New Canadian Tire branded Triangle World Elite Mastercard | Page 2 | Credit card reward programs | Discussion forum

Loonie said
It's an ill-conceived rule which doesn't take into account the situation of many retirees who may be cash-rich and mortgage-free with exemplary credit ratings and high CC tabs which they pay off regularly, but who may not meet the income standard. …

I think MasterCard Canada has considered that situation with retirees. There seems to be an alternate spending qualification of $25,000 per year.

PC Financial openly advertises that their existing PC Financial MasterCard holders can upgrade to a World Elite MasterCard if they charge $25,000 or more per year to their current PC MasterCard:

A minimum annual personal income of $80,000 or household income of $150,000 is required for a new PC Financial^® World Elite Mastercard^®. To upgrade from another PC Financial Mastercard, the same income or a minimum $25,000 annual spending on the card is required.

National Bank offers the same to their existing MasterCard holders too. National Bank adds another alternative: $400,000 of investable assets.

Interesting that the banks are finding alternatives to the supposedly iron-clad rule. It only makes sense, if they want the business, as some people have older existing cards from before they retired and will keep them unless offered something better.

I recently accompanied an elderly widow to RBC to apply for a new credit card. She was told in very clear terms that, despite her excellent credit rating and payment history with previous card from another FI, her credit limit would be restricted to a figure which is below her regular CC spending, due to low income. She was told there was no way this could be increased.

It's not just your income, it's also how many other credit cards you already have. Also, maybe they're not as interested in people who have multiple cards who use each one selectively just to get the best rewards for each card.

By the time you're a senior you've got a very comprehensive pattern on record and they more easily know if you're going to be profitable enough for them to want you. I'm guessing seniors are not as desirable in some instances as younger folks who might also be better potential for loans, mortgages, lines of credit, etc. - the transaction fees are not the only reason they're issuing credit cards. Just like car dealers, they don't want to sell that vehicle in their lot to someone who wants it as is, even if you've got your cash ready, they'll make sure not to come to a deal and wait for someone who wants all the extras, rustproofing, etc.

I can see why they base it on income instead of liquid net worth as it's harder to go after someone's GICs or HISA account balances than their sources of income, I'd guess.

Norman1 said

No way to increase that limit initially. But, I think after a year of spending up to her limit on the RBC card and paying it off every month, RBC will increase her limit.

Excellent credit history helps. But, lenders know that not everything will show up on her credit record at Equifax and TransUnion. It is possible that her history has been excellent because her former spouse quietly covered any shortfalls.

RBC probably doesn't want to be the first to discover that the reason a cardholder was able to spend and pay off $10,000/month, with a reported income of just $30,000/year, was the $300,000/year spouse was regularly giving money to make those payments.   

However, this was absolutely not the case. ALL the transactions in the last 4 years (and most of them for many years before that) have been hers. She has always been the financial manager in the household. He was the spender.
A quick look at their records will tell the bank she has been doing ALL of the banking transactions. They also know how much money she has in the bank and that she owns her house, unencumbered. She also gets other non-taxable income and benefits for which no T slips are issued and which doesn't count as income for tax purposes.
And we're not talking about 300K or 10K. I asked for another $500, which would have covered her expenditures most months.
I don't know what they might do a year down the road but the person we dealt with was adamant that nothing would ever change without significantly increased income. Even when I pointed out that her income will increase soon due to the CPP Survivor's Benefit (she was born before 1934, so will get the maximum possible in her situation), they were not interested. The RBC person said there were two factors that they considered, the credit rating (which RBC said was over 800 - I forget specifically) and the income:debt ratio (she has no debts). Period. They simply don't care about assets.
The client is well into her 90s and it's reasonable that she might want to spend down her assets at this stage. They ought to be able to figure that out! She is of sound mind and pretty good in body too.
I'm wondering if perhaps she were to overpay her account by 500/month on purpose, if that would enable her to have the extra credit she needs? It's ridiculous that she should have to do this, but she doesn't want to have to carry around a large wad of cash either.

Loonie said

However, this was absolutely not the case. ALL the transactions in the last 4 years (and most of them for many years before that) have been hers. She has always been the financial manager in the household. He was the spender.
A quick look at their records will tell the bank…

Unfortunately, a big bank like RBC isn't going to spend the resources to ascertain all that for a credit card unless the card is for a mortgage-like limit of $100,000 or $200,000. It's just not worth their while.

They probably have an automated system that, as you were told, looks at credit record, debt, and income.

And we're not talking about 300K or 10K. I asked for another $500, which would have covered her expenditures most months.

I don't know what they might do a year down the road but the person we dealt with was adamant that nothing would ever change without significantly increased income.…

Well, if she repeatedly bumps up against her credit limit every month and pays it off in full as well, I'm sure something will trigger and her account will be flagged for review for a possible increase in limit.

I'm wondering if perhaps she were to overpay her account by 500/month on purpose, if that would enable her to have the extra credit she needs? It's ridiculous that she should have to do this, but she doesn't want to have to carry around a large wad of cash either.

Instead of overpaying, I would try paying $500 in the middle of the statement period to pay off some of the charges.

Top It Up said

Just eliminate any possibility of confusion and make the PIN number the same for both her credit card and debit card.  

I think most banks warn you not to re-use a PIN. I would have to check the fine print. Since both cards could be from the same FI, they would have a way to know if you'd done that. I don't want to inadvertently compromise her.

Julio's idea will work for some but would be too complicated for this person, as he suspected.

Top It Up said
This is all I've ever seen in my bank's information -

(b) PIN Confidentiality: You will keep your PIN(s) absolutely confidential and never disclose your PIN to anyone. If CIBC sends you a PIN on a document, you will immediately destroy the document. You will memorize your PIN rather than keep any written record of it.

(c) When you choose a PIN, you agree that you will not use all or any part of any number that can be easily obtained or guessed, such as: your or a relative’s name, birth date or telephone number; and an number on any of your Debit Cards, Accounts, Credit Cards, or ID cards that you keep with or near your Debit Cards.   

thx; I think you have identified the problem with using the same number for both cards, and I imagine many other agreements have similar wording.
Demands that are this comprehensive are, however, onerous and impractical. Nobody has a perfect memory, and most of us have several cards with PIN numbers.