logo
The most exclusive credit cards are about to get even more expensive

The most exclusive credit cards are about to get even more expensive

Mint22-06-2025
When JPMorgan Chase said it was raising the annual fee by 45% on its popular Sapphire Reserve credit card, longtime cardholder David O'Brien didn't notice.
'My eyes glaze over with this stuff," said the 36-year-old New York lawyer.
Until a reporter told him that the fee will soon rise to $795, from $550, he assumed he had been paying less than $100 a year. A brief shock, acknowledged with an expletive, gave way to acceptance.
Top credit card companies have stumbled on a winning formula at odds with almost every other sector of America's inflation-obsessed economy: Raising their prices is good for business. Already sold by the status the cards convey, a large number of customers are willing to eat the costs.
This is JPMorgan's third and largest increase to its annual fee for the Sapphire Reserve card since it was launched in 2016 at $450 a year. It takes effect Monday for new customers and in October for existing customers.
American Express, whose Platinum card usually carries the heftiest fee in its market segment, is expected to raise its $695 fee—even higher than the Sapphire Reserve's—in its fall refresh, analysts say.
'I've been surprised at the ability to continue to extract higher pricing," said Moshe Orenbuch, a managing director at TD Securities. When the Sapphire Reserve launched, analysts doubted there was much appetite for triple-digit annual fees. 'Issuers have been positively surprised at how many of those folks there are."
Price hikes make the cards appear more exclusive. Except rather than offering a luxury good such as a diamond ring or fancy ride, the companies offer the chance to spend more.
The cards' allure 'can lead to behaviors that you can't justify" based on function alone, said Derek Rucker, a marketing professor at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management. 'That's where the math doesn't have to make sense," he said.
Theoretically, the math can make sense. Chase touts the more than $2,700 in annual value on its refreshed Reserve card, including hotel and dining credits and travel perks. Amex Platinum offers similar benefits for frequent travelers.
O'Brien, the New York lawyer, said that despite the fee increase, he expects the math to work out for keeping his Sapphire Reserve card. He regularly uses points from the card to book flights and hotel stays, and says lounge access offsets the cost of a few pricey airport cocktails.
But many perks go unredeemed. According to the latest data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, cardholders earned over $40 billion in rewards in 2022, yet more than $33 billion went unclaimed—a 40% jump since before the pandemic. The average account sat on $150 in unused perks.
A dining room at the American Express Centurion New York restaurant.
Redemption now requires more effort than ever before.
Jacob Moon, a 36-year-old investment banker in Los Angeles, didn't mind the fee increase, but bristled at the fine print. Many perks are delivered in increments and expire monthly. For instance, Chase is advertising a $500 hotel credit as a new benefit with the Sapphire Reserve. But half of the credit must be used in the first six months of the year, and half of it in the last six months.
'For the amount I spend, I want freedom, not a schedule," Moon said. 'This card is giving me homework."
Such complexity favors users who track every point and benefit—and banks know that. Regardless of whether perks are redeemed, the card issuer collects the fee.
'The vast majority of people will see all that as a headache," said Greg Davis-Kean, founder of travel website Frequent Miler.
Chase has taken steps to streamline its rewards. Cardholders now earn eight points per dollar on all travel booked through its portal—previously, different rates applied to flights and hotels. Chase also shows unclaimed benefits in its app.
'We're all about getting customers to redeem 100% of their benefits," said Allison Beer, CEO of card and connected commerce at Chase.
The higher fees will inevitably be too much for some customers to swallow. That might be the point, said Patrick Mrozowski, the founder of Atlas, a credit card company that charges a $1,000 annual fee and offers cardholders access to a concierge service, including help securing hard-to-get reservations at such restaurants as New York's The Corner Store.
'Maybe their overall number of customers drops, but the level of engagement from the core base increases, and that's a better way to grow," Mrozowski said.
Chase said it doesn't expect significant attrition from its Sapphire Reserve revamp, but acknowledged that some customers might decide to downgrade to the lower-fee Preferred card or opt out entirely.
A Bank of America Global Research survey earlier this month found that only 9% of Chase cardholders said they would cancel their most-used premium card if the annual fee increased by $100.
Michael Andeberhan, a 44-year-old who works in asset management, carries both the Sapphire Reserve and the Amex Platinum and keeps a close eye on whether he's getting his money's worth from each. But with the prospect of higher annual fees on both cards, he's starting to question whether two is too many.
Having two cards divides his spending, and each credit card company reserves its best perks for customers who spend the most on their cards. For example, cardholders who charge more than $75,000 a year on a Chase card unlock top-tier status at IHG Hotels and Resorts.
'Is it worth having two premium cards?" Andeberhan said. 'Because you can only spend your money on one card."
Write to Imani Moise at imani.moise@wsj.com and Jacob Passy at jacob.passy@wsj.com
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Mortgage Lenders Are Ignoring Trump's Rollback on Home Appraisal Reviews
Why Mortgage Lenders Are Ignoring Trump's Rollback on Home Appraisal Reviews

Mint

timea day ago

  • Mint

Why Mortgage Lenders Are Ignoring Trump's Rollback on Home Appraisal Reviews

At one midsized US mortgage lender, almost a quarter of customers who dispute property appraisals find that the value of their home had been miscalculated. It's an industrywide issue that has historically penalized minority groups, and now President Donald Trump has offered lenders the chance to ignore his predecessor's attempts to make it easier for homeowners to question the valuations assigned by property appraisers. Trump has scrapped some of the guidelines, part of his team's vow to stamp out what it sees as initiatives that support diversity, equity and inclusion. Many financial professionals agree that home appraisals can be unreliable, and that Black homeowners and other minorities are often put at a significant disadvantage. This can be especially damaging given that home ownership is the top wealth-creation tool in the US — and an appraisal is a key determinant of how much, if anything, someone can borrow. With their decision to end some of the requirements related to home valuations, however, Trump and his cabinet members may have little impact on lenders' practices. That's because there's fresh evidence that the changes the Biden administration put in place are supported by the industry. Some of the country's biggest lenders, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and U.S. Bancorp, said they would make no policy changes as a result of the rollback. New American Funding, which also isn't planning to change its approach, was the only financial institution of more than 10 contacted by Bloomberg to disclose information about disputed home valuations. The Tustin, California-based mortgage lender, which provided roughly $14 billion of mortgage loans last year, said an average 2.5% of its customers request new valuations each month. Of those contested, roughly 22% are found to need an adjustment. New American didn't share a breakdown of borrowers' requests by race. 'The changes have made it much easier for the borrower,' said Michelle Rogers, New American's chief valuation officer. 'It's more transparent and the borrower knows they can initiate it.' The appraisal directives were put in place following a deep dive by the Biden administration into prejudices in the business. One of Trump's housing regulators, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, said rolling them back was part of an attempt by the president to put an end to the 'obsession' with DEI. The administration also has vowed to make deep cuts to the federal apparatus that enforced fair housing and fair lending laws, from slashing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau staff to gutting the Justice Department's Civil Rights division. A HUD official who spoke on background said the department's recent reforms simply reverted its stance to the way things were before Biden-era regulators imposed their standards. Lenders aren't being barred from letting borrowers dispute their appraisals, said the official who declined to be identified. The White House hasn't responded to a request for comment. Black homeowners have long reported having their homes valued more highly after taking down all evidence of their race. Research from the Brookings Institution and the federally controlled housing finance agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has shown that home appraisals can be affected by racial bias, which in turn affects the value of homes in entire neighborhoods. Brookings found, for example, that homes in neighborhoods where the majority of residents are Black are valued between 21% and 23% lower than comparable homes in white neighborhoods, with appraisal bias as one of several contributing factors. Economists at Freddie Mac reported in 2021 that greater percentages of homes in majority Black and Latino census tracts were undervalued compared with those in white census tracts, leading them to conclude that there was a 'valuation gap' between homes in different neighborhoods. The appraisal problem for minority borrowers also is a problem for lenders, since having low appraisals can prevent a homeowner from qualifying for a mortgage refinancing or a new home loan. That means the lender loses out on valuable business. Banks also suffer when appraisers make mistakes in the opposite direction, valuing properties too highly, because it means the bank can't safely rely on the value of a property as collateral for a loan. The reforms that the mortgage industry recently adopted to try to make the appraisal process fairer originated with a Biden administration task force called PAVE , which was formed in 2021. The group consisted of public officials from 13 different agencies, and its goal was to produce a report with recommended changes to a suite of different mortgage industry standards. PAVE recommended more training for home appraisers and higher standards for appraisers seeking to qualify for professional licenses. Those changes were handled by the Appraisal Foundation, a nonprofit organization that serves as the regulator for home appraisers. A spokeswoman for the foundation declined to comment on the Trump administration's recent changes, but said that new education and licensing standards put in place last year are still in effect. PAVE also called for an industrywide requirement for mortgage lenders to let borrowers request 'a reconsideration of value' if they disagreed with an appraiser's determination. Last year, regulators began requiring mortgage lenders to decide how they would standardize their procedures and to explain them clearly to their customers. In a rare win for the government, the policy received support from the Mortgage Bankers Association. Federal housing regulation includes a web of rules issued by different agencies, including HUD and also Fannie and Freddie. The new home-appraisal guidance went into effect for all of the housing agencies. But so far, the Trump administration has only rolled back the policy for mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which help low- to moderate-income families attain home ownership. On July 17, Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, proposed a bill that would make mortgage lenders' ROV policies required by law. It also would expand public access to data on mortgage appraisals by forcing a federal housing regulator to more regularly share details. While fair-housing advocates support the proposal, the bill also has backing from a more unlikely source: the National Association of Mortgage Brokers. The group represents more than 500,000 mortgage brokers across the US. Its president, Jim Nabors, called the proposed bill 'critical' for ensuring fairness for homebuyers and added: 'Our entire board of directors and membership applaud Senator Warnock.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

India-Russia oil trade: Rs 5.9 lakh crore trade at risk after US' ultimatum, if Trump cuts India off from Russian oil, Putin may hit back with...
India-Russia oil trade: Rs 5.9 lakh crore trade at risk after US' ultimatum, if Trump cuts India off from Russian oil, Putin may hit back with...

India.com

time2 days ago

  • India.com

India-Russia oil trade: Rs 5.9 lakh crore trade at risk after US' ultimatum, if Trump cuts India off from Russian oil, Putin may hit back with...

Putin is true friend of India due to..., it helped at every step in making of..... but what is China connection? India is the world's third-largest oil importer and since 2022, it has become the top buyer of Russian oil. India buys up to 2 million barrels of oil from Russia every day. That's about 2 per cent of the world's total oil supply. China and Turkey are also among the biggest buyers of Russian oil. Putin may hit back by shutting down the CPC pipeline According to experts at JP Morgan, India plays a very important role in Russia's oil export plans. If anything disrupts this path, Russia could strike back by shutting down the CPC pipeline that runs through Kazakhstan. This pipeline is important because major US oil companies like Chevron and Exxon have big stakes in it. So, Russia also has ways to put pressure on the West. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has warned that if Russia doesn't agree to a peace deal with Ukraine by August 7–9, he will impose up to 100 per cent tariffs on countries that continue buying Russian oil. On top of that, a 25 per cent tariff on all Indian goods entering the US has already come into effect starting this Friday. Rs. 5.9 lakh crore trade at risk According to a Reuters report, after Donald Trump's warning, Indian state-run oil companies have stopped buying Russian oil this week. If India gives in to US pressure and stops buying oil from Russia, the impact will not just be on Russia, it could shake the entire global oil market. Crude oil prices might rise above USD 80 per barrel worldwide. India and Russia have always shared a strong bond. In the financial year 2024–25, the trade between the two countries reached USD 68.7 billion i.e. nearly Rs. 5.9 lakh crore. That's about 5.8 times more than the trade before the COVID-19 pandemic. A big part of this trade is crude oil. Russia now supplies around 40 per cent of all the oil India needs. But the partnership between India and Russia is not just about oil. It also includes defence and nuclear energy. India buys many of its military weapons from Russia, and both countries are working together to build nuclear reactors. Now, Trump's pressure could weaken this strong partnership. If things go wrong, it may harm India's energy security and defence strength. India caught between two powerful partners India is facing a tough situation. On one side, it has deep and long-standing ties with Russia. On the other, it has important trade relations with the United States. Now, all of this has come down to a difficult choice involving USD 68 billion (around Rs. 5.9 lakh crore) in trade. Trump has even warned of tariffs as high as 500 per cent on countries that continue buying oil from Russia. This is like a sword hanging over India's head. Indian High Commissioner Vikram Doraiswami made it clear that the country cannot shut down its economy just to follow Western sanctions. He also pointed out that European countries are still trading with Russia, so it's unfair to expect India to stop completely.

Should Legal Education Integrate AI? Rethinking curriculum for the age of intelligent law
Should Legal Education Integrate AI? Rethinking curriculum for the age of intelligent law

Hindustan Times

time3 days ago

  • Hindustan Times

Should Legal Education Integrate AI? Rethinking curriculum for the age of intelligent law

Generative AI is rapidly changing the legal industry. Major law firms and corporations are either developing their own AI tools or using existing ones to improve efficiency. For instance, JP Morgan Chase uses COiN (Contract Intelligence), a tool that uses natural language processing and machine learning to save over 360,000 hours of manual contract review each year. Similarly, tools like Cocounsel (for legal research), Harvey AI (for drafting and reviewing contracts), Spellbook (for contract creation), Lex Machina (for predicting case outcomes), and Vlex (for legal research) are shaping how legal work is done. Should Legal Education Integrate AI? Rethinking curriculum for the age of intelligent law Predictive AI in Law and the Kerala High Court's Call for Caution The rise of models like SCOTUSbot, Economist's AI tool to predict Supreme Court rulings, will further redefine the relationship between Generative AI and law. While the Economist cautions that AI won't replace human analysis, it notes that 'if justices faithfully follow legal principles, an AI aware of all the precedents ought to predict their votes fairly reliably.' The accuracy of SCOTUSbot's predictions will be crucial in assessing the robustness of such tools. At the same time, the Kerala High Court's recent policy on AI use in the District Judiciary reflects growing concerns about such technologies. While not banning AI entirely, the policy restricts tools that mimic human cognition, warning they may erode public trust and compromise key judicial values like fairness, transparency, and accountability. The Court has therefore advised extreme caution and barred the use of AI in legal reasoning or decision-making processes. Legal Education's Role in Ethical AI Integration and Critical Thinking This responsibility extends beyond courtrooms. Higher education institutions have an enormous role in ensuring that future lawyers ethically use AI while also becoming active participants in the AI revolution. As generative AI tools increasingly assist with legal research, drafting, and judgment summarisation, universities must help students understand how to use these technologies with responsibility and critical awareness. The World Economic Forum's 2024 report on Shaping the Future of Learning: The Role of AI in Education 4.0 highlights the transformative potential of AI in revolutionising teaching methods and enabling lifelong, student-driven learning. However, it also raises a crucial question. How do we integrate AI into education without compromising critical thinking and students' capacity for innovation? A major challenge is the growing tendency toward cognitive offloading. As noted by Evan Risko and Sam Gilbert from the University of Waterloo, students often rely on AI to find the least effortful path to problem solving, which can hinder their ability to think critically. This tendency, coupled with cognitive miserliness, risks diminishing essential skills that legal education must nurture. Integrating AI into legal education requires a careful balance of technological innovation, adaptive expertise, and ethical reflexivity. A recent University of Toronto study on imaginative problem solving found that AI-aided responses were less innovative than those generated by students working independently. When asked how to use a worn trouser, the AI generated an image of a scarecrow, while a student created a novelty bird feeder. The study highlights the importance of preserving imagination and original thinking in an AI-supported learning environment. Therefore, legal education must promote a culture where AI is not treated as a shortcut but as a tool that deepens understanding. Law schools must train students to use AI in ways that support argumentation, legal interpretation, and ethical reasoning. The goal is to create legal professionals who are not only technologically skilled but also committed to justice, fairness, and integrity. Rethinking Curriculum and Learning Taxonomies As we integrate AI into higher education, it becomes necessary to rethink how we design curricula and structure the learning process. Traditional teaching methods still rely heavily on didactic approaches, where the focus is on remembering and understanding. These are key stages in Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. While they remain important, AI tools can help shift the emphasis toward higher order thinking skills such as analysing, evaluating, and solving problems. This perspective was also reflected in discussions at the European Conference on Education, where educators examined how AI can support a shift toward critical thinking in the classroom. While there was broad agreement on the potential of AI to transform learning, some participants noted the continued importance of foundational stages like remembering and understanding, particularly in contexts where educational inequality persists, such as in parts of the global South. Emphasising Skill Competency and Social Inquiry in Law Another approach in which higher education can truly balance AI, and the natural learning process is by emphasising on skills competency and social inquiry. Likewise in law, generative AI tools can help synthesise and summarise judgments and create a rich knowledge base, but higher education holds the key to ensuring it's relevant, diligently reviewed, and empowers lawyers to argue without compromising their innovative skills or their commitment to justice. The Limitations of AI in Addressing Justice and Context For example, in one of the teaching sessions on 'ChatGPT (ing) and Grok(ing) in the classrooms: Is it time to permit the use of Large Language Chat Models in higher education?' two questions were examined through the LLM: 'Black people have more criminal records' and 'Should there be caste-based reservations in India?' The AI response recognized system issues, historical injustice and diversity; it was based on data and statistics. However, both responses lacked the perspectives needed to define what justice means in the current context and its future validity. The latter is indeed the sine qua non to legal education. Implementation of AI Responsibly in Legal Education No one wants to be left behind in the AI race. Thus, it forces us to think how much innovations will violate the ethical principles and add to the human cost of injustices. At the same time, we cannot discount the immense opportunities offered by AI in the legal profession. Ultimately, it is the question of balance. Conformists may view the use of AI as legal blasphemy but one must not forget that light bulbs, printing press, and computers were all met with ridicule only to be seen as one of the most inspirational inventions of humanity. Higher education therefore should embrace AI in their curriculum, albeit responsibly, without compromising their core skills. (This article is authored by Dr. Mukul Saxena, Professor and Director, Centre for Postgraduate and Legal Studies, and Centre of Excellence in Public Policy, Alliance School of Law)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store