If this story doesn't piss you off, nothing will...

[BFT3K]

from the article...

Anyone who wants to know what the Occupy Wall Street protests are all about need only look at the way Bank of America does business. It comes down to this: These guys are some of the very biggest assholes on Earth. They lie, cheat and steal as reflexively as addicts, they laugh at people who are suffering and don't have money, they pay themselves huge salaries with money stolen from old people and taxpayers ? and on top of it all, they completely suck at banking. And yet the state won't let them go out of business, no matter how much they deserve it, and it won't slap them in jail, no matter what crimes they commit. That makes them not bankers or capitalists, but a class of person that was never supposed to exist in America: royalty.

Full story here...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-fail-20120314

[Scott McD]

Isn't this what everyone already knows ??

[96ukssob]

FUCK Bank of America

They stole over $10k from me and after years of fighting, I'll never see it again

[ottopottomouse]

Doesn't piss me off

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by Scott McD

Isn't this what everyone already knows ??

The basics, yes, but this article reveals some seriously disturbing behind-the-scene details that are just as criminal as can be.

This is a bit more from the article, for example...

Bank of America should have gone out of business back in 2008. Just as the mortgage market was crashing, it made an inconceivably stupid investment in subprime mortgages, acquiring Countrywide and the billions in potential lawsuits that came with it. "They tried to catch a falling knife and lost their hand and foot in the process," says Joshua Rosner, a noted financial analyst. It then spent $50 billion buying a firm, Merrill Lynch, that was rife with billions in debts. With those two anchors on its balance sheet, Hugh McColl's bicoastal dream bank should have gone the way of the dinosaur.

But it didn't. Instead, in the midst of the crash, the government forked over $45 billion in aid to Bank of America ? $20 billion as an incentive to bring its cross-eyed bride Merrill Lynch to the altar, and another $25 billion as part of the overall TARP bailout. In addition, the government agreed to guarantee $118 billion in Bank of America debt.

So what did the bank do with that money? First, it sat by while lame-duck executives at Merrill paid themselves $3.6 billion in bonuses ? even though Merrill lost more than $27 billion that year. In all, 696 executives received more than $1 million each for helping to crash the storied firm. (The bank wound up hit with a $150 million fine for its failure to inform shareholders about the Merrill losses and bonuses.) Bank of America, meanwhile, paid out more than $3.3 billion in bonuses to itself, including more than $1 million each to 172 executives.

[Tom_PM]

Never used 'em. I remember the "bank americard" commercials when I guess they were considered a solid company who actually helped people. Nothing good heard since.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

Doesn't piss me off

banks are banks............ abuse them

[BFT3K]

More Wall Street anger via an op-ed piece in the NY Times, from today.

TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm - first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London - I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.

Continues here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/op...achs.html?_r=1

[PR_Glen]

is BAC paying back the bail out money they got? If they are then everything you have stated is worthless...

stock is up 70% in the last 3 months btw ;)

[Verbal]

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

is BAC paying back the bail out money they got? If they are then everything you have stated is worthless...

stock is up 70% in the last 3 months btw ;)

Warren Buffet's cash injection might have something to do with the stock increase.

[Rochard]

I don't think the problem is Bank Of America. The problem is the people who work the system, not one bank. There was a Rolling Stone article written by the same guy called The "Real Housewives of Wall Street" that talked about two women with no business experience who got $220 million in loans that they didn't have to pay back.

Here's the article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ilout-20110411

That's where the problem is.

[PR_Glen]

Originally Posted by Verbal

Warren Buffet's cash injection might have something to do with the stock increase.

has he though? he lost a lot of money with them the last few years, my understanding was he sold all his holdings.

My only interest in it was some quick gains, because it was seriously under valued and also considering it seems protected by the fed. At least for now.

[Verbal]

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

has he though? he lost a lot of money with them the last few years, my understanding was he sold all his holdings.

My only interest in it was some quick gains, because it was seriously under valued and also considering it seems protected by the fed. At least for now.

I had considered it as well, but chickened-out. I had some personal issues with BoA after which I just couldn't get myself to do it ... However, as the old adage says, "when there's blood in the streets ... buy!". I regret not doing it, but probably would have sold by now.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/...nk-of-america/

I'm certainly not going to second guess Warren Buffet, but I see BoA as a sinking ship.

[longdongsilver]

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

is BAC paying back the bail out money they got? If they are then everything you have stated is worthless...

stock is up 70% in the last 3 months btw ;)

That's great news, sadly i find it hard to agree that everything said is worthless when you can apply the same scenario to most of the banks and many have not paid 1 cent back. Royal bank of scotland is an even larger blackhole of tax funded bailout cash and the people at the top that made the big decisions that cost the country a fortune got huge huge payouts after the crash. They need to have their wages and bonuses tied to success or profits. Not get huge bonuses for losing money.

[sperbonzo]

This is all correct, but OWS's anger should have been directed at the real problem. The GOVERNMENT gave the banks all that bailout money, and it continues to give OUR tax money out like candy to whomever will keep those people in power, be they big corporations, big banks, big labour, etc....

OWS was flawed from the beginning, in my opinion. It SHOULD have been Occupy Congress and the White House. (OCWH)


.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

I think that this NY Times Op-Ed is causing more concern for the 1% on Wall Street (long, but interesting read):

Goldman Sachs Director Quits 'Morally Bankrupt' Wall Street Bank

TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm ? first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London ? I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.

To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world?s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.

It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs?s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients? trust for 143 years. It wasn?t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.

But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.

I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.

When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm?s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm?s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.

Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.

What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm?s ?axes,? which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) ?Hunt Elephants.? In English: get your clients ? some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren?t ? to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don?t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It?s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client?s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.

It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as ?muppets,? sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God?s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don?t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client?s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.

It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don?t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn?t matter how smart you are.

These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, ?How much money did we make off the client?? It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don?t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about ?muppets,? ?ripping eyeballs out? and ?getting paid? doesn?t exactly turn into a model citizen.

When I was a first-year analyst I didn?t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.

My proudest moments in life ? getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics ? have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn?t feel right to me anymore.

I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm ? or the trust of its clients ? for very much longer.

ADG

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

This is all correct, but OWS's anger should have been directed at the real problem. The GOVERNMENT gave the banks all that bailout money, and it continues to give OUR tax money out like candy to whomever will keep those people in power, be they big corporations, big banks, big labour, etc....

OWS was flawed from the beginning, in my opinion. It SHOULD have been Occupy Congress and the White House. (OCWH)

Yeah, because Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve doesn't OWN our government, right?

</sarcasm>

[alextokyo]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

from the article...

Anyone who wants to know what the Occupy Wall Str

Stopped reading right there. Whatever it the paragraph is babbling about is completely insignificant. No matter. Game, not changed. And I will sleep soundly tonight knowing that whatever I didn't bother to read is, without doubt, some no-connection-with-reality, short-lived, temporary viral hippy bullshit that was probably popular on Reddit.com for a few hours 3-4 days ago. And that's it.

[porno jew]

tabbi is the only political writer worth a shit nowadays.

[V_RocKs]

stop paying on revolving credit...

[XSAXS]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I don't think the problem is Bank Of America. The problem is the people who work the system, not one bank. There was a Rolling Stone article written by the same guy called The "Real Housewives of Wall Street" that talked about two women with no business experience who got $220 million in loans that they didn't have to pay back.

Here's the article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ilout-20110411

That's where the problem is.

*EXACTLY RIGHT* Well said.

[DWB]

Oh, and one more thing, since we're talking about avoiding bills: Bank of America didn't pay a dime in federal taxes last year. Or the year before. In fact, they got a $1 billion refund last year. They claimed it was because they had pretax losses of $5.4 billion in 2010. They paid out $35 billion in bonuses and compensation that year. You do the math.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz1p8PwtrgK

As much as you wan to see them stoned to death, you have to give them credit for gaming the system.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

from the article...

Anyone who wants to know what the Occupy Wall Street protests are all about need only look at the way Bank of America does business. It comes down to this: These guys are some of the very biggest assholes on Earth. They lie, cheat and steal as reflexively as addicts, they laugh at people who are suffering and don't have money, they pay themselves huge salaries with money stolen from old people and taxpayers – and on top of it all, they completely suck at banking. And yet the state won't let them go out of business, no matter how much they deserve it, and it won't slap them in jail, no matter what crimes they commit. That makes them not bankers or capitalists, but a class of person that was never supposed to exist in America: royalty.

Full story here...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-fail-20120314

I don't doubt this for a second. Actually, I think he's probably being too nice.

Things like Times article, and OWS will bring more attention to these pricks. They can't get away with it forever, can they?

and that Times article...it's guaranteed that the people he was talking about didn't look inwardly when they read it. They probably laughed at what he said.