Taibbi begins: "It looks like Bank of America might have started circling the drain before the Occupy movement even had a chance to launch its campaign against the company. For weeks now there have been ominous signs of trouble at the bank, and yesterday we heard yet another dark piece of news."
Matt Taibbi at Skylight Studio in New York, 10/27/10. (photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)
Bank of America in Trouble?
03 March 12
�
t looks like Bank of America might have started circling the drain before the Occupy movement even had a chance to launch its campaign against the company. For weeks now there have been ominous signs of trouble at the bank, and yesterday we heard yet another dark piece of news.
Last year, there was an uproar when Bank of America announced a plan to slap customers with a monthly $5 fee for debit card usage. The bank eventually backed off that plan when the public and some politicians cried foul.
Now it seems the company is going to try to put a new package on the same crappy idea and sell it again. This time, the plan is to add charges that range from $6 to $25 a month. From an MSNBC report:
Pilot programs in Arizona, Georgia and Massachusetts are experimenting with charging $6 to $9 a month for what's called an "Essentials" account. Other account options being tested in those states carry monthly charges of $9, $12, $15 and $25, but give customers opportunities to avoid the payments by maintaining minimum balances, using a credit card or taking a mortgage with Bank of America, according to an internal memo cited by the [Wall Street] Journal.
It's a very bad sign that a bank is in a desperate cash crunch when it tries repeatedly to gouge its customers. David Trainer, an analyst for Market Watch, a WSJ publication, wrote that the new fees are a sign of series trouble at BAC. He writes:
In my opinion, there are four actions taken by financial services that signal the company is headed to serious trouble.
- Management shake-up and major layoffs - lots of layoffs over the past year
- Exploiting accounting rules to boost earnings - SFAS 159
- Drawing down reserves to boost earnings: to the tune of $13.3 billion in 2011 and 2012
- Bilking customers with new fees: tried it before and trying it again
Bank of America has taken all four steps. Bilking customers with new fees is a desperate measure of last resort because it requires exploiting the one asset the bank has left, namely its customers.
Trainer in an earlier column urged investors to dump Bank of America for a number of reasons, but mostly because he had reservations about some of the numbers in the bank's most recent SEC filing.
According to him, the bank aggressively exploited a new accounting rule called SFAS no. 159, which allows companies to enables banks to "artificially boost earnings when the value of their own debt declines." In other words, BAC was able to artificially re-state earnings when its own credit quality went into the tank.
Trainer also believes that Bank of America's recent rise in share price is based on a series of impossible, pie-in-the-sky expectations, including "20% annual revenue growth for 18 years."
All of this comes on the heels of an announcement that Fannie Mae was cutting off Bank of America, news that itself came after Bank of America, in its annual report, had earlier announced that it would no longer sell loans to Fannie Mae. Basically, Bank of America tried to quit Fannie Mae before it got fired. It seems Bank of America in the last quarter of 2011 was slower even than usual in honoring repurchase requests, yet another sign of a cash crunch.
Why does all of this matter to the rest of America? Because what happens with Bank of America will be an important litmus test going forward for how we deal with any Too-Big-To-Fail behemoth that gets itself into trouble. We've already seen that the recent foreclosure deal was a huge boon to Bank of America - it spared it from the uncertainty of a generation of robosigning suits.
But what happens if Bank of America is still headed for bankruptcy? Helping the bank avoid a few lawsuits is one thing, and allowing it to move its dangerously toxic derivatives portfolio onto the federally-insured side of the company is another. But a full-blown crash of this firm would require a massive bailout. What will the Obama administration do if faced with that dilemma? One way or another, it will be a momentous decision.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Goldman Sachs needs to be Nationalized and broken up.
In short, the Treasury helps its friends, but only the "invisible hand" can help the rest of us. At that moment I realized Obama will probably be re-elected. Nobody has in our whole history helped CEO's more than he has. And Geithner, for all his apparent ineptitude, has actually done exactly what he and Obama have meant to do. Poor America!
They are just living the American Dream -and somebody has to pay for it. :-)
Maddave is right on! Boot 'em via Nationalizing and breading up.
We MUST put in place a 0.05% transaction tax on ALL equity trades which would really put the brakes on the "skimming" thusly described. Elliott Spitzer confirmed what I have contended for years that about HALF of ALL daily trades taking place in the markets are of this sort.
Such shenanigans increases both volatility and risk, in particular for the retail investor who is not engaged in this practice which is exclusive to the Wall Street "set-up."
John Russell, Dade City, Fl
Occupy Wall Street and demand prosecutions!
Ofcourse the execs stay fat and happy - their campaign contributions to Obama are investments that are paying off.
The bailouts that Senator Obama votes for, the TARP bills President Obama voted for.
The watering down of the AUDIT THE FED bill the democrats did...
no one should be surprised that FASCISM is live and well
Obama is the biggest corporate whore the world has ever seen
Then you think wrongly.
As a Tea Party member I know for a fact that the government bail outs are unconstitutiona l and yes it is fascism and I an other TP members are opposed because companies do not have a right to funds extorted from the tax payers given to them by low politicians in high places.
As a citizen and as a tax payer It matters not if it was Bush or Obama who give away our money, it is wrong.
They really aren't free people (I've known some in the corporate high-paid category described here) and they seem to me to be trapped in a system which doesn't allow them to be whatever they really might be. They wear a stylish uniform, behave in a proscribed way and follow orders just as sure as the military, and as likely as not live in gated non-communities.
They isolate themselves from any but their own corporate reality and all their material acquisitions seem to bring them little joy, as spoiled kids who take their "toys" for granted.
Sure, I am one of the "New Poor" but I do what I love for what little I make, have pride in my productivity and unique creativity and try to be a contributing part of my community, sharing the struggle for survival and even a little growth.
They may look down from on high from their architecturally appalling and space-gobbling glass towers, at the OWS masses but I wonder if there isn't just a trace of envy in what they see; fellowship, mutual aid and support forming an irresistible force, growing and shaking their very foundations?
"Ah make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the dust descend,
Dust into Dust and under Dust to lie,
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and -sans End!
Omar Kayyam.
People genes/nature is very different - read work of E. J. Wilson.
http://www.heyokamagazine.com/heyoka_magazine.27.bankersmanifesto.htm
99%
TOO BIG TO FAIL!!