Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Who owns Bank of America?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 5, 2012, 6:48 a.m. EST by JoeTheFarmer (2654)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

99.6% of Bank of America is owned by the 99% in retirement funds, mutual funds, and pension funds like .

Only 0.4% is owned by insiders and even those are employees of the bank, many of them part of the 99%.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by flip (5060) 2 years ago

really? state stree, citi, jpm,black rock- goldman!! - pension funds?? how strange - joe - i hope they pay you well since obama is the only thing between you and the pitchforks (since i know you don't know the quote and the context i suggest you google it - interesting reading) Major Direct Holders (Forms 3 & 4) Holder Shares Reported MOYNIHAN BRIAN T 481,806 Nov 30, 2011 MONTAG THOMAS K. 351,952 Dec 15, 2011 THOMPSON BRUCE R. 267,804 Dec 15, 2011 LAUGHLIN TERRENCE P 106,309 Aug 2, 2011 SCULLY ROBERT W 90,716 May 11, 2011


Top Institutional Holders Holder Shares % Out Value* Reported STATE STREET CORPORATION 455,747,401 4.50 2,789,174,094 Sep 30, 2011 VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE) 383,805,234 3.79 2,348,888,032 Sep 30, 2011 BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. 251,443,830 2.48 1,538,836,239 Sep 30, 2011 JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY 223,424,792 2.20 1,367,359,727 Sep 30, 2011 CITIGROUP INC. 168,473,535 1.66 1,031,058,034 Sep 30, 2011 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLP 136,968,555 1.35 838,247,556 Sep 30, 2011 DODGE & COX INC 135,586,405 1.34 829,788,798 Sep 30, 2011 Capital World Investors 131,020,000 1.29 801,842,400 Sep 30, 2011 Capital Research Global Investors 129,552,985 1.28 792,864,268 Sep 30, 2011 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 114,353,607 1.13 699,844,074 Sep 30, 2011

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

US gov't owns a gigantic portion, about 60%, of the bank, and 80% of AIG, and a big chunk of GM--and many others.

[-] 1 points by flip (5060) 2 years ago

yes, because they could not stand on their own - so?? the system has been privatized profits subsidized losses for too long

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

this reality is criminal... the taxpayer either pays higher taxes to fund the dumbasses' losses, or they pay tax through currency depreciation (i.e., inflation)--the former being almost impossible for a popularly elected government to do; the latter being easy, so long as the people remain oblivious/ignorant/slothful.

[-] 1 points by flip (5060) 2 years ago

we probably mostly agree on this but i disagree on inflation - in 1935 a pizza cost $.25 - we have had tremendous inflation and at the same time tremendous growth in the wealth of the country. from 1930's to the 1970's this growth was distributed fairly evenly throughout the middle and lower classes. since the 70's we have seen the growth go to the top 1% and more really to the .1%. inflation is not the real problem - wages and savings not keeping pace with inflation can make it a problem

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

since 1970, real-adjusted wages for most workers have risen 0%... yet there has been significant inflation... meaning the consumer is being pinched. the theory of expanding the money supply, as is currently going on, is to devalue the dollar, so that the enormous debt is paid off in less valuable dollars and, with luck, to cure trade imbalances--however, this technique is inflationary and tantamount to a tax (as the consumer's dollars become worth less in purchasing power).

[-] 1 points by flip (5060) 2 years ago

all true - inflation favors debtors so why wouldn't you inflate if you own the printing press - now as to why wages will not keep pace - that is a different story. we will face inflation no matter what we do i think. resource scarcity will cause a rise in the price of oil and copper and sliver and all the things we need to run our modern society.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago


Most of the shares in the companies you listed State Street, Vanguard Group, JP Morgan are held in mutual funds.

Only 0.4% is held by insiders.

They have to disclose because they are a publicly traded company.


[-] 1 points by flip (5060) 2 years ago

and who owns the mutual funds - joe, take a look at this - It is often said the U.S is a stock ownership society as "60-65%" of the people own stock. I've often argued that is misguided since quite a few might own $2200 in a ROTH IRA or $3400 in a workplace 401k. While this technically puts them in the 'stock ownership' society, it's really a size stake that is not going to affect their lives but it makes for good story when we say "Main Street = Wall Street".

Last November, as The Bernank told us he will make us all rich as he could push asset prices upward.... sorry, I mean stock prices upward (his actions have no effects on commodities - just ask him)... we showed how skewed any wealth effect would truly be to the top end of the economic pie. With the top 1% owning 38% of equities, and the next 9% owning 43%, about 80% of the Bernanke magic would accrue to the top 10% of society. (I am sure most readers are in the top 10%, so I assume we should be giddy) But if we are being honest with ourselves, the true 'stock ownership' society is that top 10%.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

flip, there are some incredibly smart people on here .

[-] 1 points by flip (5060) 2 years ago

do you think our farmer is one of them

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

For what it's worth, I don't.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

i took all my money out of the banks back in 2007, how come the rest of you didnt? just making a point

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I love my bank. I have free checking, no ATM fees, and free on line bill pay.


[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Passive non activist pension funds should be held to account for allowing the Wall Street banks to run amok with their money. But citizens who are not investment experts hire the funds to invest in their interests not knowing that the funds invest blindly in momentum along with whatever the next fund down the street is doing.

I have long been pissed at union pension funds that invest their members money in funds that then tell corporations to think only about short term capital gains rather than long term growth. This myopic thinking is what has destroyed America's labor markets in the past forty years. Companies thinking only of ways to cut costs rather than planning for the long term benefit of expanding the national labor force as the only way of growing their consumer base.

The American economy is a consumer economy. If corporations do not grow their consumer base they will see an endless contraction of their profitability. Eventually, no amount of cost cutting and tax breaks will save them.

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Demand, it's supply and DEMAND. the supply siders always forget that side of the equation. If you keep throwing money only at the supply side you end up with no customers. If our former union manufacturing employees are now walmart greeters with a 2/3 pay cut that's money that's lost income for some supply sider somewhere.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Supply/demand economics are too simple for supply siders to comprehend.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

They think it means suppliers demand all the money and let the gov borrow from China to provide the infrastructure they need.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

LOL! That about sums it up.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Who ever has a majority share in the company has control over the company. Bank of America is an corporation meaning that it is owned by average people.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago



[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Correct me if I am wrong, but banks are partly owned by "shareholders" and investors.

So, if "shareholders" and investors took all their money out of the bank, it would no longer be able to operate.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Mutual finds and retirement funds hold shares so yes if you have money in such a fund you in effect are a shareholder. You can also buy shares directly.

Sure you can sell your shares or cash out your retirement fund however there has to be someone willing to buy the shares. If everyone starting selling their shares the share price would spiral down.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

i own 500 shares of BOA. bought it when Buffet went big into it, at about $7/ share. i think its at about $5 now, so its a loser. at the same time i shorted AMZN, and doubled my money and i invested a really large sum in that. you win some and lose some.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

you don't want to follow buffett--he's senile--he said that US credit is quadruple A and dove head first into financials this year (BAC + WFC)... clearly indicating he doesn't "get it". pretend the US is a company, 15T debt, 5T revenue; it has to borrow money to pay interest on the debt. that means it's massively cash flow negative. buffett merely got lucky by being long before the adoption of 401k which partly caused the huge rise in stocks in the 80s.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Is that where SS comes from ?

[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

No, it comes from a branch in the Federal government.

[-] -1 points by stinkyhippy (-6) 2 years ago

Instead of Big Banks...just insert "boogeyman". Same thing. Brain dead OWS morons see a large company and just see..."boogeyman". They need someone..something.. to direct their hate at, for being a collection of worthless unemployed loooooozers.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

not unemployed, thank you very much. lucky to have created for myself a very good job. face it, this bunch is diverse, and yet your puny little mind can only generalize... let me guess, small brain syndrome?

[-] -1 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

Well the insiders decide where our money goes to dumbass, that's how banks work.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

It is easy to see where the money goes since they are publicly traded they have to publish it.

Bank of America Corp.’s top holdings for the quarter ending September 30th, 2011.

The firm held 7061 stocks at the end of the quarter with an aggregate market value of $159.328 billion. Top Investments are in the following

  1. S&P 500
  2. Ishares Russell 2000 Index
  3. Apple Inc.
  4. Exxon Mobil Corp
  5. Chevron Corp
  6. The Coca-cola Company
  7. IBM
  8. Pepsico Inc.
  9. Abbott Labs
[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

Do you really think they publish all their records, god you are naive.

Don't worry, give me a call some time, I have a few girls I know outside of Brooklyn that could fuck that naiveness right out of you son.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

They have to if they are publicly traded, They have to file 10K and 10Q statements. They have to publish all of their financials including investments, liabilities, and compensation of officers. They are audited every quarter.


They also have to publish annual reports which are audited as well. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=71595&p=irol-reportsannual