greggarious

Do Arrival+ points expire?

uds0

Barclay did break their promise to add the chip to the no fee card in 2014, and the FICO score and flexible transaction range reporting as well as good customer service are still worth getting that card for me since I have other free cards with chip and signature+pin (Andrews FCU with on+offline pin and Schwab with online pin only). I am also traveling abroad with other folks who just got their Barclaycard Arrival+ with it's on+offline pin for a year with no fee and free $450+ statement credit w/min spend)

uds0

Not as long as the account is open (and perhaps has at least a bit of activity?)

uds0

There are quite vocal posters who insist you can.

This churning game is quite the paradox. Per the bank's rules, you must not have the card within x months in order to get the sign up bonus again, so that encourages churners to let it go sooner than later to restart the churn clock. I have also noticed a tightening of some of the terms to exclude sign up bonuses if you EVER got the sign up bonus. If churning has value to the banks, they will allow it. If it becomes a liability, that may result in a business decision to reduce it in favor of getting new customers over repeat customers.

Happy

Tons of folks bought MOs with ST Delta debit cards and earn miles. Wonder what they do with their MOs?

So Money Order is actual purchases, and cash equivalent GCs are not? Interesting view.

duranza

within how many months?

uds0

I'm puzzled by that conclusion from my post "simple test".

MOs, GCs, whatever, if used to move money from one place to another without purchasing goods or services, are all manufactured spending primarily, if not exclusively, for the purpose of generating points. Although a lot of bank disclosures do not define "cash equivalents" thoroughly, and indeed, the definition of "cash equivalents" evolves as more products show up, virtually all disclosures at least vaguely, if not directly, define the intention that only purchases of goods and services qualifying for points.

I'm not trying to be right or wrong here, just suggesting that rationalization is just that.

As many of us realize, we cannot really know the variety of motivations or reasons behind banks mostly not enforcing their intent for point generation. Choosing how to game that system, as well as all "systems" that we deal with daily, is an individual choice. I have found that the simple approach of being straight forward has always provided the most true benefit and takes the least effort - a big bonus for sure!

All gift cards I buy are for goods and services. I buy them only because I want to give them to someone or I get a bonus (free mocha, bag of beans, whatever) or they make the purchasing process much faster than directly using a credit or debit card. That policy is congruent with what card issuers intend from what I can tell.

There are a lot of posts cautioning to mix MS with other spending so it isn't so obvious. What's with that?

uds0

x = 0 to infinity, depending on many factors.

my informal poll indicates 1 to 2 years might be a good wild guess.

uds0

Update: Received denial letter which stated:

"Sufficient credit is available on your account issued by Barclays Bank Delaware."

So my current Arrival+ account (and all other Barclay cards are indicated too) resulted in the denial. I will call on Monday to see about how to get the no fee card without just downgrading and thus losing the 20k signup bonus.

Result: Barclay has directly encouraged the cancellation of the Arrival+ so that some time will pass in order to improve chances of getting the no fee card and [hopefully] the $200 sign up bonus.

Just by coincidence, I also got the annual fee reminder letter which first reminded me, in much larger font, benefits that I would give up (many of which are also available on the no fee version). Only the chip and 2% on everything vs 2% only on travel (1% elsewhere) are the main advantage on the Arrival+.

Reminders in that letter:

Redemptions can be done only against travel charges within 120 days and only starting at (and NOT mentioned: in multiples of) 2,500 ($25). So if the account is closed or not in good standing (inactive, late payment, etc?), any points below a remainder of 2,500 are lost because they can't be redeemed. I verified this recently by not being able to use the full points even though the travel purchase exceeded them.

"An Annual Fee will bill on your account on January 30, 2015. To avoid paying the Annual Fee, you MUST call us at 866-558-1107 by 5:00 p.m. ET on January 30th, 2015 to close your account. If your account is enrolled in a rewards program, any outstanding reward points or miles on your account may be forfeited at the time the account is closed."

I recall reading somewhere that it was illegal to not provide a grace period after an annual fee is billed, so I am surprised by this language.
This statement is also in direct conflict with my phone conversation with a rep last week. He flatly stated that I had 30 days AFTER the fee posting date of 1/30/15 to decided whether to close the account to avoid that fee!

"There is a Transaction Fee of the greater of $10.00 or 5.00% of the amount of each purchase of money orders, travelers' checks, lottery tickets, gambling chips or wire transfers"

Worth also mentioning is the "cash equivalents" definition that Barclay has on their web site:

"“Cash Equivalent” means the use of your Card or account number to obtain money orders, traveler's checks, foreign currency, lottery tickets, gambling chips, wire transfers, person to person money transfers (including but not limited to transfers facilitated over the internet), or the use of your Account to open a deposit account or to transfer value to a stored value card at a location or through a merchant other than a financial institution and any other transaction that MasterCard, Visa and/or American Express (as applicable to your Account) may designate as a Cash Equivalent. Cash Equivalents and the Transaction Fees associated with any Cash Equivalent are considered Cash Advances for interest calculation purposes."

so those who purchase money orders or other "cash equivalents", including "any other transaction ..." should take into account the potentially substantial fees for these type of transactions even if they do manage to generate points.

Hope this helps.

ukgaz

Can you use the arrival statement for Costco Travel?

starbuk

uds just call them and tell them to close your A+ or reallocate credit to new card. Done it myself many time with citi and chase.

Carl Christensen

UDS - It is because the banks are greedy and and lust for more of your money and thus they define getting a cash advance (the things they listed) as generating interest - another way for them to make money off you. BUT, we aren't buying MO with the card. We may buy MO as a next step in the process. And to be clear, this isn't something illegal. It is the banks wanting to sock it to you for even more fees than they normally can. There is nothing morally wrong about this. This is very similar to the situation that people find with 'shrink wrapped agreements' whereby they purchase a DVD that has terms that upon opening you agree to the agreement to not make copies even though the laws are clear you are allowed to make a copy for personal purposes. My point being that there is a difference between 'illegal/morally wrong' vs 'not in the agreement' which one is compelled to accept. The fact they do not enforce or pursue shows implicit acceptance of our nonacceptance of that portion.

JEFFJAGUAR

I suppose nobody has actually paid an annual fee for an arrival+ card up till now as the fee is waived for the first year and the card was announced less than a year ago.

What will be interesting is what will happen when people begin to call to close the account when the annual fee notices go out. In the past, that threat alone with most cards with annual fees (except for the most part the airline mileage cards) got a response like will you stay with us if we waive the annual fee. Let's see what happens when that time comes.

Of course, I wonder why they haven't made the regular card available with an emv chip yet despite the fact they gave their solemn word, whatever little that is worth, said card would be available during the 4th quarter. Perhaps they are waiting to see what kind of attrition they will get when people have to actually begin paying the fee. I suppose that's the next step in the chain.

uds0

Thanks for your many observations. Let's take them one at a time (sorry for the long response and some off-topic content):

1. Banks are like any other corporation. Their primary goal is to make money for their share holders (or at least their board of directors and upper management!). They are soulless entities (and not "persons" as so very unfortunately recently legally characterized as) and therefore have no real reason to have a moral compass unless it benefits their benefactors. This is a tremendous issue in all societies.

2. Defining transactions that are not purchases of goods and services (which are specifically defined as not being cash advances), and can be easily converted to cash as cash advances, seems reasonable to me, and should thus be treated the same, including the same fees and interest as simple cash advances. They are, after all, an advance of credit which is simply converted to a form of asset that can be easily and precisely converted to cash. Gift cards should be excluded if they cannot be converted to cash of a specific amount known at the time of purchase or are not intended to be converted to cash. Reselling stuff that is purchased with credit typically is not considered "cash equivalent" because there is no assurance of resale at a specific amount.

3. One step removed money order (or any other asset) purchase with the intent of converting that asset to cash is simply a rationalization of a cash advance non-purchase for the sole purpose of getting the benefit of a purchase. The most optimal rationalization is buying a cash equivalent for the rationalized purchase benefit, then paying off the cash advance source with that asset so that the credit can be used to actually purchase goods or services. This clearly provides twice as much benefit as is intended by agreements that state that points/miles are earned for purchases ("goods and services").

4. I don't recall making any comment that there was anything illegal going on here.

5. Because banks operate within the law, and making copies of intellectual property in violation of the "shrink wrap" lawful portion (i.e. for other than a backup) of the contract that the copier legally agree to, these two situations are not related. The rationalization that intellectual property should not cost so much, and therefore making illegal copies is justified is simply a rationalization with no basis in law. As a software developer, I can assure you first hand that copying intellectual property does indeed cause severe and direct economic damage. Costs to create intellectual property are spread across the sale of the use of the property to many consumers, so each consumer who steals (yep that's what's economically and legally happening!) a copy should understand what they are actually doing and make an individual moral judgement.

6. Illegal and immoral are indeed separate issues.

7. Agreeing to something, including intent, and then taking other action than what was specifically agreed upon simply because it is not enforced is absolutely a moral judgement.

8. If a specific action is not "in an agreement", or, in my book, at least not within the obvious intent of the agreement, then it can't be in conflict with the agreement. Using this basic agreement philosophy benefits everyone because it minimally saves the enormous blood sucking cost of dealing with legal professionals who are required to spent countless hours attempting to cover every possible rationalization of what the agreements might cover. For me it's just the responsible and reasonable thing to do that adds to the quality of life.

9. In some specific cases, case law has indeed supported "approval by lack of active dis-approval", and I don't recall any automatic suspension of bank agreement terms via these accepted methods. The case law I am aware of has to do with fences that accidentally infringe on a neighbors property, under certain circumstances, causing the property line to be adjusted. This was argued to be a practical issue to resolve expensive disputes mostly when substantial investment was based on the incorrect fence placement. I'm confident there are other chases.

10. I totally agree that many agreements are over the top in favor of the party who has the power. Sometimes we can decline to accept by having less onerous choices. For the rest, remember that it's "just business" - a poor excuse for typically immoral behavior indeed.

Hope this long post helps.

traveler9020

usd0, It looks like you pretty much closed the debate on gift card and money order purchases violating the terms of agreement for this card. The definition from the agreement seems pretty clear and leaves little room for interpretation.

Many of the cards issued by Citi do not have these restrictions so you may want to look at those.