Credit Cards: New Annual Fees for Customers Who Can’t Close Their Accounts

A small portion of Bank of America credit card customers will soon be hit with all-new $59 annual fees. Who, exactly, will be assessed the fees? For the most part, it’s the customers who will find it the most difficult to walk away from their accounts.

An AP story from about a month ago first reported Bank of America’s plans for new $59 annual fees to be added to about 5% of its customers accounts. The fee isn’t tied to any particular kind of BofA card, but instead to the individual customer’s “risk profile.” Those who make frequent late payments, who carry super high balances that they’re unlikely to ever pay off, and/or who typically wouldn’t be approved of for a no-fee card today are more likely to get the $59 fee added on top.

Today’s David Lazarus column in the LA Times features a woman named Sue Laman, who just so happens to be facing a new $59 fee for her Bank of America credit card—and who, after a bad run of medical bills and unfortunate recession-related family expenditures, has about $30K in credit card debt. The only way to avoid the new fee is to close the account. To do that Laman would have to settle her debt—and she says that it’s impossible to pay off her card anytime soon. So she’s stuck. In her own words from Lazarus’s column:

“I feel like an indentured servant,” Laman told me. “But what can I do? I can’t refuse their annual fee. They know I have no choice except to pay.”

Since credit card reform was first proposed, consumers have gotten accustomed to the idea that in exchange for better disclosure and fewer gotcha penalties associated with reform, there were some unfortunate tradeoffs—namely more fees and higher interest rates. In more recent months, however, after the initial months of soaring rate increases had passed, things seem to have settled down. There was even news that a select few credit card fees had disappeared, shockingly.

So why the new fee from BofA? I’m sure the executive response to this adds up to: Um, why the hell not?

The CARD Act—which you can learn about in this handy, dumbed-down infographic from BillShrink—forbids card issuers from rate increases unless the customer has gone at least 60 days without making at least the minimum payment. But there are no rules that specifically outlaw adding new annual fees, even for customers like Laman who have never missed payments.

So the fees are simply a means for BofA to milk a little more money out of customers who don’t have the money to pay what they already owe. If these customers are peeved enough by the new fee that they manage to pay off their debt and close the account, BofA wins in that scenario as well—because the debt’s been paid off.

Now, if Bank of America really deemed all of these customers unworthy of credit to the extent that it must add a $59 fee to hedge for the added risk, why doesn’t the bank simply close these accounts? That’s what happened to millions of accounts in the immediate aftermath of the CARD Act. Because of the high balances, and the absence of other feasible options, the customers themselves may feel unable to close these accounts. But BofA could easily close them, if it wanted to. Lazarus sees the wisdom in this approach, writing:

People in Laman’s position may not like it, but if the bank truly believes they’re no longer creditworthy, cut them off.

I have to agree. Customers should view this fee is as a simple money grab by the bank, or a push to close the account. Either way, the bank wins. And either way, it’s clear that this is not a healthy relationship, and it should probably end.

MORE:
Plastic Predictions: What to Expect with Credit Cards in 2011
Credit Card Offers Have Gotten 250% More Complicated Than They Were a Decade Ago
The Reward for Cash-Reward Credit Cards: Higher Bills, More Debt

Related Topics: annual fees, APR, Bank of America, fees, interest rates, recession porn, Borrowing, Credit Cards
  • http://allbummedout.wordpress.com allbummedout

    The type of customer in the 5 percentile whom you describe Bank of America and other banks exploting, whether they know it or not (likely not) is ruined for life from a credit perspective.

    Their only option to restore that credit is to pay an attorney approximately $500 to file for legal bankruptcy (chapter 7) protection. Instead of being ruined for life, credit bureaus are LEGALLY obliged to erase a bad credit history up to the bankruptcy filing date!

    Instead of being penalized for life with no hope, those who file bankruptcy (a legal Constitutional right of every citizen) no longer owes a dime on credit cards and other unsecured debt. They can keep making their mortgage and car payments. They must use a VISA or MasterCard debit card (works the same as a real “credit card”) in lieu of an actual card with a credit line. No biggie; your bank balance becomes your line of credit.

    Oh, and you sit in the proverbial corner of this financial system, wearing the classic “dunce cap” that teachers used to make kids wear back in the 1960′s when they misbehaved in class, for the next 7 years, In other words, you don’t get credit for 7 years… then begin building it again. Whereas the option Brad Tuttle describes is equivalent to the teacher making you “timeout” through elementary and high school, not graduating you, and disqualifying you from a university.

    Who in their right mind would take that option when bankruptcy wipes out their debts, and gives them a fresh start? All the hoopla about bankruptcy being morally bad is wrong — because the banks wiped out their debts in 2008 (when the Fed bought these “toxic” debts from the banks). Imagine the Fed paying you $20,000 in exchange for your toxic debts of $20,000… sweet.

  • http://bfisher68.wordpress.com bfisher68

    I am no lover of the big 5 banks in the US, but I think claiming that the bank wins something by the card holder paying a debt; that at the end of the day was the card holders choice, is stupid. The Card holder had the choice not to use the card but racked up the 30k debt knowing full well there would be ramifications for that decision. The bank did not force her to use the card, nor is his/her life mistakes, choices or troubles the responsibility of the issuing bank. I also fail to see how a $60 dollar a year fee constitutes “hedging risk” on a 30k debt, if some stupid American jacks up 30k in debt, a $60 a year fee is the least of their worries. The big problem here is the dumb azz who racked up 30k and didn’t have a solution for paying for it. Banks are the enemy for a lot of reasons but this isn’t one of them. If the person in this article didn’t want to be straddled with the debt (or become an indentured servant), she shouldn’t have racked it up in the first place. Time to take responsibility for your own actions.

blog comments powered by Disqus