General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTaibbi: Bank of America, Raging Hurricane of Theft and Fraud
The second is that all of us, as taxpayers, are keeping that hurricane raging. Bank of America is not just a private company that systematically steals from American citizens: it's a de facto ward of the state that depends heavily upon public support to stay in business. In fact, without the continued generosity of us taxpayers, and the extraordinary indulgence of our regulators and elected officials, this company long ago would have been swallowed up by scandal, mismanagement, prosecution and litigation, and gone out of business. It would have been liquidated and its component parts sold off, perhaps into a series of smaller regional businesses that would have more respect for the law, and be more responsive to their customers.
But Bank of America hasn't gone out of business, for the simple reason that our government has decided to make it the poster child for the "Too Big To Fail" concept. Because it is considered a "systemically important institution" whose collapse would have a major, Lehman-Brothers-style impact on the economy, two consecutive presidential administrations have taken extraordinary measures to keep Bank of America in business, despite a staggering recent legacy of corruption schemes, many of which were simply overlooked by regulators.
This is why the question of whether or not Bank of America should remain on public life support is so critical to all Americans, and not just those millions who have the misfortune to be customers of the bank, or own shares in the firm, or hold mortgages serviced by the company. This gigantic financial institution is the ultimate symbol of a new kind of corruption at the highest levels of American society: a tendency to marry the near-limitless power of the federal government with increasingly concentrated, increasingly unaccountable private financial interests.
Those are just the 1st 4 paragraphs of a great piece.
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)They repaid all of TARP plus $4.5 billion in interest, repaid all their Fed loans and were forced to raise $40 billion in the private market including from Buffett -who is no charity giver.
Their stock has doubled since Dec and they are paying out big in the robo-deal.
Seriously, find a new villain, Matt.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)You should contact the State of Nevada, which seems to think that Bank of America continues its consumer defrauding ways:
Even when caught and punished for its crimes by the authorities, Bank of America has repeatedly ignored court orders. It was one of five companies identified in two separate investigations earlier this year that were caught continuing the practice of robosigning, even after promising to stop in a legally binding consent decree. Last summer, the state of Nevada sought to terminate a settlement over mortgage abuses it had entered into with Bank of America after it found the company was brazenly violating the agreement, among other things raising payments and interest rates on mortgage customers, despite the fact that the settlement only allowed them to modify loans downward.
I suppose that it could be argued that Bank of America isn't technically on public life support; it's just not paying millions in unpaid fees to localities. It sort of works out to the same thing, though. Saints they are, not villains. Got it.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)I say leave them but 50 million customers don't want to (granted a few mortgage holders can't).
And this kind of bad reporting from Taibbi ticks me off:
"This move, encouraged by the Obama administration, put the American taxpayer on the hook for an entire generation of irresponsible gambles made by another failed investment firm that should have gone out of business, but was instead acquired by Bank of America with $25 billion in taxpayer help Merrill Lynch."
There is simply no truth to that bullshit from Taibbi. ML was acquired during 2008 by Bank of America. And if he is referring to the derivatives then the Fed gave the OK on that despite reservations from the FDIC. The Fed is not part of the Obama administration. The FDIC is and they objected.
I will call MT out for his lies/mistakes every time.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But the fact of the matter is that Bank of America is being propped up by the taxpayer, pursuing questionable and illegal practices, and the administration isn't very interested in keeping an eye on it. The "bad reporting" you're mis-citing is not about Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch, but is about "This move," which is the introductory to your quote. What "move" is Taibbi referring to? This one:
And Taibbi is drawing a parallel between Bank of America's balance sheet shifts and the shady practices of Merrill Lynch that led to its absorption by Bank of America. Bank of America has in effect socialized its risky investments by moving them from its investment accounts to the part of the balance sheet that's federally insured, its deposits. And its 50 million customers just might find out how poorly they're being served (both by the bank and by the administration that's supposed to be enforcing the law) if Bank of America can't keep juggling all the balls it has in the air.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Bank of America just easily passed a strenuous stress test (they failed in 2009). The cost of them failing in 2009 was substantial.
And the ML derivatives are not federally insured. It doesn't matter where they sit on an Org chart.
Bank of America is NOT being "propped up" in any way shape or form. And you can believe I chuckle at the ZeroHead Doomers every time the stock moves up. Go long - bet on America and President Obama like Buffett has.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)destroyed the Global Economy, trumps yours any day. When you something other than 'they have a lot of customers' to refute him, we'll listen.
Hopeful exposing their corruption, will reduce that number. It's hard to believe you do not know what this Bank has been up to over the past number of years or that you would to in any way defend them.
trumad
(41,692 posts)His posts are numerous bashing Taibbi and supporting Wall Street.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for years and has earned his reputation, one that would be difficult to challenge on this issue.
I also believe that it was Julian Assange's threat to publish damaging information on what most people, including BOA, believed was BOA, that was what made him a target (and we know from Anonymous's hacking of their contractors emails that they were out to get him) of the PTBs. They didn't care about his War Logs but when he mentioned he had damaging info on a 'major Bank' that was it for him.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)which I understand they managed to move into the "federally insured" area.
http://crooksandliars.com/mike-lux/red-alert-biggest-bank-sweetheart-deals-a
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)To date no US bank has failed due to derivatives. NONE. As in ZERO.
AIG did though. That was bad enough.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Because they got Corporate Welfare from the taxpayers and their buddies in Congress saved them. I wish we all could get that kind of help when we commit crimes against our clients. We'd all be able to say 'we didn't fail'.
So the Bank didn't fail because of derivatives. How many investors, pensioners, home-owners failed because of derivatives? Or doesn't that matter?
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)They were due to 2008 and 1913 Congressional acts = both signed by the President (Wilson and Bush).
Wilson - the greatest Progressive president in history -- and Bush.
sudopod
(5,019 posts)What are you smoking over there?
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Wikipedia
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Have we met somewhere before?
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)BOA is free to make some risky gambles (gambles that smaller banks couldn't make) because they have the US taxpayer there to bail them out if necessary.
And didn't the AIG bailout prevent a number of banks from having serious issues due to their derivatives (though I don't know if they would have gone under)?
Then of course you have the $53 Trillion (yes, with a T) they have in the OTC derivatives market, which would seem to be a significant liability as well.
http://usawatchdog.com/four-biggest-banks-in-america-have-huge-leverage/
I'm not saying that BOA is one or two bad deals from going out of business, but let's not pretend they're the model of stability either.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Our resident wall street apologist.
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)and trying to school the "socialists" at DU......I'm surprised he hasn't also been able to tout "Banned from Kos & DU." It was in a thread where he tried (and failed) to call out Alan Grayson on his post, The Fed Bailouts: Money for Nothing. Told me all I needed to know.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Unless one is proud of it of course for all the wrong reasons.
P.S. Thanks for the link to Alan Grayson's post, not sure how but I manged to miss it.