Why the 2 year wait for chase sapphire?

[Imperfectfuture]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@kdm31091 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@yfan wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

But, I am sure that we will never agree on this, but to me the whole thing is a spectrum.   Getting one card to maximize grocery rewards, another to maximize hotel rewards etc, isn't so different from me to deciding to maximize rewards by churning a bunch of cards.   Ideally, the CCCs would like me to get one or two of their cards and use if for everything, bonus and non-bonus categories.   Selecting which card to use for the biggest buck per transaction is pressuring the profitibility of the card.

---

It doesn't matter if you and I agree. It only matters what's happening. And what's happening is banks are taking actions that seem to be closing off or restricting churning while expanding or keeping category rewards just the same. That to me indicates it's the churning that's more of the problem from the point of view of the lenders. And since credit cards are nothing more than temporary loan devices, it's the lenders' behavior that I draw most inferences from.

---

I really don't understand how you can infer that it's churners and not the excessive number of cards that led to the change.  If Chase is so concerned about churning then why didn't they implement the policy for their co branded cards like the Mileage Explorer and Marriott card for example? Those cards are churned just the same as the CSP and Freedom.

---

Of course we don't really know the details, but people do seem quick to decide that behavior they don't like (or rather don't do themselves) is the cause.    Basically, as discussed to death, there are really pretty simple mechanisms to deal with churning:

1) Reduce the bonus, delay the bonus till afer AF, or don't waive AF at all.

and especially:

2) One bonus per card per lifetime

If churning really was the issue, it's hard to understand why some other much weaker mechanism, (such as no more than 5 new accounts per two years) would be adopted, especially as it catches what yfan would view as non-churners (and I would characterize as greedy transaction maximizers who deserve to burn in hell!)

And as for keeping or expanding category rewards the same, that is partially selective viewing.   The rearrangement of the Cash + categories seemed to be aimed at reducing popular categories, Arrival Plus has (in effect) reduced category bonus while maintaining churning rewards etc.

---

I think we all know that maximizing transactions that involve honest spend is a whole lot different from spending several thousands of dollars a month on gift cards to earn more rewards.

---

In some cases certainly a difference of scale, but my guess is that if the great majority of people used Freedom ONLY for the 5% categories (and up to the quarterly max) and cashed out, the card would be nerfed.   And what in KDM-land is honest spend?  You are always (correctly) warning people against spending just to get rewards, so does it mean spending only for things that you "really" need, for some definition of need.

---

And please stop discussing gift cards.  AGAIN (OMG, So tiresome).

[yfan]

---

@Callandra wrote:

Well, now you are talking about a different person. 

Person A: Churner (whom I referred to as the type that gets the card, spends enough for the bonus, and then either closes it or stops using it)

Person B: Person who suffered hardship but has now fixed credit and wants the same card again

I read what you wrote as you were talking about two different people. Person A in blue and Person B in pink. 

---

Right. I thought it was obvious that I was differentiating between a churner and someone who has had life events that led to credit issues in the pass regarding the reasons why they closed/didn't use their accounts at one point.

[yfan]

---

@red259 wrote:
So this person is interested in the bonus then and it controls which card they apply for. I fail to see the distinction as they are interested in obtaining a bonus they already got in the past. If they really wanted to use the card long term the bonus would not be a factor.

---

As I said before, that the bonus can be churned doesn't mean churning is the purpose of the bonus. That someone is willing to figure a bonus in their decision to apply for a card - even if it is one they had gotten in the past - doesn't make them a churner. What makes them a churner is if they take the bonus and don't use the card long term, regularly, or close the account soon after (before an AF hits, for example, if it's a card with an AF). It's that long term usage rather than voluntarily SDing or closing it that separates someone who through circumstances may be looking to re-enter the rewards card market as someone who is simply chasing the bonus (in many cases again and again).

If in your eyes getting a card's bonus more than once is the same in all cases regardless of the circumstance and intent of the borrower, then we have a disagreement that may not be bridgeable.

[MarineVietVet]

We're

I think this thread is about done.

[Imperfectfuture]

---

@yfan wrote:

---

@red259 wrote:
So this person is interested in the bonus then and it controls which card they apply for. I fail to see the distinction as they are interested in obtaining a bonus they already got in the past. If they really wanted to use the card long term the bonus would not be a factor.

---

As I said before, that the bonus can be churned doesn't mean churning is the purpose of the bonus. That someone is willing to figure a bonus in their decision to apply for a card - even if it is one they had gotten in the past - doesn't make them a churner. What makes them a churner is if they take the bonus and don't use the card long term, regularly, or close the account soon after (before an AF hits, for example, if it's a card with an AF). It's that long term usage rather than voluntarily SDing or closing it that separates someone who through circumstances may be looking to re-enter the rewards card market as someone who is simply chasing the bonus (in many cases again and again).

If in your eyes getting a card's bonus more than once is the same in all cases regardless of the circumstance and intent of the borrower, then we have a disagreement that may not be bridgeable.

---

Again, was I not plain enough?  Let's stop discussing churning.

[yfan]

---

@Imperfectfuture wrote:

Again, was I not plain enough?  Let's stop discussing churning.

---

Then the thread needs to necessarily be closed. Here's the OP's original question that began this thread:

Why is Chase saying you have to wait 2 years before you can be approved or be able to apply for the Sapphire card?

You cannot seriously ask us not to discuss something that has a distinct and likely possibility of being part of the answer to the OP's question in a thread, which churning is.

[morgacj2004]

No love from me!  I cant even get the basic Freedom card as I still have a BK on my record.

[kdm31091]

---

@Imperfectfuture wrote:

---

@yfan wrote:

---

@red259 wrote:
So this person is interested in the bonus then and it controls which card they apply for. I fail to see the distinction as they are interested in obtaining a bonus they already got in the past. If they really wanted to use the card long term the bonus would not be a factor.

---

As I said before, that the bonus can be churned doesn't mean churning is the purpose of the bonus. That someone is willing to figure a bonus in their decision to apply for a card - even if it is one they had gotten in the past - doesn't make them a churner. What makes them a churner is if they take the bonus and don't use the card long term, regularly, or close the account soon after (before an AF hits, for example, if it's a card with an AF). It's that long term usage rather than voluntarily SDing or closing it that separates someone who through circumstances may be looking to re-enter the rewards card market as someone who is simply chasing the bonus (in many cases again and again).

If in your eyes getting a card's bonus more than once is the same in all cases regardless of the circumstance and intent of the borrower, then we have a disagreement that may not be bridgeable.

---

Again, was I not plain enough?  Let's stop discussing churning.

---

In this case, it was a valid point in the reasoning for OP's having to wait 2 years. Nobody brought it up out of the blue or without reason.

I know that nobody likes "controversial" threads but in this case, it made sense in the discussion. I do think we've all made our points though and can move along.

[gdale6]

---

@MarineVietVet wrote:

We're

I think this thread is about done.

---

I agree, this has already been argued more ways from Sunday and with that discussion on this is now closed.