Copy article

Amex credit limits: expert comment wanted

Journalist: Aaliyah Ahmed, The Times

ended 11. August 2026

I’m looking for an independent credit, banking or personal finance expert to comment on American Express and credit-limit increases.

Lord Alan Sugar has complained after American Express refused his request for a higher credit limit, despite his reported wealth of around £1.1 billion. He said he spent around an hour on the phone and was passed between four people before his request was ultimately rejected by the company’s system.

I’m particularly interested in expert views on whether it is common for customers to be refused credit-limit increases, why someone with a high income or substantial wealth could still be turned down, and whether Amex is particularly cautious about increasing credit limits compared with other providers.

I’m also keen to hear from a points/Avios expert who can explain how much Amex Membership Rewards points can be worth in real terms, and how valuable the rewards could potentially be for someone putting significant spending through an Amex card.

This is for a light-hearted money story for The Times. Please get in touch if you have relevant expertise and can provide comment on the record.

6 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Editor
Samuel Mather-Holgate
Managing Director & IFA at Mather and Murray Financial
Lord Sugar being told ‘you’re fired’ by an algorithm is a neat reminder that credit limits are not handed out simply because someone is rich. Card providers look at internal risk models, spending patterns, repayment history, income evidence, exposure across accounts and affordability rules. A high net worth does not always mean high verifiable income or low credit risk on paper. Refusals are not unusual, especially when the requested limit is well above a customer’s established profile. Amex can appear cautious because its cards are often used for high-value spending and generous rewards. Membership Rewards can be very valuable when transferred well, particularly into Avios for premium cabin flights, but the real value depends on redemption discipline. Points are a perk, not a reason to stretch credit.
Copy

Editor
Matt Coulson
Founder at Heron Financial Ltd
I can't speak to how Amex sets its own limits, but the principle here is one we see in mortgages constantly: wealth and creditworthiness aren't the same thing. A card issuer or a mortgage lender cares less about how rich you are and more about whether you can comfortably repay, and how you handle credit day to day. Net worth on paper doesn't really answer either, and a big but unconventional financial picture can confuse an automated model rather than breeze through it. The wealthiest clients are often the hardest to place, for exactly that reason. There's also a practical point people miss: the way you run your cards feeds straight into your mortgage. The balances you carry and the commitments you're servicing cut what a lender will offer, however wealthy you look. So if Lord Sugar's run-in teaches us anything, it's that lenders lend against affordability and behaviour, rather than the size of your bank balance. A bit humbling, but it's the system doing its job.
Copy

Editor
David Stirling
Independent Financial Adviser at Mint Wealth
There's a certain irony in the man who made his name firing people on television being told 'no' by a computer that won't even explain itself. It shows that card issuers aren't necessarily grading your net worth or your knighthood, they're grading your credit file. You could own half of London and still get the same computer-says-no as everyone else.
Copy

Editor
Manooch Suree
Director at Zinga Financial Services
Lord Sugar being refused a higher credit limit proves that even a billionaire can fall victim to “computer says no”.

As a mortgage adviser, I see the same contradiction in lending. Wealth and affordability aren’t the same thing: you can own millions in property or businesses, but if your income doesn’t fit the algorithm, the computer may still show you the door.

Yet at the other end of the scale, we see customers given credit-limit increases they never asked for. That extra spending power can be tempting and, if circumstances suddenly change, quickly become a financial headache.

Affordability checks are vital, but so is common sense. Lenders need to get the balance right between responsible lending and sensible flexibility.

So while Lord Sugar may be used to doing the firing, this time it seems the algorithm fired him.

Copy

Editor
Paul Denley
CEO at Oakham Wealth Management
Amex declining a billionaire feels absurd, but credit decisions aren't a wealth test - they're an affordability and risk assessment. Lenders look at evidenced income, existing borrowing, repayment history and spending patterns, not simply net worth. Someone can be extraordinarily wealthy but still fall outside an automated model if their wealth is tied up in businesses or property, or their income doesn't fit standard affordability criteria. Refusals are not unusual, and frontline staff may have limited ability to override the system.
For heavy spenders, however, higher limits can be particularly valuable because of the rewards. Membership Rewards points transfer 1:1 into Avios and, while around 1p per point is a reasonable benchmark, well used premium flight redemptions can be worth considerably more. At high levels of spending, that can translate into thousands of pounds of travel value each year.
Copy

Editor
Harvey Dhillon
Founder & CEO at Zmartly
Everyone is calling this a system failure. I would argue it is the opposite. A control that can be talked round by whoever happens to be on the phone is not a control, and the moment a rep can raise a limit because they recognise the name, you have built a fraud route and a favouritism problem in one go.

You only ever hear about the refusal that looks silly. You never hear about the thousands of times the same rule stopped a limit going somewhere it should not have gone, which is precisely why the recovery rate holds up.

The real flaw is not that someone in Brighton could not make an exception. It is what the model was reading. Most directors I act for take a small salary and modest dividends because that is what keeps the tax bill down, so the only income they can honestly declare looks tiny. Better lenders now look at net company profit instead. That is the fix.