yfan wrote:You can thank the churners and bonus chasers. No lender wants to put up with losing money up front and THEN not getting long term use from the customer.
i see what you are saying, but in this case Barclays is forcing people who don't want to churn to cancel their card!
Not necessarily forcing them to cancel. It's just clear that Barclay's wants the arrival+ to be one's primarily card in their wallet and using everyday for every purchase (hence the new minimum redemption). I think lenders are growing tired of people obtaining cards, collecting benefits, and spending little outside of those benefits, so they are doing what they can to make it harder to reap rewards otherwise. It's nothing entirely new, but the $100 minimum is a new big step.
Note that AFAIK the new $100 threshold doesn't apply to the no-fee arrival - only the AF version. I guess their thought process is that anyone spending enough to justify the $89 fee won't have an issue meeting the threshold, and lower spenders should have the no AF version anyway.
Even the invitation only Barclay "cash forward" or whatever it's called has a $50 redemption threshold. Barclay's wants to see usage on their cards and not just usage where it is the most beneficial to the consumer (i.e. bonus spend). We can debate whether that's right or wrong, but at the end of the day, they're a business and they want to make money.
As far as churning, it's pretty obvious that many policy changes have been due to churners: Amex once in a lifetime bonus, Citi only once every 18 months, Chase won't approve you unless you have a very low amount of new accounts etc...so again, whether churning is right or wrong, the banks are certainly saying how they feel about it. Barclay's hasn't been a big churning issuer for awhile because generally they don't approve people very easily if they have a lot of inquiries/new accounts.