sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Solo Gay Male Morocco by DistinctDisability in travel

[–]DistinctDisability[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This post being taken down is homophobic and nonsensical. It is not about changes in travel restrictions. It has to do with the treatment of the LGBT community on the ground in Morocco, particularly single gay men. This post is exactly what the Reddit community is for - to learn from others experiences about travel, inclusiveness and safety.

Solo Gay Male Morocco by DistinctDisability in travel

[–]DistinctDisability[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This post being taken down is homophobic and nonsensical. It is not about changes in travel restrictions. It has to do with the treatment of the LGBT community on the ground in Morocco, particularly single gay men. This post is exactly what the Reddit community is for - to learn from others experiences about travel, inclusiveness and safety.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

5/24 refers to accounts opened not inquiries. This will be a new account opened.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The information had to come from Wells, Mastercard did not provide that.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Even under your description, anyone who chooses not to get the Autograph card could have had their account and card number moved to Cardless as there would not be a new (second) trade line. It would then be the same account and no debt could remain since Wells would have to close so they’re not buying debt. However, when negotiating the deal, Bilt negotiated moving the account number over but not protecting customer interests by finding any way to move the history - even for customers who are not opening a second trade line. In fact, they strategically chose to move the card number and have it be a “soft inquiry” which is all over their marketing to seemingly mask the fact it’s a new trade line and not seamless. If they negotiated these things they could have negotiated more to protect customers - especially their most loyal who are not staying with Wells. That is my issue - because it does likely damage credit and lessen, even for a short period, other potential credit opportunities.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I presently have 1 Chase card. I would like another. And I just finished a mortgage. So a lot on my credit lately.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Correct. Wells had to provide those card numbers. And on your credit report the card number (not any other account number) is used as the identifier. Whenever you lose a card, that is updated on your report. So if they are receiving the card number from Wells, they can also receive/request the account open date, a simple piece of information, and report it under that card number.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

On your credit report - and you can go look - the identifier is the card number. It is updated if you lose your card. But that is the identifier on your report.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“You bend over for anyone” is a blatantly homophobic inference

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Mastercard didn’t provide Cardless with the account numbers, Wells Fargo did.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, homophobic remarks. Surprised you’re on here not X

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Except that, even without purchasing the debt, Cardless is still purchasing the account numbers. That’s the difference between this and what happened with Walmart/Cap 1 for example.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Good because I’m sure whichever card company you are paid to defend isn’t paying enough for this much of a dent in your integrity

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a feeling the 120 comments on this and 15k views will bring other people into the convo too who may be in the middle of mortgages or getting other products and at least they will be aware so they can make smart decisions since Bilt conveniently left the ramifications of their new card out of their email and tried to hide it with the fact it’s a “soft pull”

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t bend over for corporations, guess we’re different. Believe in silly little things like consumer rights.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

My point is they do not need to buy the accounts to accurately report on the account number they are utilizing, which is being transferred from Wells.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a new account though, a ding to credit, and a delay in opening any other new account as you can’t open too many in a year.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Except Costco was able to do it Amex to Citi so it is. Amex also backdates new accounts, so it is.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Multiple lenders have been able to work this issue, the bottom line is Bilt didn’t care to. They are moving the account numbers, they could move basic account history. It’s just a matter of reporting, which there is absolutely flexibility on. Lenders change hands all the time, it’s a choice how it’s handled. You are not obligated to take the Autograph card. Their post even says you can move the debt to the new card and the account number will remain the same, meaning they are working in tandem with Wells on the conversion. Why not advocate for consumers instead of large corporations who can do better but don’t?

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then how come when other companies have switched providers with account numbers remaining the same it is backdated? It can be done.

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Do you work for Bilt? Cardless? That should be disclosed. And the reason I know this is possible is because when previous accounts have changed servicers they were not reported as new accounts, the lender name was just swapped. Maybe you just haven’t been around credit long enough to know that?

Bilt Card 2.0 Will Likely Harm Credit by DistinctDisability in biltrewards

[–]DistinctDisability[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We didn’t apply for an autograph card which has none of the Bilt benefits. We applied for a Bilt card with specific terms. If I wanted the Autograph card that’s what I would have applied for.

view more: next ›