A few disclaimers before we get started
If you are considering booking travel or signing up for a new credit card please click here. Both support LiveAndLetsFly.com.
If you haven’t followed us on Facebook or Instagram, add us today.
Richard Kerr of ThePointsGuy.com (a BankRate website [credit card referral company])
I don’t know him personally, he seems like a nice enough guy. While this post was partially a result of comments he recently made about the Chase 5/24 rule, it really is more about the state of travel blogging and what we have become as both consumers of the information and providers.
Chase’s 5/24 Rule
JP Morgan Chase Bank (Chase) offers credit cards and incentivizes card holders by providing rewards for spending on their cards. They earn money from retailers through transaction charges, interest from some customers, and annual fees. They also cross-sell to their partners and for other products they offer. The 5/24 Rule is as follows:
Applicants must not exceed five new credit accounts within the last 24 months.
Dr. of Credit has a great article that explains which cards it applies to and the ins and outs. It’s exhaustive, worth a read and he is the expert so if you want to know more about the rule itself, check out his post on the Chase 5/24. There are reports of some exceptions to the rule for those who have more than five new accounts in the last 24 months – those (unconfirmed) exceptions include: Chase Private Clients (qualifications include having $15,000 in a Chase account) or those that have been pre-approved but lie outside of the 5/24 Rule. Chase Private Client accounts are a very, very narrow section of the population – narrow like ‘a camel through the eye of a needle’ kind of narrow. However, there have been some reports of people having success on in-branch applications that are not private client, and do exceed the 5/24 rule but were pre-approved for the offer without being told so. At least in the case of the only example I could verify personally from an unnamed editor to this very site, they were not a Private Client, and actually had 9/24 with six of those being sole accounts (not authorized user accounts), but that editor did have an existing checking account with Chase. I can’t imagine those that do not have an account with Chase being pre-approved yet not notified about the offer unless they walk into a branch and ask, but I have been wrong before and I will be wrong again.
Richard Kerr of ThePointsGuy.com explains how the 5/24 Rule Does Not Exist
Last week I listened to the Saverocity Observation Deck podcast and the discussion of the Chase 5/24 Rule came up (starts around minute 53, skip there if you like).
Rich said, “It’s not a rule, it’s not even…” he trails off and gets a little worked up then summarizes. “It is a hypothesis that was proselytized by people with no solid evidence and then the phenomenon of groupthink that takes over many, many writers in [the miles and points] hobby continued this 5/24 Rule ‘idea’… and nobody ever went back and looked with hard evidence, ‘this is real, here’s the data’…”
He then goes on in regards to how bloggers perpetuated the ‘idea’ of the rule. “[Miles and points] writers see a headline and see a source and copy it and write about it and it’s just not true.”
So to be clear Richard Kerr has stated that the 5/24 Rule is a hypothesis, created and perpetuated by careless travel hobby writers with a complete lack of evidence. In lieu of “hard evidence” travel hobby writers qualify their story by “hat tipping” or crediting a source that previously wrote about it (not necessarily making the information true, but rather just showing where that writer found the information).
Shawn Coomer Says It Does Exist… Kind of
Shawn Coomer of Miles to Memories (a Boarding Area blog), also on the podcast then chimed in with a different approach to the Rule, although ever so slightly.
“The one thing that’s difficult with the banks is that they’re not exactly telling us what their rules are”
Shawn is absolutely right. Chase isn’t publishing any of their approval or denial qualifications which speaks to some of the lack of hard evidence. While Rich comments that there is a lack of hard evidence, Shawn points out the obvious – banks are not going to publish this information so hard evidence is somewhat impossible to obtain. Shawn continues,
“I do agree with Rich that it’s definitely not a hard rule” But then backtracks that statement pretty hard by saying, “I personally changed it to the 5/24 ‘guideline’, because I do believe that there is an over-arching guideline within Chase now for most cards, and those are typically the numbers [5/24] that they are using.”
Well, that sounds like a complete endorsement that yes the 5/24 Rule exists, and that Shawn has done the research to support it – while somehow at the same time sounding like he completely agrees with Rich. He then adds why it is important (and presumably why he has been researching it and writing about it),
“So people can form a good strategy for themselves… to figure out if it makes sense for them to apply and what sort of chance they have of getting approved.”
Fair enough Mr. Coomer. Accurate too. I hadn’t personally looked into it closely to this point as I haven’t been applying for many cards as of late so it really hasn’t been an issue for me. I trust writers like Dr. of Credit who are known for their accuracy and insight.
But at the same time, Rich is right too but less about the Rule than about the new standard for hobby writing. There is a lot of groupthink in our hobby. Don’t believe me? Just subscribe for a single day to Boarding Area’s RSS feed and you will see the same kinds of headlines from dozens of writers. Seth Miller, a Boarding Area author himself, commented on another podcast for which he is a regular co-host, Dots, Lines and Destinations, about a change American Airlines made that had previously been announced, however on the day it came into effect there were 20 posts just on Boarding Area at the time of his publication about it; 21 after he wrote about other authors writing about it – how Meta is that?
The problem is readership, clicks and the money that follows. Those that write as a full-time job, or those who write to try and make it their job some day – need readers to choose their site over another source. Those views turn into occasional clicks, clicks into conversions and conversions into checks that allow them continue writing about travel, undoubtedly their passion. But there comes a point when chasing the almighty view is greedy, and irresponsible. That is where Rich is coming from, Hobby writers put the importance of getting a post up first above whether the story’s valid and purposeful; and I think that’s a really honest and fair statement about the state of our readers, our writers and our lifestyles.
The tale of the Clickbait – but…
Along those lines, take Clickbait King, Brian Cohen of TheGate, now on Boarding Area, formerly of FlyerTalk. He uses headlines that end in question marks like:
“11 Tips and Tricks for Sleeping Aboard Airplanes?”
“8 Ways to Upgrade Your Hotel Room and 6 Ways to Avoid the Worst Hotel Room?”
“People are Upset About Delta Air Lines Offering Suites in Business Class?”
“These Five Scams Snare Even Seasoned Travelers?”
All of those recent examples are (apparently) from his frequent segment, ‘Stuff I find elsewhere and re-post that will cause readers to click just to prove they know more than other idiots who are writing about these things.’ Then there is the ever-so-click-bait-y (that’s not a word) ‘but’ title:
“Spend Fewer SkyMiles on Award Tickets to Europe in Either Cabin — But…”
“Get a Free Burger at Shake Shack Tomorrow — But…”
I am not sure if it’s a case of lack of respect for the reader, meaning that the author of click-bait travel posts (Brian is by no means alone) believes that the reader is so dumb that if you do not bait them into your post with obvious and often conflicting or controversial statements they will simply not read it and instead get back to Pokémon Go! Or rather, if it is a lack of self-respect of the writer them-self, that if you just titled a post like the above, “Delta offers business and coach awards near previous award levels, calls it sale anyway” then people just wouldn’t read it? His heavy use of this clickbait idiocy implies that the content is good enough to post, but people won’t read it unless they have to know why the “but” (and following ellipses) are there! What could they be missing out on? Writers that I greatly admire do this from time-to-time, Gary Leff is a great example. I just want to scream, “Gary, I love your work and I will read it if it is interesting to me anyway, but don’t talk down to me just to get a click.”
The new credit card from Chase is exciting to travelers, travel hackers and writers but because there is so many articles about it, writers have to make their post standout. The question remains if the Rule is real. Coomer says the rule exists but not for everyone, and Kerr says it’s all myth, perpetuated by lying liars and the writers that tell their stories. So how about a little field research?
I applied for the Chase Sapphire Reserve and you won’t believe what happened next… – but hurry?
I got a denial. They weren’t even gentle about it. For the avoidance of doubt I really should have been a prime candidate for them. My credit score is within the range of 800-830 depending on the bureau, my earnings exceeded the purported (but of course unverified and unconfirmed by Chase) range for applicants, my debt ratio was under 10%. Those reviewing my application can see that I use my Chase Sapphire Preferred card as my daily use card, they can see that they are making money off of me yet they still said, ‘thanks but no thanks’ to the new card – an upgrade from my current card. I have had a relationship with them through one card or another for several years, have always had my cards in good standing, have never made a late payment and have also developed a relationship with them on the business credit card side of their operation. What’s not to like, Chase? And if the 5/24 rule is not hard and fast and exceptions can be made, wouldn’t one of your customers that exceeds all the other criteria and uses your product as their primary card be that exception?
Oh that’s right, the “hypothesis” of the 5/24 Rule. So this writer, conducting his due diligence (after the application has already been filed) thought to confirm his credit report and low and behold there are more than five new accounts in the last 24 months. To be fair to Chase, I wasn’t close to five, it was nine. I won’t be eligible for one of their shiny new credit cards until they either revise their “over-arching guideline” or May of 2017 (assuming I do not apply for a single other card or line of credit until then).
Hard Evidence
As any informed and likely indignant credit card enthusiast would do, I called up Chase to ask them to reconsider my “pending” status. I was informed that the agent would look over my application and get back with me shortly. It took less than the two to three minutes I was quoted before the rep came back and stated,
“Your debt ratio, earnings and score are all great. But unfortunately today we cannot approve you because you have had more than five new accounts in the last two years” – Chase representative.
I’m okay at math, not Russel Crow or anything, but okay, and the last time I checked 24 months works out to exactly two years.
While I can appreciate what Rich is trying to convey: hobby writers are simply reprinting what appears elsewhere in the news in order to drive traffic to their site by any means possible (one writer seems to exclusively syndicate other people’s content through links and a two or three sentence description); I can also now look him squarely in the eyes and call BS. The Chase 5/24 Rule absolutely exists, I have my own hard evidence (by which of course I mean soft and anecdotal but at least a quote from one of their reconsideration reps). Regardless of how many years you have been with Chase, how profitable you may be for them, how reliable your payments, how high your score, how great your ability to repay, and how low your debt ratio- it all comes down to whether or not you have opened 5 new accounts in the last 24 months.
And yes, to answer your question, I am bitter.
-Sherpa
Like most people, you’re misunderstanding my arguement, and perhaps I’m doing a poor job of explaining it. Denials for too many accounts has always existed and continues to exist. While 5/24 is in hard enforcement for the CSR, it is not in hard enforcement for all Chase products. The fact bloggers blanket state if you’re over 5/24 you’ll be denied by Chase – without stating many products are exempt and many people over 5/24 are still getting approved (including for the CSR) – is poor journalism and leading newbies astray.
Your last blanket statement in this post alone would lead newbies to not apply for Chase products exempt from a too many new accounts rule, and that is bad writing and further enforcement of what we should, at the most, call a 5/24 guideline rather than a rule.
Though I appreciate your substantiation of my observation on the writing community today. I applaud your original post.
@Richard – I appreciate your clarification, but I wrote the post solely based on your statements in the podcast. If I misquoted then I am happy to correct, but I don’t think that I did (check the tape: http://saverocityobservationdeck.com/2016/08/01/episode-35-fatherhood-family-and-points-with-shawn-coomer-and-richard-kerr/).
That being said, maybe your full intentions were not displayed and I am happy you have done so above. You stated that it is not a blanket Rule, that there are exceptions and other bloggers (who have not verified it themselves and now you may be perpetuating the same rumors you deplored) claim that an exemption may be for Chase Private Clients (typically with $15,000 liquid in a Chase bank account) or those pre-qualified.
However, using your own metrics of verifying the information first there are only three verifiable facts that I can report responsibly: 1) I was over-qualified for the offer (confirmed by Chase), 2) That I did have more than five applications in the last rolling 24 month period (confirmed in my credit reports) and 3) That I was not approved due to the Rule as stated by the representative (confirmed by Chase).
I don’t disagree that the last statement (that the rule exists and is in effect) might preclude some from applying – but do the exceptions to the rule really apply to the “newbies” you claim I am leading astray? How many newbies are going to be over-qualified for the offer, AND a Chase Private Client or received a pre-approval for the offer that until yesterday didn’t officially exist? I would venture to say you are speaking to a number less than 1%, maybe less than a 10th of a percent given the criteria that would have to exist based on the anecdotal evidence we have seen elsewhere. Speaking to responsible journalism, wouldn’t you agree that avoiding statements about the rule being in full effect and having newbies with more than five inquiries apply would be leading them more astray by saying that some exceptions exist? Look at my resume, am I not an exceptional candidate for this product?
And you didn’t call it a guideline then as you have in your comment above. You specifically stated it’s a “hypothesis” which by definition is an unproven scientific question, but in the tone (which we can hear on the audio and don’t have to infer) it was at minimum suggested that it is not real and doesn’t exist. Thus the reason that Shawn had to differ with you, then it was HE that called it a guideline.
The one thing that I think (I hope) we agree on for sure, is that the state of travel blogging and reporting on a report is messy and problematic.
@Richard – I am glad we agree on the state of writing in our Hobby.
Those types of clarificaitons and exemptions, i.e. the whole story, should be in least alluded to in all these 5/24 posts. Newbies may not be looking to act on the information in your post, but surely are looking to educate themselves.
I invite you to join my Travel Hacking 101 Facebook group and add your voice to those looking for reason in our hobby. Again, I applaud the original thought content. https://www.facebook.com/groups/travelhacking101/
@Richard – That’s fair enough, I will include the exceptions at the very top of the post.
I follow Richard Kerr’s blog. I enjoy it immensely and find it to be a community made up of people who love to travel – and that is a community that I sincerely enjoy and from which I have learned so much, far beyond what credit card is best to acquire.
However, your post and all of the above is interesting, as well. You both make good points – and that makes for interesting morning news (for me) and various views for me to consider in making my choices. All good.
Here is my observation and let’s go beyond whether a person can or cannot acquire a certain credit card. I find fault with any business that has a “hard and fast” standard or business model by which they judge a customer by ONE certain standard. Oh my goodness, everyone has a financial history that is different from everyone else’s. A customer should not be compared to other customers and certainly not by ONE standard. You, Kyle, have all the components that should have gotten you approval. I am just like you – a good customer who charges much to her credit cards, pays all cards off monthly, and presumably is making “them” more money. I was denied a Chase 70k bonus United card for which I was targeted many, many times via email and snail mail. That consistent and repetitive targeting made me think “Hmmm, I’m at 6/24 but maybe that doesn’t matter.” So I applied and received the dreaded “too many cards open” letter.
Now let’s look at my reality. In our family, we have three Citi AA cards – my husband’s, our business’s, and mine. We’ve been extremely loyal to AA for years and years. However, I am not fond of AA’s recent changes and would like to begin earning miles for United flights, thus potentially changing my flight loyalty. Here is a chance for United Airlines to “earn” a new customer and probably a loyal customer. Yet, Chase has put down the gate for that. No go. I had planned to cancel two of those three Citi cards if I had gotten the United card. My thought is that THAT would have been a very positive outcome for United.
So, this very limiting 5/24 (I believe it’s definitely more than a guideline) is making Chase a poor banking affiliate for an airline’s or hotel’s loyalty program. Why shouldn’t United just jump ship to a banking entity that would analyze a customer by a variety of standards? I think Chase is digging a huge hole for itself. I personally think it’s time to stop looking at Chase as providing the best of the best in credit card deals. They as a business are not acting as a rational business should that is trying to acquire a sound customer base. I think we should ban together – a whole bunch of us – and boycott Chase until they begin to see us each as individuals with our own financial histories and our own travel desires, plans, and strategies.
Keep on keepin’ on! 🙂
Robin Wehner
The Travel Tutor
@Robin, first of all thank you for reading and for your thoughtful response.
Your statements regarding being dissatisfied with American are a great example, one I wish I would have thought of and included so thank you for adding it.
I, like you, also think the targeting is wrong. I have a Chase Ink card, my wife has one too, and yet we get a pre-approval letter for a new one all the time. And even if using the mailer and (presumably) pre-approval would bypass their rule, why would Chase want me to have two of the same card when I am already using the one I have. And if I applied and was not approved because of the rule, then why waste the money on the mailer at all?
I will bet you money they will reconsider their approach for this card in particular because they have so many Chase Sapphire Preferred card holders that are not going to be able to get the deal. But if I get a letter inviting me to apply, do so again and they deny me, I would actually consider walking away from my favorite credit card provider because that makes absolutely no sense at all and just baits me with things I can’t have. It also makes me less likely to trust them to make good customer service policies fair to both parties. If you have the rule, just be up front about it. I wouldn’t have applied.
I am also surprised that the representatives are so open about the entire process on the phone but not on the internet. That’s a surefire way to upset current and potential customers. The example I gave to a rep was that of my nine new accounts only seven were single accounts, the others I was added on. And they suggested that they could approve after looking at that if the number had been five sole accounts but seven with authorized users. So then I took it a step further stating that I had the British Airways card and the Southwest card before I realized that I could earn both points through the Sapphire Preferred and shut them both down. That’s three of my seven sole accounts and Chase Sapphire Preferred is clearly my main account. She went back to the story about how they consider all factors and the 5/24 is among them. I then asked, if that is the only reason for the denial, it was. And we went round and round in circles again. The point I am trying to get to in a somewhat round about fashion, Robin, is this: The policy is bad, inelastic and detrimental to Chase themselves. I think you highlighted this well and I really, really appreciate your insight.
Thanks for starting a discussion. I tend to use the term guideline as much as possible for two reasons. First, there are ways around it such as being pre-approved or being a Chase Private Client. That information comes from dozens of data points shared with me directly from readers and is supported with accounts from people on site’s like Reddit. So no official statement from Chase, but enough data that I am comfortable writing about it.
The second reason I tend to call it a guideline is because it doesn’t apply to all cards. So as you say, in the podcast I may have sounded like I was playing both sides of the argument, but I wasn’t. I have talked to Richard in great detail and understand his position, so my agreeing with him was nuanced.
Anyway, good stuff and thanks again.
@Shawn – Thanks for clarifying. Rich suggested the same caveat and I have placed on at the top of the post, but as I stated both in the caveat (under an explanation of the 5/24 Rule) and in comments discussions with him – those customers are so limited and rare that I think it does more harm than good to “newbies”. While Chase may bend the rules for these super elite customers, I have a hard time understanding the benefit to “newbies” of a limited caveat for which they are very unlikely to qualify, but I do see the danger because everyone thinks they are the exception to the rule for one reason or another.
For example, we could agree that Delta and American no longer have an interline agreement so they will not rebook stranded passengers on the other’s carrier. However, if that passenger is Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, and he is (for whatever reason traveling commercially) stuck in Dallas awaiting a mechanical issue with Delta, I would imagine they might make an exception for him or other super diamond elites on paid business class tickets. Does that mean that the interline agreement story should have an asterisk stating “Unless you are a super diamond, high revenue passenger, on a paid business class ticket with virtually no other options” – I would argue that it does not need such an asterisk because the application is so limited.
Except that it isn’t quite like that. For example yesterday hundreds of people were approved by going into a branch because they were “preapproved” in Chase’s system. These aren’t Tim Cook level people (Private Clients) but just normal customers. I think it is beneficial to the readers to give them all of the information that we have and I certainly think more information is better than less. (i.e. Not mentioning 5/24 at all just to get app clicks.)
I actually address the very topic of click bait — along with its definition and my loathing of it — in this article, Kyle…
http://thegate.boardingarea.com/you-wont-believe-what-happened-next-after-how-surprised-i-was-with-these-especially-with-2/
…and regardless of how you feel about me or my work, I greatly respect the fact that you and the other authors at UPGRD do not accept commissions for credit card links, as I adhere to the same policy.
Thanks, Kyle. I can tell that we are on the same page. It’s nice to know I’m not alone in my thinking. I’m with you, though, on my confusion about Chase’s current business model. We as customers provide a great amount of loyalty to Chase itself. They have a good product. We like their product. I have quite a few of their credit cards, and they are the cards I want to round out my personal and business airline and hotel decision making choices. Because I have their cards, I spend with their cards. You would think Chase would want to grow our loyalty because we do provide their earnings. Let us all know if you decide to leave them in the dust and move in a different/better direction. It could end up being a long, long line of dissatisfied customers.
@Shawn – I am adjusting the pre-approval segment but the private client I think I am going to leave where it is. Because there is nothing for “hard evidence” other than feedback from readers, and because we know Private Client is a fairly select group, I don’t think there is anything to really adjust beyond what I have above. However, I did speak to another travel writer that was at 9/24 for total accounts and 6/24 for sole accounts and he was unwittingly pre-approved in-branch so there is some anecdotal supporting evidence from a very reliable source.
I do appreciate the dialogue and your contribution to the community on this topic.
@Brian – I picked on you by name because you were top of feed and that was probably unfair (though I did state you were not the only one, and you aren’t). I also appreciate that you don’t source your revenue from credit cards (though in principle I don’t have a problem with those that do) my issue is with those that turn every post into an infomercial, Million Mile Secrets is a prime example. I think your posts that are not clickbait titled are helpful and informative, but I have to ask the question:
If you loathe clickbait enough to write a post about how much you loathe it, why would you ever use it? In your own post you said, “I generally eschew click-bait when writing articles for The Gate primarily because I want you to trust the content I post; and in my opinion, using click-bait tends to erode that trust” – but then just within the last week you had several titles (included above) that are clear clickbait examples.
I politely welcome your clarification.
@Robin – I totally agree. Not that it matters to big bad Chase, but just today I put enough airfare on a Citi card to hit the Sapphire Reserve spending threshold which, had I been approved, would have been business for Chase instead. Oh well. Maybe I will try in branch, though now I am in less of a rush to do so.
Thank you for asking that question, Kyle; and I hope that I can offer a sensible explanation.
The reason I use question marks in a title is because I want readers of The Gate to know immediately what is the topic of the article without it seeming like I am giving a definitive opinion — and often that title is close to that of the original article. Sometimes the original article to which I am referring contains useful information; and sometimes the original article is what some people might refer to as a joke — but I attempt to interject my experiences to give those articles a personal touch with some originality to them and not simply regurgitate them. While I do offer my opinion in those articles, I want readers to form their own opinion of the content of whatever I write — and I certainly welcome anyone to take me to task if I am wrong or out of line.
As for the “— but…” in the title of some articles, I always attempt to ensure that the “— but…” has something substantive to which the reader can ascertain is a negative aspect of what would be considered an otherwise positive topic — such as a contest or a promotion…
…but the main reason why I use “— but…” in the titles of articles is because I do not want to appear like a marketing shill for frequent travel loyalty companies. I know quite a few people in person who work for those companies and I respect them; but I do not want to compromise my integrity by simply listing all of the positive aspects of what they are offering — and yet, despite that, they still contact me when they have some news. I want readers to be acutely aware of the “— but…” aspects of a contest or promotion: are they in a qualified location? What is the expiration date? Are the prizes actually worth winning? Is the company infamously known for not crediting accounts properly?
Yes, the headlines are designed to draw in readers — I offer no apologies for that — but I do not believe they are click bait because I strive to offer substantive content in return for readers clicking on an article. As I mentioned in my article, “If I write a headline which is catchy, I want you to be satisfied that the content you read indeed provides you with information, education or entertainment.” That is a fine line to walk, to be certain — but the fact is that headlines need to be succinct while catching attention.
I recently released a list of the top 50 articles at The Gate:
http://thegate.boardingarea.com/top-50-articles/
Fully half of the top twenty articles are what are known as “listicles” — you know: “11 Travel” this or “12 Essential” that. They have attracted quite a few readers; but that still saddens me somewhat because I have plenty of trip reports from all over the world which have original content; and — to be frank — they do not get as much readership. That will not stop me from posting trip reports in the future — but as you are aware, a lot of work goes into them. I would rather just continue traveling the world and posting my experiences and photographs.
You just posted an article pertaining to your experience at Hyatt on the Bund. I intend to post my experience at The Gate — after I wade through all of the photographs and choose the ones I want to use, crop them to an optimum size, write the copy, place the photograph strategically, proofread the content, add the SEO options — well…you get the idea. It is a lot of work which is time consuming; but it is also a labor of love.
I am always open to constructive criticism, Kyle; and I welcome it. Unfair? Nah. I am not perfect and can always improve; and I hope all of what I wrote makes sense…
…and I welcome a continued dialogue if you have any questions or comments — but I do want to say one last thing: I believe that many readers of The Gate are some of the smartest people and I do not consider them dumb by any stretch of the imagination. As I have inferred, they have no qualms about keeping me in line…
ugh denied for this blasted 5/24… attempted twice as well as communicating w/ their twitter. Its absolutely useless.
I am livid with my 800 score and good job that they can’t offer me the card… not to mention of the accounts opened I would be under the limit if I wasn’t forced upgraded to a visa/mastercard from a store card and that my credit union didn’t sell off their credit branch and it became “transferred” and a new account opened.
They didn’t want to hear it or care.
Sherpa in your testing you probably should have then applied for one of the Chase cards purported to not be affected by the 5/24 rule.
@Dave – I received not one but two letters from Chase indicating their acknowledgement of the 5/24 rule and that being the reason for my denial. There is not mystery left, and while I can appreciate that applying for a Chase card outside of the rule might have further established my claims, I have little doubt in their veracity and no desire to give them more of my business.
Update – Just got approved for the Chase Sapphire Reserve despite the obvious terrible start. Approved just two days before the in-branch offer was pulled!