Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Cashless Society: Bank of America REFUSES CASH for Mortgage Payment /// FDIC To Cover Losses On $75 Trillion Bank of America Derivative Bets

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 13, 2012, 8:52 a.m. EST by MonetizingDiscontent (1257)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


Cashless Society: Bank of America Refuses Cash for Mortgage Payment

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/02/cashless-society-bank-of-america.html

February 5, 2012

In another example that we appear to be rapidly moving into a cashless society, Bank of America in California refused to accept cash for a mortgage payment. The manager of the bank said it was against their policy to accept legal tender physical currency (aka U.S. dollars) as payment for BoA mortgages.

The customer attempting to pay his mortgage, firefighter Robert Somerton, recorded the ordeal in Lakeport branch which made the bank manager so upset that he called the police. The police detained Somerton for a half hour before releasing him with a warning that he may never return to that BoA branch or he’ll be arrested.

“I was shocked. I had no idea this would happen. Since when does a bank not accept cash?” Robert wrote after the affair.

Video 1 of 4 Inside Bank of America DOES NOT accept U.S. DOLLARS as payment on mortgages in

(((Video))): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5FPAYqU5Pj0

Somerton and his wife, Ana, are victims of fraudclosure... http://ohiofraudclosure.blogspot.com/2011/07/not-just-another-foreclosure-story.html ...and have become the activists known asRob and Ana vs Bank of America... http://www.facebook.com/RobAnaVsBofA ...At the height of their foreclosure struggle, they made news... http://ampedstatus.org/fraudclosure-watch-firefighter-to-demolish-home-before-bank-of-america-forecloses-after-deceptive-scheme/ ...when they threatened to bulldoze their home leaving Bank of America a “smoldering pile of debris.”

(((Watch the rest of the exchange Here))): http://www.youtube.com/user/rpsomerton

Judge Rules Against Bank Of America For Harassment

http://dailybail.com/home/judge-rules-against-bank-of-america-for-harassment.html

-12/31/2011-

-WallStreetJournal-

Judge Says Widow Harassed, Collection Firm Was Hired by Bank of America to Pursue Dead Man's Debts

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204296804577124661890130838.html

-Dec. 28, 2011- By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG

(WallStreetJournal) Bank of America Corp. and a debt collector it hired to go after deceased customers' debts violated state law by repeatedly calling a Florida woman about paying the credit-card bill of her late husband, a Florida state-court judge ruled this month.

Judge Keith R. Kyle in Lee County, Fla., found that collection attempts by West Asset Management, an Omaha, Neb., firm working on behalf of Bank of America, amounted to harassment.

The ruling clears the way for the plaintiff to get punitive damages from the collector, a unit of West Corp., and Bank of America, which is the second largest U.S. bank by deposits. A civil jury will determine the size of the award next year.

The companies declined to comment on the latest ruling. Judge Kyle didn't return calls for comment.

The case could set a precedent across the U.S. and discourage lenders from using collectors to get money from surviving relatives on debts left behind by the deceased, according to other state-court judges.

Bank of America and other major U.S. lenders hand over accounts of the deceased to firms specializing in death-debt collection. The collection firms then zero in on family members who they think might agree to pay some of what the dead person owed even though they have no legal obligation to do so.

-Dec. 28, 2011-

FDIC To Cover Losses On $75 Trillion Bank of America Derivative Bets

http://problembanklist.com/fdic-to-cover-losses-on-trillion-bank-of-america-derivative-bets-0419/

-October 20, 2011-

Potential losses on Bank of America’s massive $75 trillion book of risky derivative contracts has just been dumped onto the FDIC by the Federal Reserve.

Derivatives, once described by Warren Buffet as “financial weapons of mass destruction” are complex contracts entered into for speculation or to hedge risks linked to a wide variety of other (derivative) financial instruments such as currencies, commodities, interest rates, bonds, etc. In testimony to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in March 2011, Buffett warned that the trillions in derivatives held by major banking institutions could be “disruptive to the whole financial system” and that the risks were “virtually unmanageable......”

(((Video))) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NYTtfQVw1c&feature=player_embedded

Bill Black: "BAC, has directed troubled financial derivatives from its Merrill Lynch subsidiary to federally insured bank Bank of America making private risk public""


Bank Of America Derivatives Timebomb Shows System Is Corrupt To The Core

http://problembanklist.com/bank-of-america-derivatives-timebomb-shows-system-is-corrupt-to-the-core-0426/

(PBL) The Federal Reserve recently allowed Bank of America to move its massive derivative positions from the bank holding company to its banking subsidiary which is an FDIC insured depository institution. By allowing this transfer, the Federal Reserve has allowed Bank of America to shift the risk of loss on speculative derivative contracts from the non-bank affiliate. A failure of Bank of America could result in huge losses for the FDIC which would ultimately be passed on to the taxpayers.

The most noteworthy aspects of this remarkable event include the following:

  • (1) The disclosure of the derivatives transfer to Bank of America’s FDIC insured depository was apparently leaked by the FDIC which opposed the move due to the huge amount of risk being transfered to the FDIC and bank depositors.

  • (2) In allowing the transfer, the Federal Reserve apparently violated Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act which was supposed to keep the risks of investment banking activities at the bank holding company level.

  • (3) The notional value of the Bank of America derivative contracts is $75 trillion. The request for the derivatives transfer was initiated by counterparties of the contracts with Bank of America who were alarmed over the credit downgrade of Bank of America.

  • (4) The transfer of the derivatives from Bank of America’s holding company to the FDIC insured depository institution has received remarkably little mainstream press coverage. The quick approval by regulators at the Federal Reserve to protect the bank holding company indicates that the Federal Reserve is corrupt to the core and more interested in protecting the banks than the American public.

Bill Black, a former banking regulator, who exposed the corruption of banks and politicians during the savings and loan crisis, harshly criticizes the Fed’s actions in his recent article “Bank of America’s Death Rattle“

Now here’s the really bad news. First, this transfer is a superb “natural experiment” that tests one of the most important questions central to the health of our financial system. Does the Fed represent and vigorously protect the interests of the people or the systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs) – the largest 20 banks? We have run a real world test. The sad fact is that very few Americans will be surprised that the Fed represented the interests of the SDIs even though they were directly contrary to the interests of the nation. The Fed’s constant demands for (and celebration of) “independence” from democratic government, combined with slavish dependence on and service to the CEOs of the SDIs has gone beyond scandal to the point of farce. I suggest organized “laugh ins” whenever Fed spokespersons prate about their “independence.”

Bank of America's Death Rattle

(((Video))) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NYTtfQVw1c&feature=player_embedded

If regulators were doing their jobs properly, banks would not be allowed to engage in massive speculation through derivatives trading.


1 Comments

1 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 2 years ago

:::::::Bank of America, Big Banks Face Massive Credit Card Case:::::::

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thestreet/2012/01/12/bank-of-america-big-banks-face-massive-credit-card-case/

-1/12/2012-

Private antitrust litigation pitting some five million retailers against Visa (V), MasterCard (MA), and 13 large banks, including Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup, Capital One Financial (COF), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), U.S. Bancorp (USB), Wells Fargo (WFC), PNC Financial (PNC), Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB), SunTrust Banks (STI), HSBC (HBC) and Barclays Plc (BCS) has slipped under the radar of many analysts and investors who follow those companies, but the case may deliver a multi-billion dollar shock to bank bulls in the coming months.

Estimates of the potential cost of a settlement of the antitrust case vary dramatically–from a few billion dollars into the hundreds of billions. At least as worrisome to the financial companies, according to Deutsche Bank research, is the risk that a settlement or judge’s ruling could take the 2% “interchange” fees banks and card companies charge retailers on credit card transactions to as low as .5%, That would equal the rate in Australia, but still be higher than the .3% charged in the European Union, according to a report by Sanford Bernstein analyst Rod Bourgeois.

The impact of such a change would be several times as costly as the Durbin Amendment, which caps fees banks can charge on debit cards and is one of the new rules most hated by the big banks.

According to a Jan. 4 report by Deutsche Bank analyst Matt O’Connor, reducing credit card interchange fees by 75% would cost US Bancorp about $1.2 billion of 2012 revenues–some four times O’Connor’s estimate of revenue the bank lost from the Durbin Amendment, For JPMorgan Chase, the implied cost would be $5.38 billion, more than five times the $1 billion the bank lost to Durbin, according to O’Connor’s estimate. For Bank of America, the implied cost would be $3.68 billion, nearly double the $1.9 billion O’Connor estimates the bank lost to Durbin. Citigroup, essentially unaffected by Durbin, would take a $3.02 billion hit if credit card interchange fees fell to .5%.

Spokespeople for Bank of America, JPMorgan, Citigroup and US Bancorp declined to comment.

The antitrust case is in many ways a sequel to a 1996 class action lawsuit led by Wal-Mart Stores (WMT) and Limited Brands (LTD) against Visa and MasterCard. The settlement in that case included more than $3 billion in monetary damages, as well as changes in business practices worth $25 billion “conservatively,” according to a Nov. 16 report by Deutsche Bank analyst Bryan Keane. Many antitrust experts believe it to be the largest antitrust settlement in history.

While that case led to lower interchange fees for debit cards, Visa and MasterCard increased credit card fees “to offset this decline and thus increased overall transaction costs for merchants,” according to Keane’s report. The present case, set to go to trial Sep. 12, will be heard by Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. Eastern District, the same judge who approved the Wal-Mart settlement. Judge Gleeson’s involvement “may play out favorably for the plaintiff,” Keane writes in his report.

The current case will be “much more expensive” to Visa and MasterCard than the Wal-Mart case, assuming it goes forward, according to Henry Polmer, an attorney who specializes in payments systems issues and has represented both merchants and large banks on separate matters.

The plaintiffs, which include Payless ShoeSource, the National Association of Convenience Stores and the National Restaurant Association, among many others, argue that the banks, Visa and MasterCard have illegally colluded to charge fees for credit card transactions that are far higher than an open, competitive market would dictate they should be.

Ten individual plaintiffs, including The Kroger Co. (KR), Walgreen Company (WAG) and some other large chains, have opted out of the class, and MasterCard stated in its latest quarterly earnings filing it has made “substantial progress” in settlement talks with those plaintiffs. However, they represent less than 5% of the purchase volume of the class plaintiffs, and “there has not been similar progress,” with the class plaintiffs, whose settlement demands “remain unacceptable” given the size of the monetary demands and “unacceptable changes to MasterCard’s business practices,” according to the filing.

The class plaintiffs’ claim argues banks’ decision to spin off MasterCard and Visa through initial public offerings in 2006 and 2008 was a disingenuous effort to avoid the appearance of a monopoly.

It seeks compensation for alleged overcharges “for the fullest time period permitted,” by statutes of limitations and the Wal-Mart settlement (thought to be 2004). The claim also requests defendants be found in violation of antitrust laws and barred from violating those laws in the future.



:::::::::::::::Not with a Bang, but a Whimper: Bank of America’s Death Rattle:::::::::::::::

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/10/not-with-bang-but-whimper-bank-of.html

(By William K. Black ) .....there are two truly scary parts of the story of BofA’s acquisition of Countrywide that have received far too little attention. BofA claims that it conducted extensive due diligence before acquiring Countrywide and discovered only minor problems. If that claim is true, then BofA has been doomed for years regardless of whether it acquired Countrywide. The proposed acquisition of Countrywide was huge and exceptionally controversial even within BofA. Countrywide was notorious for its fraudulent loans. There were numerous lawsuits and former employees explaining how these frauds worked.

BofA is really “Nations Bank” (formerly named NCNB). When Nations Bank acquired BofA (the San Francisco based bank), the North Carolina management took complete control. The North Carolina management decided that “Bank of America” was the better brand name, so it adopted that name.

The key point to understand is that Nations/NCNB was created through a large series of aggressive mergers, so the bank had -exceptional experience- in conducting due diligence of targets for acquisition and it would have sent its top team to investigate Countrywide given its size and notoriety. The acquisition of Countrywide did not have to be consummated exceptionally quickly.

Indeed, the deal had an “out” that allowed BofA to back out of the deal if conditions changed in an adverse manner (which they obviously did). If BofA employees conducted extensive due diligence of Countrywide and could not discover its obvious, endemic frauds, abuses, and subverted systems then they are incompetent. Indeed, that word is too bloodless a term to describe how worthless the due diligence team would have had to have been.

Given the many acquisitions the due diligence team vetted, BofA would have been doomed because it would have routinely been taken to the cleaners in those earlier deals.....

(((Read the -entire- article Here))) http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/10/not-with-bang-but-whimper-bank-of.html


::::::::::::::::::::::::: Gerald Celente on -France24- :::::::::::::::::::::::::

(((WatchHere))) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKWKXnuKPak&feature=channel_video_title

Uploaded by geraldcelente on Jan 3, 2012