Bank fees are rising again, mortgage credit is stabilizing after a fragile recovery, and over-indebtedness is on the rise once more. In this context, understanding pricing mechanisms, the actual conditions for granting credit, and signals of financial fragility is no longer a luxury: it is a prerequisite for making informed choices between institutions and optimizing every line of fees.
Increase in bank fees in 2026: what the ACPR report reveals
The annual report of the Banking Fees Observatory, published by the ACPR on September 24, 2026, confirms a rise in banking service fees between February 2025 and February 2026. Bundled service offers (packages) have also become more expensive between April 2025 and April 2026. We observe that this trend breaks with several years of relative pricing stability, driven by competition from online banks like BoursoBank or Nickel.
However, almost all the institutions studied maintain their offers for clients in a situation of financial fragility at an annual fee not exceeding 12 euros. This regulatory cap remains a safeguard, but it only concerns a fraction of the clientele. For other profiles, vigilance regarding pricing lines – bank card, account maintenance fees, intervention commissions – becomes a necessary reflex once again.
The line-by-line analysis of pricing brochures remains the only reliable way to compare. Online aggregators provide a synthetic view, but they do not always capture conditional fees (payment incidents, unauthorized overdrafts, transfers outside the SEPA zone). We recommend cross-referencing at least two sources before changing institutions.
To follow these pricing developments and their consequences on budget management, discover the banking section of Bourse Finance Mag to cross-reference sector analyses with regulatory data.
Mortgage credit: recovery of housing financing and stabilization of granting conditions
The ACPR indicates that housing financing rebounded in 2025 after the rate decline that began in mid-2024. Borrowing conditions then stabilized, with a slight rise in rates at the beginning of 2026. The market shows an improvement in access to credit, but not a return to permissive distribution.
In practical terms, banks have not significantly relaxed their granting criteria. The maximum effort rate and loan duration remain regulated. Files with limited personal contributions or rental investment profiles with tight returns continue to face more frequent refusals.
What borrowers underestimate
The stabilization of rates does not mean that the total cost of credit is decreasing. Borrower insurance, guarantee fees, and early repayment penalties weigh as heavily as the nominal rate in the calculation of the APR. A difference of a few tenths of a point on the nominal rate can be offset – or canceled – by a group insurance that is more expensive than an external delegation.
Comparing mortgage credit offers based solely on the nominal rate is a technical error. The APR remains the only regulatory indicator that incorporates all mandatory costs. We recommend systematically requesting the complete amortization table and the details of the APR before accepting any offer.
Increasing over-indebtedness: warning signals and measures to know
Over-indebtedness is clearly on the rise again in 2026. This trend, not very visible in general pages dedicated to budget management, reflects a real deterioration in the financial situation of some households. The causes are multiple: residual inflation on constrained items (energy, food), rising monthly payments on variable rate loans, and stagnation of income for certain categories.
The Banque de France manages over-indebtedness cases through departmental commissions. Filing a case is free and suspends execution procedures. Three points deserve particular attention:
- The FICP listing (File of incidents of repayment of loans to individuals) occurs as soon as the case is filed and lasts a maximum of seven years, but it can be lifted early if the plan is respected.
- The measures imposed by the commission may include a rescheduling of debts, partial cancellation, or a freeze on interest. The choice depends on the household’s remaining repayment capacity.
- Clients in a situation of financial fragility benefit from a cap on bank incident fees. This protection, coupled with the specific offer of less than 12 euros per year, constitutes a regulatory safety net that is often overlooked.
Online banking or traditional banking: selection criteria beyond card price
The classic reflex is to compare the price of the bank card. BoursoBank, Nickel, or other online players offer very low, sometimes zero, fees. In contrast, BNP Paribas or mutual networks charge card fees that can reach several dozen euros per year.
This superficial comparison masks structural differences. Online banks reduce costs by eliminating the branch network, which limits support in complex situations: inheritance, professional credit, wealth management. Conversely, traditional banks include access to a dedicated advisor in their fees, whose added value depends heavily on the agency and client profile.
What really matters in choosing an institution
- The quality of customer service in case of an incident (card fraud, opposition, dispute over a direct debit) varies significantly from one institution to another.
- The conditions for authorized overdrafts and incident fees often constitute the largest bank expense for clients with irregular incomes.
- Access to investment products (life insurance, PEA, SCPI) directly from the banking interface simplifies management, but management fees on these envelopes can sometimes differ from one to three times.
The choice between online banking and traditional banking depends on usage profile, not on the displayed card price. A client who only performs routine transactions will optimize their fees online. A client with wealth management needs or complex income will benefit from keeping a physical contact, even if it means paying the card fee.
The rise in bank fees, the stabilization of mortgage credit, and the increase in over-indebtedness create a landscape where each banking decision has a measurable opportunity cost. Reading pricing brochures, demanding the complete APR, and knowing the protection measures (FICP, fragility offer) remain the three most profitable actions for an individual in 2026.
