RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Taibbi begins: "Obviously Goldman Sachs has become the great symbol of investment banking corruption, and other companies like AIG and Countrywide have become poster children for problems with businesses like insurance and mortgage-lending. But when it comes to commercial banking, Bank of America is as bad as it gets. The markets, of course, have lately come to agree, as B of A has lately been downgraded again to just above junk status. The only reason the bank is not rated even lower than that is that it is Too Big To Fail."

Portrait, Rolling Stone contributing editor and author Matt Taibbi. (photo: Robin Holland)
Portrait, Rolling Stone contributing editor and author Matt Taibbi. (photo: Robin Holland)



Pull Your Money Out of BofA

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

31 October 11

Occupy Wall Street: Take the Bull by the Horns

y good friend Nomi Prins has a great new piece out that I just caught on Zero Hedge, chronicling 10 reasons why depositors should pull out of Bank of America.

Obviously Goldman, Sachs has become the great symbol of investment banking corruption, and other companies like AIG and Countrywide have become poster children for problems with businesses like insurance and mortgage-lending. But when it comes to commercial banking, Bank of America is as bad as it gets.

The markets, of course, have lately come to agree, as B of A has lately been downgraded again to just above junk status. The only reason the bank is not rated even lower than that is that it is Too Big To Fail. The whole world knows that if Bank of America implodes - whether because of the vast number of fraud suits it faces for mortgage securitization practices, or because of the time bomb of toxic assets on its balance sheets - the US government will probably step in to one degree or another and save it.

The government's patronage of the bank was never clearer than in recent weeks, when B of A quietly decided to move trillions of dollars (trillions, not billions) in risky Merrill Lynch derivatives contracts off Merrill's books and onto the books of the parent/retail arm, Bank of America.

This decision was done at the behest of counterparties to those transactions, who wanted those contracts placed under the aegis of Bank of America, whose deposits are insured by the FDIC. The move was made, according to reports, so that Bank of America could avoid posting $3.3 billion in collateral to satisfy the company's creditors. In other words, Bank of America just got You the Taxpayer to co-sign as much as $53 trillion worth of dicey derivative contracts.

The FDIC wasn't pleased by the move, but the Fed apparently encouraged it. Bloomberg, citing people with "direct knowledge" of the deals, reported that,

The Fed has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company, while the FDIC, which would have to pay off depositors in the event of a bank failure, is objecting, said the people. The bank doesn't believe regulatory approval is needed, said people with knowledge of its position.

So the primary regulator of the banking industry is encouraging a functionally insolvent megabank to respond to a credit downgrade by pushing its most explosively risky holdings onto the laps of the taxpayer. This is lunacy.... Remember that story about the Chinese man who had a world-record 33-pound tumor removed from his face? This would be like treating that patient by removing the tumor and surgically attaching it to the face of a new patient, in this case the US taxpayer.

A series of lawmakers on the Hill, including most notably Sherrod Brown, Carl Levin, and Bernie Sanders, are trying to figure out if there's any way to stop this transaction, but of course there is not. Upstate NY congressman Maurice Hinchey put it best. "What Bank of America is doing is perfectly legal - and that's the problem," he said.

This is exactly why the Glass-Steagall Act needs to be reinstated: without a separation of Investment Banks and Commercial Banks, what we end up getting is taxpayer-guaranteed gambling. Instead of encouraging prudence and savings by insuring deposits in commercial banks, the FDIC is now being turned into a vehicle for socializing speculative losses.

So our government is not only no longer encouraging fiscal conservatism, it is doing exactly the opposite, i.e. encouraging speculation and risk-taking. That this is happening in the fever of the OWS movement, and at a time when top politicians from Barack Obama on down are paying lip service to public complaints against Wall Street, should tell you everything you need to know about whether or not we can expect this government to voluntarily enact real changes, and stop making the taxpayer eat Wall Street's pain.

Anyway, Nomi's list goes a long way toward explaining why Bank of America is the last company on earth whose $53 trillion derivatives portfolio we should be insuring. A sample of her top ten:

7. Bank of America got the most AIG money of the big depositor banks. By virtue of having acquired Merrill Lynch's AIG-related portfolio, B of A got to keep approximately $12 billion worth of federal AIG backing, too. It also received more government subsidies than any other mega-bank except Citigroup ...

In terms of overall federal subsidies (including TARP), Bank of America was second only to Citigroup ($230 billion compared to $415 billion). None of that got in the way of former B of A CEO Ken Lewis' personal take, a $63 million retirement plan, in addition to the $63 million he scored during the three years before his departure.

If you're a Bank of America customer, Nomi is right: find another bank. Try a local credit union. Keeping your money in this TBTF behemoth is very unsafe sex.

Incidentally, this kind of suggestion might prove a real help to OWS. One definite tactic that Occupy Wall Street can adopt, going forward, is educating people about the perfidy of certain financial institutions and convincing people to do what they did back in the days of apartheid, which is disinvest. If everyone were to start pulling their money out of the worst-offending banks, that would have a profound effect on the markets and may function as a great short-cut to political change.

Bank of America is a great place to start. All the TBTF banks suck equally, but as George Orwell would say, some banks are more equal than others. Withdrawals would be a great way for people to answer the Fed's decision to put depositors on the hook for Merrill Lynch's bad bets.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

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

 
+49 # tswhiskers 2012-11-15 14:26
So the fiscal policy of the U.S. has become keep on kicking the can down the road? Thanks primarily to the Reps. we have forgotten how to solve problems apparently. What do you think will happen in March, Mr. Reich? Is there no way to force the Reps. to act like politicians instead of spoiled children? Can the Reps. in the House be sued for failing to perform their jobs? I suppose there is no way to light a fire under their collectives a****. I am fed up with our do-nothing Congress. Sorry to vent. I just can't believe there isn't something that can force the Reps. to move, even if the country has to endure raised taxes for a few months.
 
 
+7 # Lgfoot 2012-11-16 10:54
How about impeachment for Treason? Putting party ahead of country must have some limits, and they have clearly surpassed any reasonable interpretation of the representatives right to protect his/her party's interests to the detriment of national interest. Four years of strangling the economy in a failed effort to defeat Obama was more than enough.
 
 
-43 # 666 2012-11-15 15:34
why isn't this stuff posted on some right-wing website? reich, two years ago when it was fashionable criticized obamanomics... then, as the election approched, couldn't write rah-rah-vote-fo r-obama columns fast enough...

btw, who actually is the architect of this grand betrayal, mr. reich?

before the election it was vote for obama or the country will go to hell; now will it be "accept the grand betrayal or the country will go to hell" can anyone use reason instead of fear-based sophistry any more?

I vote for the cliff. And I certainly don't want people like reich "saving" us from it.
 
 
+25 # brux 2012-11-15 18:47
weird point of view, i understand what you want but not anything about why, except that you throw around a lot of conservative rhetoric.

why do you blame robert reich as well, he has been dead on in everything he has said, and his suggestions are backed up with facts, history and a lot of famous economists, like Joe Stiglitz for example.

i don't think you really get it. if you want to understand how objective reich is read "the future of success" by him that talks about how all these factors have acted together to get us to this point, a situation he understands better than most and can articulate very well.
 
 
+18 # karlarove 2012-11-15 20:28
Its so weird that people continue to make this about Obama. Congress passes laws, and when they do so, they have agreed to pay them. They are the ones that are responsible for passing a budget. It is interesting that many members of Congress who voted for stuff without any idea of how to pay for it, and the revenue decrease (tax cuts), all in the past, but this is "Obamanomics?" Educate your self. Read about how the Constitution has three specific governing bodies for a reason. Write all your Congress members and tell them to do their blankety blanket jobs. And the Super Committee who was supposed to find a Super solution? Well, they are bought and paid for like the rest of the House, and why you think this is about Obama is crazy.
 
 
+45 # Barbara K 2012-11-15 16:23
Why on Earth do the stupid continue to send stupid Rs to congress? It isn't like we don't already know how inept and childish they are. They are being paid lots of money and do nothing to earn it. Anyone else would be fired from their jobs. How about some recalls? Doubtful if their voters know a single thing that is going on with them. They are the blind leading the blind.
 
 
+42 # AMLLLLL 2012-11-15 17:24
Barbara, I spoke with many of these people, and they are sadly misinformed on all sides. I spoke with women who think liberals are after their religious freedom, or let their husbands do all the politics in the family, including voting! It was tough... I credit Fox Noise and Rash Limbaugh for much of the poisoning of the well. It's so easy to take advantage of these people. All we can do is hope that this election jarred some into doing their own investigating, but that would conflict with their personality type.

We can and should push back against misinformation in the form of political ads to counter the deception. I just saw a dark, ominous anti-Obama ad, and this was after the election! Once every 4 years is not enough to keep the truth out there.
 
 
+16 # BradFromSalem 2012-11-15 20:31
AMLLLLL,

Wow,you really hit on all the points that make people keep returning the "R"s to office. There are a lot of people that paid very little attention to politics most of their lives. That was until they either lost their job or home, or some of their friends lost their jobs and/or homes back starting in late 2008.
So they decided to pay attention, since politics now made a difference in their life, up close and personal. Unfortunately, since they started paying attention late in the game it was very easy for them to accept that it's all Obama's fault. The TV News makes it all easy to understand and that Fox network is the most popular. So they got duped. And since they never paid hard attention in the past, there is very little for them to reference back to.
Most of the Republicans I know are good people. Many fall into the category I just described, and if it wasn't for the systemic dismantling of our economic infrastructure over the past 30+ years they would continue to not pay much attention. Others, are embarrassed by the insanity in the Republican Party; but that's their party and in many but not all cases they continue to vote for the R's.
At the end of thew day, I have found that they tend to hear things differently and the walls in many cases are too thick to break down overnight. We have to keep plugging away, and be ready to learn their language so we can translate Liberal ideas into something they will understand.
 
 
+4 # wantrealdemocracy 2012-11-16 09:55
Oh, come on Barbara. What makes you think it is any stupider to vote for an R or a D? Both of the corporate parties have the same agenda---screw the working people and help the rich get richer. It is true that all politics follow the way of least resistance which is why all of us need to get out on the street and say, loudly and clearly, "No Austerity!"
 
 
+22 # MichaelArchAngel 2012-11-15 16:52
As all plumbers learn "shit flows downhill". Go over the cliff happily! It can be fixed later and if not is still better than any proposed Grand Bargain!
 
 
+8 # tbcrawford 2012-11-15 16:55
Check out the People's Budget...some good ideas there if we can give up our guns!
 
 
-3 # Bildo 2012-11-15 17:08
I don't know why people still think there is a difference between Republican or Democrat. Or, why you even think voting in United States Inc. will do any good for the people. Are you really represented? No matter what, their agenda will be played out. Get ready for a rough ride.
 
 
+4 # BradFromSalem 2012-11-16 07:54
The Democrats have the Progressive Caucus. As tbcrawford notes, they have introduced budget legislation now called the "Budget for All". Additionally, the have reiterated the premise of the budget in their proposal to deal with the fiscal showdown. It's called the "Deal for All".

Check it out, if you like it, spread the word. Remind your Congress persons about it.

cpc.grijalva.house.gov/budget-for-all/

BTW, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a state referendum endorsing this plan.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2012-11-16 15:28
You might want to start reading something other than the comics. Like, oh I don't know, http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/congress/.
Does money make a difference in governance....Y ou betcha, always has, always will, in any and every country. It's human nature....So I guess is whining.
 
 
+14 # Susan W 2012-11-15 17:40
And just what makes anyone think they would stick with another deadline? Furthermore, what good is a so-called "trump card" if it is never played?
 
 
+27 # MylesJ 2012-11-15 18:03
I'm with Warren Buffett. Take the leap. In 3 or 4 months the effect will be part of reality. Life will go on, and there will be deficit reduction. I like the Catch-22 approach. Go off the cliff and then the next day propose a tax cut for people making under $250,000 a year. That way there has been no tax increase, just an earlier law being followed, and a tax reduction is then offered. It is the only way to allow the GOP to obey their sworn allegiance to the great god Norquist and make progress on the deficit.
 
 
+30 # jpap100 2012-11-15 18:11
Tax cuts for the 2% must not be extended for a day! Mini-deal should be to extend tax cuts for the 98% period, so as to end uncertainty for a very nervous working class.
 
 
+38 # popeye47 2012-11-15 18:16
Why kick the can down the road for another 2 or 3 months. Draw a line in the sand for Jan. 1
If no compromise let the tax cuts for everyone expire. Then let Obama have a bill for a tax cut for those only making under $250,000. If the Republicans don't vote for it, then the people will hold them accountable.
But we don't delay this decision after Jan. No way.
 
 
+17 # one4all 2012-11-15 18:41
 
 
+12 # Shar 2012-11-15 18:41
What has happen that this country is made of WE THE PEOPLE?
The goofs in Washington DC, keep talking about it costing too much money to pay out people intitlements. It seems to me these are earned benefits and the goofs who collect $80,000.00 for kicking the can, think they deserve a continued paycheck, even though We The People have Fired Them are the ones who are depleating the money.
Can't there be a movement of Citizens to cut this as well as congressional members paying taxes on their health insurance which we pay for as well?
Shar
 
 
+17 # angelfish 2012-11-15 18:43
NO more "kicking the can down the road"! The President GOT his Mandate from the People! The ReTHUGlicans have to STOP the Bull-Puckey and DEAL with the President! The time to "fish or cut bait" has ENDED! WORK for ALL the People and FIX our Fiscal Problems NOW!
 
 
-5 # grandone@charter.net 2012-11-15 19:04
The "cliff" remains.
 
 
+3 # BradFromSalem 2012-11-16 08:00
Actually, the cliff is way past Jan. 1. It actually may never occur. The President actually hold all the cards, which is why he allows the cliff nomenclature to be used. Yes, taxes will go up on the Middle Class along with the tax increase on the wealthy; but the additional revenue will allow the President a lot of additional flexibility to apply that money creatively or just to pay down interest on the debt.

Don't believe what hear on the tv box, their first agenda is to get you go out and but that car or deodorant that they are always telling you about. Stay tuned for more details after this message!
 
 
+9 # truthbug 2012-11-15 19:05
How many here know what "going over the cliff" means? I don't. Yes, it means that there would be a repeal of the Bush tax cuts and a cut in spending. But don't we want the rich to pay more taxes and for the government to cut back on the military? Without knowing the specifics of what the taxes will be and what the cuts will be, we cannot say automatically that we're going over a cliff. I wish Reich would inform us more on what he means by this cliff.
 
 
+17 # banichi 2012-11-15 19:12
The 'Fiscal Cliff' is a myth made up by Republicans - particularly that mofo Boner - to panic people into thinking that there is a terrible disaster going to happen if the tax cuts for the rich don't get extended. (He doesn't care what happens to the middle class or the poor.)

Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC has given it a new name - the 'Fiscal Curb' which describes it much better. As he pointed out, nothing is going to happen immediately if ALL the tax cuts expire - just a bunch of Repuglicans standing there with goo on their faces because they didn't follow orders and scare enough people into supporting another rich-man's tax giveaway.

If you have not seen it yet, check out the Moveon.org and CREDO campaigns to send emails and phone calls to the President, and the members of the House who want to pull this B.S. on us. Let them know that just because the election is over and a horrible fate is averted, we are not going to let up on them. That's the only response that will keep them honest.

And let's all work on getting the s***heads out of office!!
 
 
+17 # Vermont Grandma 2012-11-15 19:24
Obama need backbone. The Republicans have made it clear that they will NEVER engage in bi-partisanship . There is NO point to "kicking the can down the road." To do so show the Republicans, once again, that Obama lacks backbone. They made it clear at the outset of Obama's first term that there would be no compromise, but he wasted time and capital seeking a bipartisan proposal re healthcare, only to see the Republicans vote against it as a block.

Obama did NOT get re-elected to cave to the Republican agenda. Let the cliff come, as it should, as it was expected to. Think of creative solutions for funding human services affected by the "cliff" - perhaps take what's left over of campaign contributions to the Obama campaign and split it up among affected programs to make up some of the cuts and encourage others, like Bernie Sanders and Pat Leahy and other Dems with big campaign pots to do so also, along with George Soros and Bill Gates, etc. etc. etc. But NO DEAL with the intransigent Republicans. They LOST!!! We can better cope with the cliff than having a spineless president.
 
 
+8 # Hey There 2012-11-15 20:48
 
 
+1 # Shar 2012-11-15 20:56
Lets not attack Obama, Grown Men are paid to do a job, which is about keeping Ameican and the citizens in a good position to have a life. They should not be forced to do their job.
Tha Amarican people are the ones who have no backbone, why don't we call, write or go as a crowd to the members who are not doing their job. Thats what needs to be done. Obama is not the father of grown men. Shar
 
 
+6 # sameasiteverwas 2012-11-15 19:46
I'm with Hal Sparks on this one -- extending or not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy has NOTHING to do with the sequestration deal, and should be handled entirely separately -- they should be allowed to lapse, as the President has promised us, in January, and any grand deals, mini or otherwise, should be made without ANY reference WHATSOEVER to taxes at last going to something NEAR fairness for income over $250,000. I also think that people making money off of money -- not hiring anyone, just playing the market -- should be taxed half a cent per transaction -- not per share, per transaction -- and that money should be used initially to fund things like a Jobs Program for Veterans -- you know, like the one the GOP recently refused to allow to come to a vote. Then a Jobs Program for the rest of us. Also, I think it's time for a national lottery to help fund education. Why NOT?
 
 
+11 # m... 2012-11-15 19:59
Its time for most Democrats to grow a spine and stand for something besides spouting anti-Republican Rhetoric and getting themselves re-elected based on -- Republicans are bad and I'm not a Republican so vote for me.
Maybe begin with following Senator Warren's lead... :)
and view it at your chance to 'Refresh' yourselves with the American People.
You might be surprised at to just what kind of strong and much larger following you gather to yourselves/your 'base'...
 
 
+7 # JSRaleigh 2012-11-15 20:37
It's not better if it ends with another capitulation; cutting Social Security & Medicare while giving the Tbaggers everything they want on tax cuts.
 
 
+1 # politicfix 2012-11-15 21:00
Same old, same old. If Obama says he's going to keep the tax breaks there will be a civil war. He did that 4 years ago. He promised in the election that he wouldn't extend the tax breaks and he did with the threat of the deficit. Here we are again. January will roll around and the fiscal cliff is on the horizon. He'd better not pull the same thing and extend those tax breaks to the rich for even one day. He'd better not fool with social security or medicare or there will be a third party elected in 4 years. If Obama owes Goldman Sachs so much that he's willing to sell the people down the river again, he'd better consider that he has 4 years to deal with the group who put him in there.
 
 
+3 # Working Class 2012-11-16 12:57
 
 
+3 # shenry71 2012-11-16 15:21
Jobs, for the price of one war, we could have had a High Speed Rail system connecting all major metropolitan areas of the country. Hey, why don't we do it now?

Steve
 
 
+1 # shenry71 2012-11-16 19:39
Quoting shenry71:
Jobs, for the price of one war, we could have had a High Speed Rail system connecting all major metropolitan areas of the country. Hey, why don't we do it now?

Steve

Bmiluski, thank you for the Library of Congress citation, however, as Milton Friedman said,"I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you".
 

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.

RSNRSN