pay minimum on 0% deals whether that be for purchases or balance transfers and all the lenders have increased my limit intermittently without any request from me and have always received a much larger limit than I initially expected from a new lender.



I think your repayment history, your internal rating with whatever bank/lender, your salary and your current account turnover amongst a lot of other factors hold far more weight than if you solely just make the minimum repayment.



Each to their own

#7
Indeed. But having been on the lending side of the fence, I'm going with it's not a myth.



But you're absolutely right, in that it's not the sole factor determining any decision.

#8



Me personally, I think it's a myth. I can only speak for myself and my experience in obtaining credit from various providers over the many years. I only ever pay minimum on 0% deals whether that be for purchases or balance transfers and all the lenders have increased my limit intermittently without any request from me and have always received a much larger limit than I initially expected from a new lender.



I think your repayment history, your internal rating with whatever bank/lender, your salary and your current account turnover amongst a lot of other factors hold far more weight than if you solely just make the minimum repayment.



Each to their own
Originally posted by Candyapple




Same with everyone, but as I understand it, the CRAs will mug you with a minimum payment flag if your account is not on a promotional deal, but they won't if it is.

#9



Same with everyone, but as I understand it, the CRAs will mug you with a minimum payment flag if your account is not on a promotional deal, but they won't if it is.
Originally posted by GingerBob


Possibly since if you have a debt at 0% it may well actually make more financial sense to pay the minimum while holding the money elsewhere (effectively doing small scale stoozing), so this behaviour shouldn't be penalised. Meanwhile, someone who's not on a promotional rate but is consistently paying the minimums is likely to be a poor credit risk since they are either unwilling or unable to pay more towards their debt while having it barely decrease or even increase due to interest or new spending.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron