NO AMEX Sign Up Bonus for previous card holders

[Jasir]

Yudeology101, I agree with you on two points 1) churners aren't doing anything illegal; it's the ethics that are questionable. 2) all people do is butt heads on myFico.

I usually don't even participate in most threads of debate because, while usually civil, I stratch my head so much at other's rationalizations and justifications my head bleeds

[enharu]

well it's up to you on what you consider as "ethical".

To me, applying for cards for the sign-up bonus is perfectly okay. The bonuses are there for you. It's the same when you switch jobs. Your new employer probably offered you some incentives to switch, which may include a huge sign-up bonus, and you went with it. And later on, you may find a better job with better incentives again. So, is it unethical to be switching like this for better incentives and prospects? Not to me. I think we're past the age on the concept of  "sticking with the same thing for the rest of our lives". 

At the same time, there are some people whom are just misers as I explained in another post yesterday. There're always going to be a small number of people whom are just looking to fleece / exploit pretty much everybody at any possible opportunity. Just look at those who kept abusing / exploiting Amazon's policies and then started crying on internet forums because Amazon banned them. Well, if they aren't breaking the law and they don't mind burning down bridges, then good for them. Stuff like that are personally too much for me but it's not like my problem either. Just don't bother about it. Like LTL said, the companies themselves will determine what is considered as abuse and they'll handle the problem themselves. 

[Jasir]

Enharu, I hear you. I don't give churners a thought. I don't get caught up in the credit card fever so many forum members try to pass on to other members. I do two thinmgs here: 1) try to utilize great advice 2) try to give great advice.

My opinions (the rare times I voice them) are juts observations. I don't consider people who honorably choose different cards because they don't meet currents needs as churners (as they wouildn't need to do so often). Just like in your example: if a person hopped jobs too often it would indeed become a detriment because future potential employers would woner why the employee can't seem to stay at a job for any reasonable period of time. Anfd you can bet if that same employee went crawling back to their old job when things didn't work out at the new one they'd be accepted back with a reduced pay and greater burdern--if accepted back.

Abuse is abuse.  I shake my head at how often people want to justify abuse of any kind. Credit cards, emotional, physical, mental-- for me any and all abuse is avoidable.

[jahsoul357]

---

@enharu wrote:

the companies themselves will determine what is considered as abuse and they'll handle the problem themselves. 

---

And then these changes are mad and people get salty and complain.

But I agree with you 100%. This is purely an ethical issue. As long as it was open, I didn't care that people did it when it was opened, but like the example you gave with Amazon, the ones that have been playing the system are the loudest complainers. *shrugs*

Will I ever turn down MR points? Nope. Got the offer when I applied for my PRG, but that wasn't the deciding fact for me choosing a card; it just sweetened the deal.

[09Lexie]

As Chase has already initiated this policy and now Amex, don't be surprised if the others follow suit.  At the end of the day, the spirit of the sign up bonus was to attract new customers.  

[longtimelurker]

---

@Jasir wrote:

Enharu, I hear you. I don't give churners a thought. I don't get caught up in the credit card fever so many forum members try to pass on to other members. I do two thinmgs here: 1) try to utilize great advice 2) try to give great advice.

My opinions (the rare times I voice them) are juts observations. I don't consider people who honorably choose different cards because they don't meet currents needs as churners (as they wouildn't need to do so often). Just like in your example: if a person hopped jobs too often it would indeed become a detriment because future potential employers would woner why the employee can't seem to stay at a job for any reasonable period of time. Anfd you can bet if that same employee went crawling back to their old job when things didn't work out at the new one they'd be accepted back with a reduced pay and greater burdern--if accepted back.

Abuse is abuse.  I shake my head at how often people want to justify abuse of any kind. Credit cards, emotional, physical, mental-- for me any and all abuse is avoidable.

---

I guess there is my fundamental disagreement with you.  

n this space, there really isn't a clear definition of abuse, except whatever the issuers decide it is.  Again, for some, seeing someone with even three credit cards is suspicious (there is no reason for so many) and if you got sign up bonuses for them (even if that wasn't the key reason) you could be considered, by that person, to be an abuser.

Anfd you can bet if that same employee went crawling back to their old job when things didn't work out at the new one they'd be accepted back with a reduced pay and greater burdern--if accepted back.

Not always the case in the real world.  People who are really good at their work are in high demand, and hence they have the ability to hop from job to job, getting better offers each time.   And so often the employer WILL want them back, even knowing that they may be hard to retain.  Things are a lot less black and white than you suggest.

But probably there is little more to be said as we are starting from such different places!  Equating credit card decisions as raising the same moral/ethical questions as physical. mental or emotional abuse is out of my understanding.

[Jasir]

I agree to end my part of the debate. You are cherry picking and implying an emotional or intellectual imbalance (i.e., "Equating credit card decisions as raising the same moral/ethical questions as physical. mental or emotional abuse is out of my understanding."). I am neither emotionally imbalanced or unintelligent. I simply see connections others don't always see or acknowledge. For the record: most people cannot hop from job to job with "impunity" should they need their old job back. I wasn't even the one to make the analogy, I just analyzed it. But, to bring it back to credit cards, most consumers are not viewed as indespensible by their credit issuer. Let's end this part of the discussion as civilly as it began. We don't agree and that's fine. The ultimate concern of us both are our own accounts and each of us seem to be doing just fine managing them.

[-NewGuy-]

---

@09Lexie wrote:

As Chase has already initiated this policy and now Amex, don't be surprised if the others follow suit.  At the end of the day, the spirit of the sign up bonus was to attract new customers.  

---

Agreed, and as well they should. And this whole discussion hinges upon what you think is right or wrong. Issuers outline what is possible. Anything within those guidelines is allowed, but some areas may not be agreeable based on what you think is right or wrong. I could go into Costco and raid each sampler stand eight times each rather than buy my own lunch, but that doesn't feel right to me. Neither does signing up for a card, meeting minimum spend and getting the sign up bonus, and then SD'ing or cancelling the card afterwards. Some people have three Citi AA Exec cards already. You can't tell me that was done for any justifiable benefit, other than the sign up bonus. But other people have different things that they feel are morally acceptable. I choose to believe that just because something is legally allowed without penalty doesn't mean that I'm okay doing it.

[longtimelurker]

---

@msf12555 wrote:

---

@09Lexie wrote:

As Chase has already initiated this policy and now Amex, don't be surprised if the others follow suit.  At the end of the day, the spirit of the sign up bonus was to attract new customers.  

---

Some people have three Citi AA Exec cards already. You can't tell me that was done for any justifiable benefit, other than the sign up bonus. But other people have different things that they feel are morally acceptable. I choose to believe that just because something is legally allowed without penalty doesn't mean that I'm okay doing it.

---

Right, I doubt that anyone would argue otherwise, the only point of having three is to get the bonus.  Here, the issuer may not care because they get the $450 a card AF plus the transaction fees on the $10K spend per card.  

And that is almost certainly why they allow it.

And I guess that is where some of my (questionable) moral decisions come in.   Various things are particularly easy for credit card companies to control, such as number of identical cards you can have at once, length of time between bonuses, whether rewards are capped.  We know these are possible, and many issuers do at least some of these.   Controlling samples at Costco is much harder, so I can understand that the intent is that I shouldn't take multiple helpings, and can decide to respect that, or I can ignore that, or I can decide that it really is a marketing operation, they hope I will buy the product, and/or spend longer and buy more in the store, and choose to indulge.

All I was really asking if for people to understand that people making different decisions are not neccessarily abusers, and that to others, their own behavior may be questionable.  i.e. friendly and supportive applies to people different to yourselves.

[Open123]

From my perspective, I've never applied the concepts of what constitutes "moral and ethical" behavior when dealing with Financial institutions.  I mean, they make the rules, and we work within them.

If they were stupid, we should let them off the hook?  Arbitrage serves to bring prices back to equilibrium.

As Lurker has intimated, Amex use to never allow more than a bonus per lifetime, then changed their tune.  Citi used to never allow AA cards to be churned, then suddenly did, and have stopped it again.  However, they still allow churning on the business AA cards.

The point is that any issuer can stop this period.  Or, close accounts of those who ask for multiple bonuses.  Simple concept, "they do what they think is best, and I will do what I think is best."  Everything works out in the end.