BOFA to charge $5 a month for check card use

[Denny]

If that is the case then why did they pay it back before they had to?

To avoid being "that guy." Again, just trying to come out looking as good as they can from a shitty situation.

[Bassics]

The big 3 are not rosey clean. The bankruptcy reform act was pretty much a lie and about as constitutional as the GM bankruptcy. And they were the drivers (and had been for decades).

Remember the mantra "if we can stop all these deadbeats then honest hardworking people will enjoy lower interest rates on revolving credit"?

That was the sales pitch. The delivery was 180 degrees.

[Broncojohnny]

BofA knew it was going to get TARP no matter what, so they claimed they didn't want it and look like a "good guy," all while knowing it was going to get shoved down their throat.

If that is the case then why did they pay it back before they had to?

[Denny]

BofA knew it was going to get TARP no matter what, so they claimed they didn't want it and look like a "good guy," all while knowing it was going to get shoved down their throat.

[Bassics]

I don't think I ever said that B of A used TARP money to buy Countrywide. Although I may have implied that since I was posting at 6 am. lol

Gotcha. And wanted to assume as much.

[Bassics]

He is saying the government forced Bofa to take CW. CW was in all kinds of trouble when that deal was done, and more than likely, the government told him they would back him if something happened. It did, and Ken didn't want the tarp, but they still gave it to BofA. BofA paid it off, with interest within a year and a half.

That is not what he said though. He said that BoA was forced to take TARP and then was forced to buy CW.

Regarding the forcing of either, I would not be surprised if it went even deeper, but at the time of the CW buy there were both supporters and detractors. Keep in mind the timeline, the CW strategy probably started mid-2006 or so. Things looked different then than they do in hindsight.

[Broncojohnny]

Yes, you do. BoA bought CW long before TARP ever came about. That is what I corrected you on. Maybe you wrote it differently than you intended.

I don't think I ever said that B of A used TARP money to buy Countrywide. Although I may have implied that since I was posting at 6 am. lol

[mstng86]

Yes, you do. BoA bought CW long before TARP ever came about.

He is saying the government forced Bofa to take CW. CW was in all kinds of trouble when that deal was done, and more than likely, the government told him they would back him if something happened. It did, and Ken didn't want the tarp, but they still gave it to BofA. BofA paid it off, with interest within a year and a half.

[Broncojohnny]

ZOMG Citibank just raised fees, they must be money grubbing assholes too!!! Either that or they are a business that needs to make a profit. Maybe those two things are the same to the idiots in our government?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/04/pf/citi_fee/index.htm

Citi hikes fees on checking accounts

* 69
*
* 5

* Print
* Comment


By Jessica Dickler October 5, 2011: 10:53 AM ET
Citi hikes fees on checking accounts

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The fees keep coming. Citi is the latest big bank to slap customers with a round of fee hikes. This time, on its checking accounts.

Starting in December, customers who hold its mid-level Citibank Account will be charged $20 a month if they fail to maintain a minimum balance of $15,000 in their combined accounts. Previously, account holders had to carry a minimum balance of $6,000.

* 69
*
* 5

* Print
* Comment

At the same time, customers who have the bank's EZ Checking account will start being charged $15 a month if they don't carry a minimum balance of $6,000. Citi (C (C, Fortune 500)) says it is phasing out the EZ Checking package, which currently carries no monthly fee, and is instead offering customers either the Citibank Account or its Basic Banking account, which also carries a fee.

Last month, Citi said it is hiking the fee on its Basic Banking account from $8 to $10. Customers will be able to avoid paying the $10 fee by either maintaining a minimum balance of $1,500 or by making one direct deposit and one automatic online payment through their checking account each month, said Citi.

Currently, account holders must make five online transactions per month in order to avoid paying the fee and there is no minimum balance requirement.
9 most annoying bank fees

Citi's fee hikes come just days after Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) announced it would charge a $5 fee for debit card purchases. Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Sun Trust and Regions Financial (RF, Fortune 500) have all also rolled out similar fees in select markets in recent weeks.

"The regulatory environment has changed a great deal -- particularly with the Durbin Amendment -- and we're seeing the results of that now," said Claes Bell, banking reporter with Bankrate.com. Going forward, "we're going to see more large national banks announce fees."

With the new regulation that caps how much revenue banks can get from the swipe fees they collect from merchants, banks must look for other ways to cover that lost income, explained Nessa Feddis, vice president and senior counsel of the American Bankers Association.

"We don't expect to pay nothing to ride the train, it's the same thing with a checking account," she said.
Bank accounts: Get a fair shake, not a shakedown

Citibank said it chose not to charge a debit card fee because its customers did not want it. "There's a reason why we structured it this way," said Catherine Pulley, spokeswoman for Citi. There are also no hidden fees, Pulley added, and customers will benefit from free online bill pay and free access to non-Citi ATM machines.

While the majority of checking accounts were free last year, less than half now come without a price tag, according to a recent study from bank-comparison site Bankrate, which looked at 243 interest and 238 non-interest accounts.

Like Citi's new offerings, 92% of checking accounts have fee waivers, meaning that if you can meet certain financially requirements, most checking accounts are -- or could become -- free. To top of page
First Published: October 4, 2011: 5:11 PM ET

[Bassics]

I don't have anything wrong. And I wasn't talking about Obama and company. The government has pushed banks into deals for decades with their bullshit regulation. If the banks don't like it then the regulators can make their lives really tough. Exhibit A illustrating that fact is the TARP program. I don't believe for a second that Ken Lewis would have bought Countrywide without some government arm twisting. That deal fucking sucked ass from day one.

Yes, you do. BoA bought CW long before TARP ever came about. That is what I corrected you on. Maybe you wrote it differently than you intended.

[Denny]

[mstng86]

I don't have anything wrong. And I wasn't talking about Obama and company. The government has pushed banks into deals for decades with their bullshit regulation. If the banks don't like it then the regulators can make their lives really tough. Exhibit A illustrating that fact is the TARP program. I don't believe for a second that Ken Lewis would have bought Countrywide without some government arm twisting. That deal fucking sucked ass from day one.

Countrywide (check)
Foreclosure cluster F(check)
Forced tarp money (check)
Unwarranted regulations(check mate?)

[Broncojohnny]

I think you have your chronology wrong here.

BoA (Nations) has been buying and consolidating for years, CW was just another acquisition IMO. It made some sense in some ways, at the time, and predates obammy and company for sure.

The CW investigation probably should have been a red flag, but they did it through Red Oak and felt safe enough, I guess.

I don't have anything wrong. And I wasn't talking about Obama and company. The government has pushed banks into deals for decades with their bullshit regulation. If the banks don't like it then the regulators can make their lives really tough. Exhibit A illustrating that fact is the TARP program. I don't believe for a second that Ken Lewis would have bought Countrywide without some government arm twisting. That deal fucking sucked ass from day one.

[Bassics]

It is even more bizarre when you consider that B of A had no subprime mortgages, didn't want TARP money and was forced by the government to take TARP money. Then was sweet talked into buying Countrywide. Hmmm...what is going on here?

I think you have your chronology wrong here.

BoA (Nations) has been buying and consolidating for years, CW was just another acquisition IMO. It made some sense in some ways, at the time, and predates obammy and company for sure.

The CW investigation probably should have been a red flag, but they did it through Red Oak and felt safe enough, I guess.

[mstng86]

not sure if this commentor is being serious or sarcastic at the beginning.

We have met the enemy and he is us!

Take wealth from the rich and make work projects. Build roads and bridges!
Those with money can pay for it!
Where did their money come from?

We all need the basics in life
1) Food- comes from farmers, ranchers and fishermen
2) Water- comes from wells, dams lakes and reservoirs made by engineers
3) Clothing- comes from cotton farmers, ranchers, and petroleum producers
4) Housing- comes from lumbermen, miners
5) Energy- Coal and uranium miners, natural gas drillers, oil companies

Farmers, ranchers, miners, lumbermen, fishermen and petroleum producers create wealth.

This wealth is then spread amongst the rest of us who use those natural resources to make life better.

Try and open a mine today, or cut a tree down, or build a dam, or drill an oil well, or open a nuclear power plant or use fertilized on a crop. Almost impossible! PERMITS PERMITS PERMITS!

GOVERNMENT GETS IN THE WAY!

200 years ago the immigrants to North America found a vast land of natural resources. They mined the minerals, they cut the trees, they built dams, they established farms and ranches, they drilled wells and they created the wealthiest nation on earth.

Instead of creating new wealth we now prohibit the generation of wealth.

The Republicans say cut spending. The Democrats say raise taxes.

Why don’t we create wealth instead? All that government money should be used to build nuclear reactors, open mines, drill for oil, build more coal fired plants, open natural parks to responsible exploration.

We have turned in to a society that is more interested in saving the spotted owl, the snail darter, the black footed ferret, the whales and now the glaciers.

If you took all the wealth in the world and divided it evenly amongst everybody we would all be poor!

The first candidate that says “let’s make wealth” will get my vote!