Can you have multiple BoA Cash Rewards cards?

[Anonymous]

Anyone know if you can get more than one BoA Cash Rewards card? The card is available in a "co-branded" form, for example, I have a Visa version of it branded after some charitable organization, there is a WWF version of it, versions for many sports teams, and so on. They all share the same benefit and the same 3% rotating category. 

The biggest limitation with this card is the 3% category is capped at $2500/quarter. For gas/costco previously I never hit that limit, but if I flip it to restaurant/travel then I certainly will hit that limit. 

So I'm wondering if you can get two of these cards. One vanilla one, and one co-branded one, or event multiple co-branded ones. 

I don't want to try applying right now as I'm in the garden until at least May. But I'm curious if others have done this and if there are issues. It basically doubles the $2500/quarter limit to have two of them.

[AverageJoesCredit]

Before , we would see people with multiples of the same Boa card. Nowadays i believe its much harder to achieve. Im not 100% sure its possible but you can find out by applying I cant even get TWO Boa cards lol

[kdm31091]

You techincally can, but take note they have recently started a 24 month policy. You cannot get approved for a second Cash Rewards if your first is less than 24 months old.

The cobranded versions so far don't have this language, but I would guess it's coming sooner than later. Even without the language specifically, BOA has definitely clamped down. Proceed with caution. I get wanting multiples for the 3% thing but BOA isn't afraid to shut people down if they think you're gaming the system by opening a bunch of accounts.

Being as though they started the 24 month language right before rolling out the new 3% choice thing, I would be very cautious. Obviously they knew people would try to do what you suggest.

[longtimelurker]

---

@kdm31091 wrote:

Being as though they started the 24 month language right before rolling out the new 3% choice thing, I would be very cautious. Obviously they knew people would try to do what you suggest.

---

But who knows!   Presumably BoA believes that the card has a value proposition for them in the overall population.  In which case they wouldn't necessarily object to people getting cobranded variants as well.   It does seem plausible that people deliberately getting several are much more likely to be using it for 3% only, but whether BoA has incorporated that sort of logic is unknown.

[UpperNwGuy]

I'm still mystified as to why people use 3-2-1% cards on any categories other than the 3%.  If everybody used their cards only for the 3% category, the swipe fees would be insufficient for the card to be profitable to the bank, so there must be a certain percentage of customers who don't pay off their balances, with the resulting interest charges making up the profits.

If you let people pick their 3% category from a list of choices, the smart customer would get a separate card for each choice.  Surely Bank of America must realize that risk.  The multiple cards also allows a customer to exceed the category spending caps, and I'm sure Bank of America realizes that risk too.

[longtimelurker]

---

@UpperNwGuy wrote:

 The multiple cards also allows a customer to exceed the category spending caps, and I'm sure Bank of America realizes that risk too.

---

This is the bit I meant.   BoA obviously thinks it's OK for someone to have the card and spend up to $X in a 3% category because, well, either they are paying interest or they also use it in the lower reward categories or both.   So, on the surface, another card should also be OK for the same reason.    It does seem much more likely that with multiple cards the user is probably targetting spend in the 3% categories, and even if first card is being used for 1% spend as well, with multiple cards that's unlikely to increase, so there is less offsetting of 3% spend.

But BoA may also have found that people who do this are more likely to overspend and thus pay interest.   So, along with the fact that banks don't always see pitfalls, it's not certain to me that BoA will block now!

[Anonymous]

Yeah. This is pushing some "interesting" choices on me. Ironically currently my spending is almost 100% committed to BoA cards and the thinking process this triggered is likely to result in me moving some of my spending away from BoA. I use this cash rewards card in its category and my BoA premium rewards for everything else except Amazon where I use the Chase Amazon.

Right now this cashback card is my Costco card, and I spend a little less than $2500/quarter on that plus gas, so it's a good fit. But there's no "room left" for another major category like dining, if I flipped it. So I was thinking about a second card. But it made me look at my dining spending. Dining alone I spend more than $2500/quarter because I have some business expenses driving that category up--which made me realize even if I used this card for dining, it wouldn't be a good fit. 

I guess I should just keep using this as my Costco card and find a better card for dining without the $2500 limit, which would presumably not be a BoA card. Currently that dining spending is going on my BoA premium rewards card and fetching 3.5%.

[Anonymous]

---

@longtimelurker wrote:

---

@kdm31091 wrote:

Being as though they started the 24 month language right before rolling out the new 3% choice thing, I would be very cautious. Obviously they knew people would try to do what you suggest.

---

But who knows!   Presumably BoA believes that the card has a value proposition for them in the overall population.  In which case they wouldn't necessarily object to people getting cobranded variants as well.   It does seem plausible that people deliberately getting several are much more likely to be using it for 3% only, but whether BoA has incorporated that sort of logic is unknown.

---

I would be shocked if BoA hasn’t incorporated that logic. 

If someone equals LOL/24, chances are that second (and third) 3% card are for reward abuse. It’s not that hard to throw that into any algorithm. 

[Anonymous]

How would you define "reward abuse" though? Or I guess more importantly, how would they define it? 

I am not looking to churn cards to get sign-up bonus and would be happy to get the 2nd card even if they tell me I can't get the sign-up bonus. I'm looking for cards I can use long-term that will optimize the cash back I get on my spending. 

I already have three of their cards and when I buy something I pull out the one that gives me the highest cash back for that transaction. Do they already consider it abuse that I pull out the Cash Rewards card for gas, and then switch to the Premium Rewards for dining? I think they even advertise that I should do that. 

So what would significantly change if I had both a "BoA Cash Rewards" and a "WWF Cash Rewards by BoA" card in my wallet? 

To me "abuse" usually means things like manufactured spending or churning sign-up bonus with no intention of long-term using the card, whereas, I want cards I can use for years and drive all my actual real spending through.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

How would you define "reward abuse" though? Or I guess more importantly, how would they define it? 

I am not looking to churn cards to get sign-up bonus and would be happy to get the 2nd card even if they tell me I can't get the sign-up bonus. I'm looking for cards I can use long-term that will optimize the cash back I get on my spending. 

I already have three of their cards and when I buy something I pull out the one that gives me the highest cash back for that transaction. Do they already consider it abuse that I pull out the Cash Rewards card for gas, and then switch to the Premium Rewards for dining? I think they even advertise that I should do that. 

So what would significantly change if I had both a "BoA Cash Rewards" and a "WWF Cash Rewards by BoA" card in my wallet? 

To me "abuse" usually means things like manufactured spending or churning sign-up bonus with no intention of long-term using the card, whereas, I want cards I can use for years and drive all my actual real spending through.

---

I guess abuse is the wrong term for it although that’s likely how they look at it since you’re not as profitable as someone who carries a balance and isn’t as reward savvy. 

I was just pointing out that they could easily make an algorithm that can detect savvy customers and likely already have such things in place. Just look at Chase. Lol.