@Turbobuick wrote:"Unprofitable Rewards" is by definition an oxymoron. All rewards are profitable to the recipient, but not to the bearer. Yes, the many that gain from the rewards depend on those that carry large balances and absorb fees. Hence, they balance out us takers and them givers.
Ok, if we're scrutinizing subject titles, then we probably exhausted the topic.
The subject was from the CCC's prospective, and what they might do in the future. Not sure 3 and 4% is sustainable w/o an annual fee. Even though interest paying cardholders are a big part of funding rewards, CCC may try to squeeze more profit from transactors.
My latest post was illustrating that CO is paying attention to transactors who are only using the card for the highest % on rewards. And my original post mentioned that I use my cards for 1% transactions , even though I could use my DC card instead.
Personally if an issuer is having problems with their product I consider it not a problem of mine. The terms offered already are completely one sided. They can pull the whole credit line if they feel uncomfortable. In the end I say that the issuer gave us a sandbox to play in and if we want to play with the sand that has platinum mixed in instead of plain sand that is our right as long as it is in the sandbox. It is fair game to maximise the rewards in ones own favor. If the issuer has a problem they can rightfully redesign the product any way they want. Most issuers are also happy as long as they make money after everyone is accounted for and their reported earnings show that. Just because you cause a little dip in profits does not mean that other people are not causing the issuer to swim in USD.
