[quintinsykes]

The bank likely won't care if you use your card with a PIN ("PIN debit") or with a signature ("Signature debit"), which you refer to as "processed as credit". Either way, they still know it's your debit card that was used even though PIN and Signature debit transactions arrive at the bank through separate networks, so you'll probably get hosed with the fee unless you're in one of their "premium" accounts.

Community banks and credit unions everywhere are licking their chops at the opportunity to siphon off disgruntled customers.

[blhack]

I disagree.

The fee structure for "credit" purchases is different than that for "debit" purchases. It's in the interest of VISA to have me run the transaction as "credit". Would it surprise you if there was cooperation between BoA and VISA (or any other CC provider) to encourage the use of this? The $5/mo charge just encourages it even further.

[quintinsykes]

You're absolutely right, the structure is different for Signature and PIN debit. Pre-Durbin there was a large gap between Signature and PIN debit interchange income and banks wanted you to use Signature debit for that reason.

With Durbin rules implemented that gap has narrowed and now the bank wants you to use an actual Credit Card vs. a Signature Debit transaction because they will make more interchange income off of it.

[cube13]

>The bank likely won't care if you use your card with a PIN ("PIN debit") or with a signature ("Signature debit"), which you refer to as "processed as credit".

Mine does. They have a $1.50 charge whenever I use my PIN for non-ATM transactions. If I sign, there is no fee. It's been this way for the last 10 years I've had a debit/checking line with them.

[quintinsykes]

I was speaking in terms of charging the $5/month fee. Pre-Durbin amendment there was a much wider gap between PIN and Signature debit revenue which is why the bank encouraged you to use Signature debit by surcharging you for using PIN debit.