query: Regarding Australian CBS takeover of TEN

positive: "they are purchasing the company"" is this correct? Yes this is correct. If I purchase a ""company"" here in Australia, I also purchase its assets and liabilities Yes that is correct. How can it be NIL? How can it be legal? The value of shares [or shareholders] is Assets - liabilities. Generally a healthy company has Assets that are greater than its liabilities and hence the company has value and shareholders have value of the shares. In case of TEN; the company has more liabilities; even after all assets are sold off; there is not enough money left out to pay all the creditors. Hence the company is in Administration. i.e. it is now being managed by Regulated Australian authority. The job of the administrator is to find out suitable buyers so that most of the creditors are paid off and if there is surplus pay off the shareholder or arrive at a suitable deal. In case of TEN; the liabilities are so large that no one is ready to buy the company and the deal of CBS will also mean nothing gets paid to existing shareholders as the value is negative [as the company is separate legal entity, they can't recover the negative from shareholders]. Even the current creditors may not be paid in full and may get a pro-rated due and may lose some money."

negative: It wasn't that long ago that Tim Horton's was owned by Wendy's, another American fast food chain. The only reason Investment Canada would have to block a foreign takeover would be if it would risk Canadian jobs (which this one wouldn't) or risks putting an important Canadian resource in foreign hands (which this takeover also wouldn't).  Investment Canada has only blocked two foreign acquisitions of Canadian companies in the past 25 years.

negative: Source on monetary contraction in the US over the past ten years?   CBs refer to more than just the fed. Buying means treasury yields go down which pushes investors into other asset classes. I am curious as to which asset classes would be least affected by excess liquidity in the system.   Also see the following link:  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-09/mystery-central-bank-buyer-revealed-snb-now-owns-record-84-billion-us-stocks

negative: "(Regarding one aspect of the question) Here's a survey suggesting new programmers value ""free lunch"", old programmers do not care about it: https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/06/12/new-kids-block-understanding-developers-entering-workforce-today/?cb=1"

negative: "[ See Hopstar's comment : ](http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/ujwei/dont_mean_to_be_alarmist_but_the_tv_business_may/c4w52l9)  > They're an exception to all of this because they're owned by ""a joint venture of NBCUniversal (Comcast/General Electric), Fox Entertainment Group (News Corp) and Disney-ABC Television Group (The Walt Disney Company), with funding by Providence Equity Partners, the owner of Newport Television...""  > Even with the full support of three major conglomerates, the service is still gimped (delays in broadcasting new episodes, limited availability of past episodes/seasons) by their fear of change."

negative: Ten years ago Fred Achom had reached a crossroad where he had to make a decision about his future in the wine investment market. The financial regulatory boards responded negatively regarding the idea of advising clients about fine wine investment and charging a premium for the service. The outcome was the suspension of his London's wine investment consultancy, Boington & Fredericks by DTI on charges of mis-selling wine as an investment.

negative: I think it's going to be a tough sell for their older user base. Most of their clientele is probably not going to jump online to watch the latest CSI/NCIS spinoff. If they want this to succeed, they should go after a younger demographic with shows like How I Met Your Mother and whatnot.

negative: I suppose it could've happened the other way around- if the major media company was already interested in Broadcast Software, but BS (*nice*) had ignored Bob or treated him poorly he would've stood up- told a different story- and lost them this deal.    Though yeah, the title is poorly phrased(edit: thanks dgillz).

negative: Turn around strategy: Provide coverage of the major European soccer leagues (Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A) the same way CBS/NBC do for NFL and College football. Soccer is the fastest growing sport in the U.S, and that is not just because of the influx of Latinos - the sport is really becoming popular amongst whites, blacks ect. Within ten years it will be bigger than baseball, potentially also basketball if the NBA keeps up its absurd predictability.

negative: The user who wrote the Zerohedge item: The CBS article: The Quora estimate is similar to the Zerohedge one (estimated a round value of 1000 PE and a price of 70-80). Note that it was 30 days after the first 2 items you quoted. You used the CBS numbers except you used the zerohedge price.  It depends on which earnings were for each calculation. Past or future. The CBS numbers make the most sense because you can trace where they come from based on the links in their article.  CBS based their price on the estimates made the day before the stock went on sale. The price in the zerohedge item was based on the early trading numbers.

negative: Ultra-low rates can spur an unhealthy boon in M&A deals/Corporate takeovers as management (defensively) and raiders (offensively) lever up cheaply to acquire companies. This can be problematic down the line when takeovers/large investments (that were funded with cheap debt) dont pan out and interest rates rise, and with it the cost of servicing that debt.

negative: Having stock options means that you have worked for and rightfully earned a part of the company's capital appreciation. Takeover of the company would indicate someone is interested in the company (something should be valuable). It would be unwise to not strike before the period lapses since the strike price is always lower than market price and takeovers generally increases stock values ... it is capital gains all the way my friend. Good luck. *observations not in professional capacity. pls consult a professional for investment related advice.

negative: Kuala Lumpur, 2 July 2014. In line with Axiata Group Berhad’s (Axiata) strategy to focus on mobile communications, Axiata has entered into an agreement with Samart Corporation Public Company Limited (Samart) to dispose its entire shareholding of approximately 24% of the total issued and outstanding share capital in Samart i-Mobile Public Company Limited (Samart i-Mobile) for total gross consideration of approximately USD88.6 million. Samart is the current shareholder in Samart i-Mobile and currently holds around 52% of the total issued and outstanding share capital in Samart i-Mobile.   Samart i-Mobile is in the business of providing instant wireless information services and mobile content, along with the distribution of mobile phones and accessories. Dato’ Sri Jamaludin Ibrahim, President & Group Chief Executive Officer said “We would like to thank Samart i-Mobile for the support throughout our period of investment and we wish them every success for the future.   [http://www.academia.edu/7060492/The_Jakarta_Globe_Axis_Capital_Group_Telecom_Purchase_XL_Axiata](http://www.academia.edu/7060492/The_Jakarta_Globe_Axis_Capital_Group_Telecom_Purchase_XL_Axiata)

negative: That makes me happy, they really portrayed Ray as an asshole, but it took a lot of vision and hard work to build that kind of empire, and it clearly wouldn't have been the same if left to the brothers. I'm glad they were happy with their buyout. I'm not sure I would be after seeing what it would become.

negative: "Interesting article! I feel like it focuses a little heavy on that line in the 10-K though, that doesn't seem terribly uncommon. Seems like the article is trying to do a ""gotcha"" bit with it. I think the story of the disappearing executives is much more interesting without bringing the generic 10-K disclaimers into it at all."

negative: Yes, I think you're correct. I think it was more like.  Paul Singer: Pay up on time and in full or I will ruin your credit history so bad you'll never be able to get a loan again.   Argentina: Burn the house, we will call the BRIC bank to re-build.

negative: You have a comparatively small sum to invest, and since you're presumably expecting to go to college.university soon, where you may well need the money, you also have a short timescale for your investment. I don't think anything stock-related would be good for you -- you need a longer timescale for stock market investments, at least five years and preferably ten or more. I don't know the details of Australian savings, but I'd suggest just finding a bank that is giving a good interest rate for a one-year fixed-term savings account.

negative: "Well, if blodget's scenario comes to pass, it won't be rewarded.  Or at least, *I* won't have to watch it, there being 6.02x10^23 other shows to queue up instead.  I think a large part of the reason reality shows persist is that there are a limited number of channels, so if you aren't watching sports, etc, you have to settle for this garbage sooner or later.  Also, it may be true that they save them money, but I can't imagine that they command the advertiser money that a real, good, popular show does, so they really don't want to shift to them full time.  Thus we have this crap situation: try a show idea, then pull the plug and substitute something else.  ""When Gravity Fails"" was shaping up (finally) when they pulled it.  Boy, was my wife ever mad!  Personally, I have gone out of my way to avoid anything that sniffed 'realitytv', starting w/ the first season of survivor.  I feel the same way about the plethora of cop/doctor/lawyer/other formula shows too."

negative: "Most companies get taken over eventually. More to the point, ANY company with a public float over 50 percent that's large and viable enough to fall on people's radar screens will get taken over if its stock price is ""too low"" relative to its long term prospects.  It is the possibility of a takeover, as much as anything else, that bolsters the stock prices of many companies, particularly those that don't pay dividends. In essence, the takeover price is just one large liquidating ""dividend."""

negative: KUCHING: While China Mobile Ltd (China Mobile) has been reported to have held talks to buy circa 20 per cent stake in Axiata Group Bhd (Axiata) at an undiclosed price, analysts say this deal is unlikely to happen.  According to the research arm of Kenanga Investment Bank Bhd (Kenanga Research), the stake would be valued at more than RM11.9 billion based on Wednesday’s closing price of RM6.95.  No agreement was reached as Axiata and its largest shareholder Khazanah Nasional Bhd (Khazanah) were unwilling to sell that much equity stake and also considered the indicated offer price as too low.  Sources: http://www.ranker.com/list/the-jakarta-globe-xl-axiata-axis-capital-group-merger-plans/abbyditter http://www.yelp.com/topic/la-crescenta-montrose-the-jakarta-globe-axis-capital-group-telecom-purchase-xl-axiata

negative: So in a ten year history the company makes one misstep (one which makes perfect sense; it was just an error in timing) and we want to throw out all the leadership and take control?   Where is this kind of uproar at investment banks that leveraged themselves out on a limb in stormy waters? Or at Microsoft that routinely pours money down product holes without marketing and advertising support? Or any of a dozen other companies that make stupid decisions driven by the ego or short-sightedness of the CEO?   No, let's beat on one of the best executives on Wall Street because we're whiny about short-term losses in pursuit of long-term gains.   We need more honeypots for stupid investors like Facebook - maybe if enough idiots get burned they'll just get out.

negative: OK, looking at the balance sheet they have $42M in cash, but that is down from $325M in December. Meanwhile their debt has increased from $1.756B in December to $1.832B as of June so their net cash has dropped by $355M in only 6 months. It looks like they spent $329M (give or take) buying other companies in those 6 months. Otherwise their working capital (an important measure of the ability to run the business) looks OK at $230M. Looking at the income statement, they are making money: $70.6M in the last quarter on revenue of $226.7M, which is quite remarkable however they had an unusual item which increased earnings somewhat. Otherwise their earnings would have been about $39M, which is still pretty healthy.  All in, the company itself looks healthy and on a bit of a buying binge, growing through acquisition. I don’t like the debt load but that is probably usual for the industry.  When companies grow through acquisition they generally plan to reduce total employment because of redundancies because you sort of get economies of scale. This usually factors into the decision to buy the company: you increase revenues through the purchase and reduce costs by eliminating employees. This is typically how they “sell” an acquisition to investors.  If I was to guess (and it would only be a guess) this company has a team which looks at the employees of the company it just bought and decides where to downsize. It may not downsize from the newly acquired company but from its own existing employees for a variety of reasons. So most likely that is what you were a victim of: it wasn’t because the company was struggling, or because you were necessarily not a good employee. It is a process, albeit sometimes unfair, and you were a victim of it.  The layoff decisions are not always prudent and it can be hard to understand why a particular group was cut instead of another one. Management doesn’t always make the right call. The broadcast industry has been going through consolidation (companies buying companies) for some time now. Most likely management is hoping to “bulk up” to make it harder for another company to buy it and/or to get a better price when it is bought.   So in summary, most likely they are doing this for reasons of greed, ie, they’ll make more money with fewer employees. Sorry about your situation.

negative: "fire your brother's friend and get another accounting major who'll listen to orders and won't try anything dodgy. You might have to pay well for that. Make sure your whole family is on the same page with future plans   EDIT: I just read that you think your brother is going to do a takeover. It's your family's business. He's your brother. It's not really a ""hostile takeover"". If you don't trust your own brother you have to work on the relationship not the business.  EDIT 2: I checked your profile. Stop doing drugs"

negative: "I think that's the point. There's nothing wrong with the ""pink slime"", and ABC tried to make it sound bad for the ratings.  It's hard to say which side is right in this kind of case.  It would be a shame if news shows shy away from saying bad things about products, but it's also a shame if news shows report misinformation and pander to consumer fears just for ratings, and crush a legitimate business in the process."

negative: Their aggressive takeover tactics? However, to be honest I don't know what the others are like. I'm fortunate enough to have drinking water from the tap. Which I bottle myself. I'll sell you a bottle 20% cheaper then nestle if you'd like

negative: "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/financial-services/maurice-blackburn-weighs-cba-class-action-20170823-gy235k) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Law firm Maurice Blackburn and ASX-listed litigation funder IMF Bentham are preparing to launch a class action against Commonwealth Bank of Australia alleging failures to disclose to the stockmarket AUSTRAC&#039;s investigation of its anti money laundering shortcomings.  > Disclosure should have been as early as August 17, 2015, the class action will argue - the date CBA released its annual report and a retail booklet for a $5 billion rights issue.  > CBA has around 800,000 retail shareholders but under class action law, only those who purchased shares and held some of them during the period of alleged non-disclosure will be able to participate in the action.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6vikty/maurice_blackburn_weighs_cba_class_action/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~196808 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **CBA**^#1 **action**^#2 **class**^#3 **AUSTRAC**^#4 **case**^#5"

negative: "There are indications that ABC News settled on somewhat favorable terms. As of Wednesday, ABC News did not issue any retraction, correction, or apology, or remove its 2012 broadcast, “Pink Slime and You,” from the ABC News website, which libel plaintiffs typically demand as part of a settlement.  Most civil cases are settled. It is cheaper for both parties. ABC news appeared to have ""won"" in this case. How is that a ""red flag""?"

negative: "Comment from the article:  ""In effect, Google acquired the talent it needed, got the IPR it wanted, and did not have to purchase the whole company and bring in the baggage it did not want.  What an Amazing deal for Google.  I have no idea where this leaves HTC, though.""  Could not agree more.  Not sure how HTC is winning in this aspect.  I guess we will have to wait and see."

negative: Australian Goods and Services Tax is charged on the sale amount. Whatever internal accounting you do before billing the customer is of no interest to the Australian Tax Office.

negative: Best consult a CA as you may anyway need his/her service. I am NRI, availed secured loan (Against house property) in India and now I want to get that money transferred to Finland. Loans by NRI taken in India cannot be transferred outside of India. Refer FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT (BORROWING AND LENDING IN RUPEES) REGULATIONS Loans in Rupees to non-residents 1[***].     7. Subject to the directions issued by the Reserve Bank from time to time in this regard, an authorised dealer in India may grant loan to a     non-resident Indian, (B) against the security of immovable property (other than   agricultural or plantation property or farm house), held by him in   accordance with the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and   Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2000 :   ......   Provided that-   (d) the loan amount shall not be remitted outside India; Alternative: Sell the property in India, transfer the proceeds to NRO account. Repatriate the funds outside India as per Liberalized Remittance Scheme. Form 15CA/CB with CA certificate will be required.

negative: "US-Australian tax treaty limits the tax the US can levy on interest payments to Australian residents at 10%. However, that is the ""worst"" situation. There are several exempted situations which your specific example may fall into where you wouldn't need to deal with the US taxes at all. I suggest contacting a tax accountant proficient in that treaty and the Australian tax law. You will still be obviously paying taxes in Australia."

negative: "The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX).  And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff.  (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street.  If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them.  (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.)  So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a ""middle-class-sized"" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors.  To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so.  You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets.  So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax.  I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts.  This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations.  By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar."

negative: A share of stock is a small fraction of the ownership of the company. If you expect the company to eventually be of interest to someone who wants to engineer a merger or takeover, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay to help make that happen or keep it from happening. Which means it will almost always track the company's value to some degree, because the company itself will buy back shares when it can if they get too cheap, to protect itself from takeover. It may also start paying dividends at a later date. You may also value being able to vote on the company's actions. Including whether it should offer a dividend or reinvest that money in the company. Basically, you would want to own that share -- or not -- for the same reasons you would want to own a piece of that business. Because that's exactly what it is.


query: Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards?

positive: "Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards.  I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts ""I'd like to close the cards.""  That is reason enough.   Simplifying your financial life is a good thing.  Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying.  This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity.  As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month.  This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age.  Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life.  If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score?  Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans?  I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up.  So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt?  If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off.  Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open.  However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online.  But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years.  (I closed my other cards when I got these.)  My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest.  I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old.  No other debt.  Despite those ""terrible"" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine.  Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should."

positive: It is an issue of both utilization and average age of accounts. If your cards with $0 balances on them are: A) newer cards than the ones you are carrying balances on and you don't want them B) much lower limit cards than the ones you are carrying balances on then you can raise your score by closing them, as the utilization change won't be a large factor and you can raise the average age of your open accounts.

positive: In your specific case, I would leave them open unless you have a specific reason for wanting to close them - particularly, unless you feel closing them is necessary for you to not misuse them. The impact on the credit score is not why I say this, though.  Much more important are the two competing real factors: My suggestion would be to take the cards and put them in your file cabinet, or whatever would cause you to not use them.  In fact, you could even cut them up but not close the accounts - I had an account open that I didn't possess a physical card for several years for and didn't use at all, and it stayed open (though it's not guaranteed they'll keep it open for you if you never use it).   In an emergency you could then ask them to send you a new copy of the card very easily.  But, keep them, just in case you need them. Once you have paid off your balances on your balance-carrying cards, then you should consider closing some of them.  Keep enough to be able to live for ~4-6 months (a similar amount to the ideal rainy day fund in savings, basically) and then close others, particularly if you can do so in a way that keeps your average account age reasonably stable.

positive: In my own case, my credit score went up drastically after I closed cards.  It did go down a bit (like 10 points) in the short term.  Within 6 months, however, I did see significant gains.  This would include closing the American Express card that I had for like 10 years.  According much of what I read, you should never close a AMEX card.   I did and it did not hurt me. What helps all this is that my utilization is zero.

positive: There is also security aspect. By reducing the number of active credit/debit cards, one significantly reduces the surface of attack. There is smaller chance of getting one of your card information stolen and misused (cf Target data leaks and others).

positive: There's no harm in keeping them open.  Like you said, closing the lines will potentially hurt your utilization.  The extent of that impact will depend on your particular situation.   There are situations where closing a line will have no actual impact on your utilization.  If you have 100k of open credit and a debt load of $2k, if you close a $10k line you won't really have an issue because your utilization is 2% and closing the line will take you to 2.2%.

positive: Assuming that a person has good financial discipline and is generally responsible with spending, I think that having a few hundred or thousand dollars extra of available credit is usually worth more to that person for the choice/flexibility it provides in unforeseen circumstance, versus the relatively minor hit that could be taken to their credit score.

positive: I'm not sure if someone else answered already in the same manner I will. I can't guarantee for sure if it's the same in the U.S.A. (it might since major credit cards companies like Visa/MC/AMEX are American companies) but in Canada having/keeping unused CC is a disadvantage because of the following: Banks and financing companies look more at the total amount of credit available to you than at how much purchases you have on your cards. Ex: Let's say that you have the following: - Visa cc with $10,000 limit and $2000 worth of purchases (made more than 30 days ago) on it. - Mastercard cc with $10,000 limit as well and $1000 worth of purchases (less than 30 days old) - A major retail store cc with $2000 limit and $0 balance. Hypothetical situation: You want a bank loan to do some expensive house repairs and are looking for a lower interest rate than what your cc can offer. The bank will not care about the amount on the cards. They will add-up all the limits of your cc and treat your loan request as if ALL your cards were filled to their respective limit.  So in this case: they will consider you as being right now in debt of $10K+$10K+$2K = $22,000 instead of only $3000 and they might:  1. refuse you the loan 2. grant it only if you transfer all purchases on a single card and cancel all the others. 3. Once the $3000 is transferred on one of the cards (and the others cancelled), they can require that you reduce the limit of that card. Hope this helps!

positive: "The only good reason I find to close cards are: it's a card with an annual fee that you don't need.  No point bleeding money each year. churning rewards.  Open card to get bonus promotion such as ""spend $500 in first 3 months, get $200 bonus"".  Close card and open a year later to do that same bonus again if available.  Many cards don't allow you to do this. making room for newer cards at the same bank.  Example, you have 5 Chase Cards and you want to apply for a 6th.  Chase says you have maximized your credit they will extend you.  You close one of your existing cards to get that new card. I have seen that many banks allow you to shift over some over your existing available credit to your new card without having to close them."

positive: Credit scoring has changed recently and the answer to this question will have slightly changed. While most points made here are true: But now (as of July 2017) it is possible having a large available credit balance can negatively effect your credit score directly:  ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having   excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person   could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime   credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have   multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card   rewards program points game could be affected as well. source

positive: "I'd say close them if they have fees, if you're worried about fraud or if you're going to be tempted to use them. It may have an affect on your credit rating, but it shouldn't hurt you seriously. Having too many cards gives you the ""opportunity"" to overspend, which obviously isn't good."

positive: You mentioned you have a bunch of credit cards with no balance, while others have fairly high balances I would not recommend you to close the 0 balance credit cards if they have lower APR. You can transfer the balance to those cards with lower APR. Now, if those 0 balance cards do not have lower APR, closing them will reduce my overall balance and hurt my credit rating and that is true, assume that you mean overall credit line instead of overall balance. But to my understanding, if you keep the payments good and on time, that effect is only temporary, and therefore you can definitely close them.  Don't forget, paying off your balance can also lower your utilization rate and therefore increase your credit ratings, and you can focus more on that instead. Also larger number of accounts with amounts owed can indicate higher risk of over-extension, therefore you should pay off your low balance accounts first, and do not open new credit accounts until you have paid off the current balance.

negative: Your credit score is definitely affected by the age of your credit accounts, so if you frequently close one card and open another new one, you're adversely affecting the overall average age of accounts.  This is something to consider and whether it is worth what you're trying to achieve. Sometimes, if you're a good customer and are insistent enough, you can simply call your credit card company and use the threat of closing your account in favor of another card that offers something attractive to get your current bank to sweeten its incentives to keep your business.  I know many people who've done this with real success, and they spare themselves the hassle of obtaining a new card and suffering the short term consequences on their credit report.  This might be an avenue worth trying before you just close the account and move on. I hope this helps. Good luck!

negative: "At no point is it ever a good idea to ""stop making payments to show them [you] mean business"". When you signed up for the credit card account, you agreed to pay what you charged, and any applicable interested accrued on the accounts. You are legally responsible for that debt, and you can be sued, if they are so inclined. Many times, settlement agencies are employed because a risk assessment operator (or whatever they're called at your cc company) calculated that they are currently financially better off settling for a reduced balance than attempting to chase you for the full amount. As soon as the terms of your refinance hits your credit history, that changes. To reiterate and make it clear: This is a very dangerous approach to breaking credit card debt, and I would not advise that anybody proceed with it. EDIT: If you offer 50% of the balance in a lump sum payment, they decline, and you continue with non-payment, they have reason to believe that you are financially capable of making payments, and are much more likely to seek legal action."

negative: "I found a good article on cnnmoney.com that touches on this titled ""5 Ways to Destroy your Credit"".  One of these ""ways"", it says, is closing your credit cards.  The article cited one expert who says,  Since part of your score is based on the length of time certain lines of credit have been open, closing out that 10-year old credit card could take a bite out of your credit score... It's negative because it's taking away a reference to a positive credit history."

negative: "I would aim for 10% or less, because I believe 30% is where you start to get dinged on your credit score.  No one will know for sure, as there are many models, but 30% is brought up by radio host Clark Howard pretty often. Close annual fee cards or one store only cards.  Normally I would suggest ""leap-frogging"" your credit cards so that as you open a new one with no fees, you then close another that does have fees.  However I do not think opening lines of credit with an upcoming home purchase is a good idea.  It will reflect negatively that you are opening credit all over then place. I would shoot for such a low percent to make sure that the time it takes for reporting to happen will happen.  Also, as you gear up to buy a house, make sure your credit report is clean looking with all of these balances and cards you are considering closing."

negative: If you want to close the card, close it.  The impact on your credit score will be minimal, if any, and the impact on your life will likely be even less.  First, as you noted, the history from your card does not disappear when you close the card; it will stay on your credit report for as long as 10 years. By that time, you'll have many years of on-time payments from your other cards, and the loss of this one card won't be significant.  Because the card has a low credit limit, it won't have much effect on your credit utilization numbers, either.  Finally, your credit score might just be high enough that a small drop will have no impact on your financial life whatsoever.  In my opinion, hanging onto a credit card you don't want just to try to attain some type of high score is pointless. Close the card.

negative: The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) says that account history will stay on your credit report as a closed account for 7 years, and then it will drop off, just like any other bad or good mark on your credit (aside from bankruptcies which stay on reports for 10 years, and can be asked about for the rest of your life). The presence of a new credit card will do more to lower your score in the short term than closing an old credit card. On a related note, reporting a card as lost or stolen can also show up as a different, closed account, even if you keep the same account open with the creditor.

negative: Please realize that your issuer can close the account for any number of reasons.  Inactivity is one, as having a credit line open costs them money and if you never charge anything, the company doesn't get any transaction fees from vendors nor does the company get to charge you any interest. An occasional charge is likely to keep your card from being closed automatically, but it is not a guarantee. Another reason they may close the account is that you have other bad marks show up on your credit score, or their criteria for offering you the card change so you no longer match their target demographic. I have a credit card issued by my credit union that I have not used for a couple of years. They will not close the card account because my other accounts are still very profitable for them. If I were not an otherwise profitable customer, I wouldn't be surprised if they closed my credit card account. If you are serious about keeping the account open, you should probably have more than a trivial amount of usage.

negative: I disagree with the reply.   Your both impressions are correct. -   Do not close old credit cards because they keep your credit rating high (fico score) -   Also low utilization that credit cards report to credit rating companies, improves your rating.

negative: Assuming I only use it to buy things I can afford (which I trust   myself to do), essentially treating it as a debit card, is this a good   idea? This is definitely a good idea. From my own experience, before I got my first credit card through my local bank (age 18), I tired to apply for a card that has cash back rewards and was rejected because I didn't have any credit history. After I had the card from my bank for 6 months, I applied for this Capital One card that I've had ever since.

negative: The number that really matters in this situation is your age of your longest account. Opening a new account is a good idea, but closing an old one may have an impact on your score if you have no other active accounts. If you have another card, or an overdraft line of credit or a car loan that is 4 or 5 years old, you won't see a big impact. I'd suggest calling the card company and asking them to waive the fee. They usually will. In the meantime, I would recommending having one card from each of the major networks. (MC, Visa, Discover, Amex) so you don't run into this again. Just don't open them all at once.

negative: Your plan will work to increase your total credit capacity (good for your credit score) and reduce your utilization (also good).  As mentioned, you will need to be careful to use these cards periodically or they will get closed, but it will work. The question is whether this will help you or not.  In addition to credit capacity and utilization, your credit score looks at things like These factors may hurt you as you continue to open accounts.  You can easily get to the stage where your score is not benefitting much from increased capacity and it is getting hurt a lot by pulls and low average age. BTW you are correct that closing accounts generally hurts your score.  It probably reduces average age, may reduce maximum age, reduces your capacity, and increases your utilization.

negative: Absolutely. It's the way credit is calculated. The most important things here are credit utilization (how much of your open credit you're using, the less the better for your score) and and length of open credit. The longer you've had a credit card, the more it helps your score. If you use your card and pay it off before the bill comes, the credit card company still knows you're using the card and won't close it. I recommend you download credit karma so you can track your score and learn more about how credit is calculated.

negative: The biggest reason that they are a bad idea is just because every credit application hurts your credit score, as does having too many cards. In addition, every new card is a greater risk of identity theft.

negative: credit cards are almost never closed for inactivity. i have had dozens of cards innactive for years on end, and only one was ever closed on me for inactivity. i would bet a single 1$ transaction per calendar year would keep all your cards open.  as such, you could forget automating the process and just spend 20 minutes a year making manual 1$ payments (e.g. to your isp, utility company, google play, etc.).  alternatively, many charities will let you set up an automatic monthly donation for any amount (e.g. 1$ to wikipedia). or perhaps you could treat yourself to an mp3 once a month (arguably a charitable donation in the age of file sharing). side note: i use both of these strategies to get the 12 debit card transactions per month required by my kasasa checking account.

negative: Close your card, now. Let your credit card provider / bank know about the situation. Never, ever ever, give out your password. Not to a friend, not to your bank and not even to your cat.

negative: "It depends on your definition of ""inactive"". If you have credit cards open and do not use them at all for a period of time, some lenders will not update your usage to the credit bureaus while some will close your account in which will definitely hurt your credit score. But since you use your card once in a while and pay them off, you should be good. Lenders like to see some activity rather than no activity. If there are great offers out there by credit card companies, then why not take advantage of them? The only downside may be the annual fees if there is any but with your credit score, it implies you are financially responsible so there should be no 'compelling financial reason' to not open more cards. In fact, the number of credit accounts you have open can play a role on your score. Essentially the more the better. According to Credit Karma, 0-5 credit accounts is very poor, 6-10 is poor, 11-20 is good, 21+ is excellent."

negative: If you hadn't done it already cut up the cards. Don't close the accounts because it could hurt your credit score even more. Switching some or all of the CC debt onto low rate cards, or a debt consolidation loan is a way that some people use to reduce their credit card payments.  The biggest risk is that you become less aggressive with the loan payback. If you were planning on paying $800 in minimum payments,plus $200 extra each month; then still pay $1000 with the new loan and remaining credit cards.  Another risk is that you start overusing the credit card again, because you have available credit on the card that was paid off with the loan. The third risk, which you haven't proposed, occurs when people switch unsecured credit card dept, to a secured 2nd mortgage debt. This then puts the family home at risk.

negative: The biggest risk is Credit Utilization rate.  If you have a total of $10,000 in revolving credit (ie: credit card line) and you ever have more than 50% (or 33% to be conservative) on the card at any time then your credit score will be negatively impacted. This will be a negative impact even if you charge it on day one and pay it off in full on day 2.  Doesn't make much sense but credit companies are playing the averages:  on average they find that people who get close to maxing their credit limit are in some sort of financial trouble. You're better off to make small purchases each month, under $100, and pay them off right away.  That will build a better credit history - and score.

negative: No credit card company would ever give a card with either no credit limit or that was not in credit (for prepaid cards) because they would earn no money from it. The company's income is entirely derived from fees that they charge you for balances and interest on those balances so a 0 limit card would be worthless to them. Getting a prepaid card and letting the balance hit 0 might be a way around this but the fees that you will be charged , and will become a debt in your name, when the billing system tries to take the first paid month's cost from the card and fails will be exorbitant. They may go so far as dwarfing the actual cost but the one thing that they will certainly do is lower your credit rating so this is not a good idea.

negative: Assuming you don't plan on continuing to use the card frequently, the best advice I've heard is to leave them open unless they have an annual fee. Also, leaving it open with a zero balance doesn't help your credit score as much as using it a few times a year (even for small amounts) because it will eventually shift to an inactive state that is less positive for your credit score.

negative: Closing the card will be fine. The consequences are related to your available credit and actual/potential utilization. If you have less total credit, any credit you actually use will be a greater percentage of your total credit, manipulating your score downwards more greatly. The next consequence will be related to the age of your credit history, which is an average of your credit lines. This seems negligible and also beneficial for you, since your credit history is so young to begin with.

negative: "I'm the contrarian on this forum. Since you asked a ""should I ..."" question, I'm free to answer ""No, you shouldn't increase your limit. Instead, you should close it out"". A credit card is a money pump - it pumps money from your account to the bank's profit margins. When I look at my furniture and the bank's furniture, I know exactly who needs my money more (hint: it's not the bank). Credit cards change people's spending patterns. In my first day of training as a Sears salesman, the use of the card was drummed into our heads. People purchase on average 25% more when they use a card than when they pay cash. That's good if you're a retailer or the lender (at that time Sears was both), but no good if you're a consumer. Build up a $1,000 emergency fund (for emergencies only, not ""I need a quick latte because I stayed up too late last night""), then savings for 6 to 12 months living expenses. Close and cut up the credit card. Save up and pay cash for everything except possibly your house mortgage. If you have that much cash in the bank, the bankers will be as willing to talk to you as if you had an 800+ score. I have lived both with and without debt. Life without debt is well worth the short term sacrifice early on."

negative: Take the consolidation loan and pay it off. Don't close the card. Opening a new account will have no bearing on your mortgage a year or two down the road. Keep paying on time -- that will make a big difference! JohnFX's suggestion to open a new card and do a transfer is  a great idea if you have good credit. Just read the fine print -- most cards charge a 3-5% transfer fee and some cards accrue interest if you don't pay within the promotional period.

negative: "How does adding a revenue stream from the most profitable and widely penetrated products in existence read to you as ""shooting blind""?  Do you have any idea what interest rates on a card like this are?  If you've ever worked retail, you know that credit card sign ups are a key metric nearly every employee is judged by"

negative: I think it depends on how you're approaching paying off the credit card. If you're doing some sort of debt snowball and/or throw all available cash at the card, it's not likely to matter much. If you're paying a set amount close to the minimum each month then you're probably better off getting a loan, use it to pay off the card and cut up the card. Well, I'd do the latter in either case... Mathematically it would matter if the interest rate on the card is 10%-15% higher than the personal loan but if you're throwing every spare dime at the card and the some, it might not matter. Another option if you have the discipline to pay the debt off quickly is to see if you can find a card with a cheap balance transfer, move the balance over and close the inflexible card.

negative: This is a good idea, but it will barely affect your credit score at all.  Credit cards, while a good tool to use for giving a minor boost to your credit score and for purchasing things while also building up rewards with those purchases, aren't very good for building credit.   This is because when banks calculate your credit report, they look at your long-term credit history, and weigh larger, longer-term debt much higher than short-term debt that you pay off right away.  While having your credit card is better than nothing, it's a relatively small drop in the pond when it comes to credit.   I would still recommend getting a credit card though - it will, if you haven't already started paying off a debt like a student or car loan, give you a credit identity and rewards depending on the credit card you choose.  But if you do, do not ever let yourself fall into delinquency.  Failing to pay off loans will damage your credit score.  So if you do plan to get a credit card, it is much better to do as you've said and pay it all off as soon as possible.   Edit:  In addition to the above, using a credit card has the added benefit of having greater security over Debit cards, and ensures that your own money won't be stolen (though you will still have to report a fraudulent charge).

negative: You can't ask insurers to use a particular score -- they have a state-approved underwriting model that they must follow consistently. Insurance companies make money by not paying claims, and poor credit score (including limit access to credit) increases the probability that you will file a small claim. Why? If you get into a minor accident (say $750 of damage) and have a $500 deductible, you are much less likely to file a claim to get $250 if you have access to a cash or credit lines to make the repairs yourself.  If you feel that you are going to be penalized for closing credit card accounts, the solution is simple -- don't close them. Other than an event where you need to sever a relationship with a co-owner of an account (ie, you break up with your significant other, dissolve a business, etc) or avoid paying an annual fee, there is no advantage to you closing a revolving credit account, ever. If you cannot control your spending, throw the card in the shredder. Eventually, the credit card company will close your account for inactivity, which affects your credit to a lesser degree. (The big exception is if you carry sufficient balances on other cards, your credit utilization ratio goes up materially.)

negative: "I would not call this a ""good"" idea. But I wouldn't necessarily call it a bad idea either. Before you even consider it, you need to do a little bit of soul searching. If there is ANY chance that having multiple credit cards could entice you to spend more than you otherwise would, then this is definitely a bad idea. Avoiding temptation is the key to preventing regrettable actions (in all aspects of life). Psychoanalysis aside, let's take a mathematical approach to the question. I believe your conclusion is correct if you add some qualifiers to it: A few years from now, then your credit score will probably be higher than if you just had 1   credit card. Here are some other things to consider: And, saving the best for last: As for the hard inquiries, they should only have an effect on your credit score for 1 year (though they can be seen on your report for 2 years). Final thought: if you decide to do this (and I personally don't recommend it), I would keep the number of applications smaller (3-5 instead of 10-15). I also would only choose cards that have no annual fee. Try to choose 1 card that has 1-2% cash back and make that your regular card."

negative: Credit Score is rather misleading, each provider of credit uses their own system to decide if they wish to lend to you.   They will also not tell you how the combine all the factoring together. Closing unused account is good, as it reduced the risk of identity theft and you have less paperwork to deal with. It looks good if a company that knows you will agrees to give you more credit, as clearly they think you are a good risk. Having more total credit allowed on account is bad, as you may use it and not be able to pay all your bills. Using all your credit is bad, as it looks like you are not in control. Using a “pay day lender” is VERY bad, as only people that are out of control do so. Credit cards should be used for short term credit paying them off in full most months, but it is OK to take advantage of some interest free credit.

negative: "A ""balance transfer"" is paying one credit card with another.  You probably get offers in the mail to do this all of the time.  As other posters have noted, however, this usually comes with finance fees rather than the rewards that you get for normal purchases because it's written into your credit card agreement as a different class of transaction with different rules. I'm not sure if it's urban legend or true, but I have heard stories that suggest there were some ""loop holes"" in the earliest credit card reward plans that allowed for something like what you want.  I doubt that any plan ever allowed exactly what you've written, but I've heard stories about people buying gift cards from merchants and then using the gift cards to pay their bill.  This loop hole (if it ever existed) is closed now, but it would have allowed for essentially infinite generation of rewards at no cost to the cardholder.  The banks and credit card companies have a lot of years of experience at this sort of thing now, so the threshold for you finding something that works and conforms with the cardholder agreement is pretty small."

negative: Yes, it is a very good idea to start your credit history early.  It sounds like you have a good understanding of the appropriate use of credit, as a substitute for cash rather than a supplement to income.  As long as you keep your expenses under control and pay off your card each month, I see no problems with the idea. Try to find a card with no annual fees, a low interest rate if possible (which will be difficult at your age), and with some form of rewards such as cash back.  Look for a reputable issuing bank, and keep the account open even after you get a new card down the road.  Your credit score is positively correlated with having an account open for a long time, having a good credit usage to credit limit ratio, and having accounts in good standing and paid on time.

negative: What makes a credit card risky is that it requires discipline. It is very easy to buy things that you cannot afford with a credit card. Credit cards usually require a minimum payment every month if you owe them money, but if you pay only the minimum amount, your debt will grow quickly. And since the interest rates are usually very high, you can easily get into a state where you are overwhelmed by your debt. The correct way to use a credit card is to pay the complete bill every month. If you can't afford to pay the complete bill because you spent too much, cut up your credit card.  On the positive side, there are many situations where paying by credit card will give you protection if you don't get the goods that you paid for, because the credit card company is fully responsible for those goods, just like the seller. So if you pay for a $5,000 holiday with a credit card and the company you paid to goes bankrupt, the credit card company will refund your money.  Do not ever look at cash back on purchases. You only get cash back if you spend money. Getting $50 cash back is of no use if you had to get $2,500 deeper in debt to get that cash back. (Some people might contradict this. But if you ask for advice on money.stackexchange then this is the correct advice for you that you should follow).