Mixed Emotions -- Absolutely Nothing To Do With The Bakken

Update

Some time ago, I received in the mail some third class mail from Bank of America saying I qualified for "Premium Services."  I paid no attention; I don't pay attention to third class mailing but for some reason I saved the notice. At the bank the other day, the teller told me I qualified for "Premium Services" but I said I was not interested at the time, but it was enough to make me take a look at the mailing notice.

It was intriguing. I ready to take Bank of America up on the offer.

Then, today, this story in the Boston Globe: fees surge as banks look for revenue.

Many bank customers have long felt nickeled-and-dimed by fees imposed by financial institutions. But now some banks are demanding much bigger denominations.

The region’s largest banks are charging consumers as much as $50 a month if they do not maintain minimum balances or meet other requirements for certain high-end checking and savings accounts.

Citizens Bank charges customers $50 a month when the balance in a top-end money market account slips below $1,000. Sovereign Bank imposes fees of up to $30 a month, and Bank of America and TD Bank each charge $25 a month whenever customers fall short of minimum balance and other qualifications for some premium checking accounts.

One would think that Bank of America would treat their "high-end" customers a bit better, at least giving them a warning if they were at risk of getting hit with a penalty -- and giving them a grace period. After all, we're not talking about grievous lapses here.

Nope, I'm staying away from these "opportunities." 

Original Post

Link here.

There's not much love lost between banks and me.

This article was just another in a long line of articles on banks that added to my "distaste" for banks in general, Bank of America specifically.

And then I came to the end of the article:

Kathleen Caid's Antique Artistry Studio in Glendale sells elaborately beaded, Victorian-style shades that she makes for lamps, chandeliers and sconces. She said she had understood that her $85,000 credit line would remain in place "as long as I wasn't in default," and she hadn't missed any payments.

Caid and her husband, Tim Melchior, a video producer with a Burbank media company, insist they are not in serious financial trouble despite having laid off her eight full-time employees and downsized her business space by two-thirds during the recession.

Yet Bank of America says that her credit-line debt, totaling $80,000, is due in May.

"I wouldn't have run it up if I knew what was in store," she said, adding that she would be speaking to an attorney and other banks about her options.

This action by Bank of America is certainly at odds with its current advertising theme/message in which [supposedly] small business owners say BoA has stuck with them through thick and thin.

But, pray tell, how would a regulator look at a maxed out credit line -- recently "run up" -- for a small business which has downsized significantly? Selling high-end period pieces during a recession? Note: the article doesn't say explicitly but certainly implies that she has laid off ALL her employees. Would you be nervous if you were the lender and noticed that? The company you are lending to has laid off all its employees? If an economic turnaround was in the cards, maybe, but this is California, and things don't appear to be turning around for some time. Certainly not for period accessories.

And that's why the article results in mixed emotions, mixed thoughts. I know, if I were the lender, I would be nervous. And those regulators breathing down my neck.

Do not take this out of context. I am not an apologist for Bank of America.