JP Morgan Palladium approved

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

They have definitely tightened it.  Personally, I think they are still working through new requirements and letting everyone know.  I definitely know people have just faxed in app to right number without talking to anyone and getting approved.  They will most likely go through rounds of tightening and loosening requirements.

---

True. I remember reading that all new Palladium approvals as of a few weeks ago had to be JPM PB clients, so at least that's not the case.

---

No.  This is the case.  People are getting by because they havent fully enforced the new policy or people are using loopholes that could close at any time.

---

Except... it's not. I don't follow your logic. If "all new Palladium approvals as of a few weeks ago had to be JPM PB clients" then the OP would not have been accepted, so it obviously is not the case.

Of course things may change at any time, but apparently they haven't closed the gates quite yet to non-JPM PB clients as I read on that other credit forum. So, if anyone is worried about getting shut out, now might be a good time to act.

[Strepthroat]

I wonder if you can product change to the Palladium card.  I'll have to inquire about that one.

[Anonymous]

---

@Strepthroat wrote:

I wonder if you can product change to the Palladium card.  I'll have to inquire about that one.

---

I was told by multiple CSRs that you cannot PC to the Palladium. Totally different process.

[Strepthroat]

Noted. Thanks!!

[Anonymous]

I am only another four or five zeroes away with my 25 (depending on the day) and i too could have me a palladium. Whoo hoo.

[n777ua]

Did you have to send them proof of your financials, or did they just take your word for it ? 

[Anonymous]

i was ready to fax over proof of financials, but all he asked for was the account balance and account numbers.  don't know if they actually checked, or even if they have the ability to check. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

They have definitely tightened it.  Personally, I think they are still working through new requirements and letting everyone know.  I definitely know people have just faxed in app to right number without talking to anyone and getting approved.  They will most likely go through rounds of tightening and loosening requirements.

---

True. I remember reading that all new Palladium approvals as of a few weeks ago had to be JPM PB clients, so at least that's not the case.

---

No.  This is the case.  People are getting by because they havent fully enforced the new policy or people are using loopholes that could close at any time.

---

Except... it's not. I don't follow your logic. If "all new Palladium approvals as of a few weeks ago had to be JPM PB clients" then the OP would not have been accepted, so it obviously is not the case.

Of course things may change at any time, but apparently they haven't closed the gates quite yet to non-JPM PB clients as I read on that other credit forum. So, if anyone is worried about getting shut out, now might be a good time to act.

---

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. This is big corp and they haven't perfected their procedures. You are supposed to be private banking client but exceptions are being made for potential clients. The pb the op talked to basically didn't care. Others are just faxing to right number that pb use to submit apps. Apps get processed normally at that point. These are all loopholes that can be closed at any moment. Think of it as Amex backdating au to original cardholder date. It is against policy but some people gotten lucky and got it done. Same in this situation. Basically against policy but pb for chase aren't used to enforcing credit app policy so if you can get one to submit your app, you are good. If it happens too much or too many complaints, they will make a bigger deal of it so pb don't do it anymore or change procedures. If enough of their 100 million dollar guys complain that the "poor" are rocking this card and a know a couple that were pissed, these loopholes will shut tighter than ....

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

They have definitely tightened it.  Personally, I think they are still working through new requirements and letting everyone know.  I definitely know people have just faxed in app to right number without talking to anyone and getting approved.  They will most likely go through rounds of tightening and loosening requirements.

---

True. I remember reading that all new Palladium approvals as of a few weeks ago had to be JPM PB clients, so at least that's not the case.

---

No.  This is the case.  People are getting by because they havent fully enforced the new policy or people are using loopholes that could close at any time.

---

Except... it's not. I don't follow your logic. If "all new Palladium approvals as of a few weeks ago had to be JPM PB clients" then the OP would not have been accepted, so it obviously is not the case.

Of course things may change at any time, but apparently they haven't closed the gates quite yet to non-JPM PB clients as I read on that other credit forum. So, if anyone is worried about getting shut out, now might be a good time to act.

---

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. This is big corp and they haven't perfected their procedures. You are supposed to be private banking client but exceptions are being made for potential clients. The pb the op talked to basically didn't care. Others are just faxing to right number that pb use to submit apps. Apps get processed normally at that point. These are all loopholes that can be closed at any moment. Think of it as Amex backdating au to original cardholder date. It is against policy but some people gotten lucky and got it done. Same in this situation. Basically against policy but pb for chase aren't used to enforcing credit app policy so if you can get one to submit your app, you are good. If it happens too much or too many complaints, they will make a bigger deal of it so pb don't do it anymore or change procedures. If enough of their 100 million dollar guys complain that the "poor" are rocking this card and a know a couple that were pissed, these loopholes will shut tighter than ....

---

What's hard to understand is the fact that you don't make any logical sense.

Me: "...all new Palladium approvals as of a few weeks ago had to be JPM PB clients..."
You: " No. This is the case."

The OP's case shows that it is NOT the case. Logic 101. What you're basically saying is equivalent to: "It's always true, except when it's not."

The loopholes are clearly still there, as you have said, so it's obviously not a hard rule to be a JPM PB client, as I have said. In fact, I just spoke to my friend who works at JPM's San Francisco PB office a couple of hours ago and he confirmed that they are merely filtering/soft-selling incoming applicants to see if they want to sign-up for wealth management services (exactly the OP's experience) - being a client is NOT a requirement and if the applicant doesn't want JPM PB services, they are merely forward to JPM Card Services to process the app like normal. So yeah, you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Bribro, I'm not sure if you are trying to be difficult or not. Policy for this card is for private banking clients. Just because there are loopholes or people who aren't strictly following policy doesn't mean it isn't policy. Just like Amex policy around backdating is getting backdated to when they first had Amex and not to someone else's Amex member date. Just because people are getting around this policy doesn't mean it isnt policy. I have jp Morgan private client in sf (not the lower end ones) and he tells me it is policy only for clients and soon to be clients. If you call the palladium line, they will tell you same thing. Your friend just demonstrates the confusion in jp Morgan and that they havent perfected procedures to enforce this policy, but this doesn't change the fact that it is policy. Your "logic" is making the same mistake many politicians make. Just because you make it illegal doesn't mean it won't happen. Or how about something closer to home. The credit bureau policy is to only have truthful and accurate information on your credit report. So given your thinking, it must have happened. Somehow I feel a bunch of people on this forum might disagree. Btw, watch your logic 101 statements as you sounded more like politician 101, by only partially quoting me and ignoring the rest of my statement that explained how the op was able to get through.