When it comes to CLs, the general consensus is that bigger is always better. It’s certainly true that if you spend a lot on a card, then having a high CL (or NPSL) is nice.
But here are some cases where it seems a bit unnecessary or even ridiculous. I’d happily take a higher CL on my EDP or CSP, but I certainly don’t need more on my BCE or Sallie Mae. Those BCE ($6k) and SM ($4.5k) limits are in excess of what I need, but I don’t think they are unusually high.
I see people who already have $10k+ of credit on individual store cards they barely use constantly pushing for more. It’s also true of some major network cards with lousy rewards but high CLs.
I don’t totally get why the focus on high CLs is so common. Getting a higher CL on a card you don’t use much seems very counterproductive. It doesn’t take very many $10k+ CLs to quickly put most people into the “too much available credit” category where they can get declined despite an otherwise good application.
Unless you have a commensurate income, isn’t a high CL on a card you don’t use much just kind of dead weight?
My highest CL is only $6k, but I get instant approvals for the cards I want. I don’t have my existing CLs crowd out a new card I might really like.
Of course, if someone has high utilization or needs to do a BT, I can understand the desire for a high CL. I’m talking about people who PIF and just like the high CL game. The rewards/bonus/perks game is a lot more fun.