Did Bank Of America Drop A Loyal Customer For ‘Political’ Reasons? B of A Drops gun maker

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by sonnny1

 

I appreciate your Solzhenitsyn quote from the Gulag Archipelago but when they do the round up in the states it will be the model of what they have been training to do in Iraq and Afghanistan....a squad of troops with a forced entry using building clearing tactics. The average joe (by himself and relatively unarmed) would not stand a chance.

Im hoping it will never come down to that.(crossing fingers)

Without our ability to protect ourselves,with firearms,it would be a hell of a lot easier,that's for sure....

reply to post by sonnny1

That is how you fight them but one has to wonder how much it hurts BoA when they are receiving federal bank bailout fiat money and are considered "too big to fail" but you have to hand it to McMillan for taking the fight to them.

First, let's clear the air on a few misconceptions in this thread.

First and foremost, Bank of America took TARP funds years ago, and has long ago repaid the TARP funds -- with interest, mind you. Nothing irks me more than to hear all this nonsense about banks taking TARP funds -- The Treasury Secretary instituted TARP because the market was in a free-fall, and he wanted to boost market confidence so that the financial system would stabilize and not panic.

TARP worked. The market stopped going into free-fall. And, banks like Chase and Bank of America repaid the TARP funds in record time. So, please, quit being a complete idiot and talking about Bank of America being reliant on federal "bailout" funds. They aren't, haven't been, and took TARP for a brief period of time only at the behest -- and pleading --- of the Treasury Secretary. This is a bank with trillions of dollars in assets. It doesn't need federal support.

Secondly, in regards to this particular client, keep in mind that most big banks have restricted industries that they do not lend money. This is for reputation risk, not political risk. Big difference.

What industries? Firearm manufacturing for one. The adult industry. Strip Clubs. Casinos. Gambling Operations. You get the idea. From the gist of the conversation, this particular company made a shift from selling firearm accessories to actually becoming a firearm manufacturer. Bank of America probably started with this company during the accessory business, and now has decided to back away from the client because the nature of the business has fundamentally changed to a restricted industry --- firearms manufacturing.

This isn't a conspiracy. The credit requirements at most large and regional banks are similarly identical -- restricted industries are not allowed to be lent money.

Why? Because Bank of America -- and banks in general -- don't want to be associated with gambling, casinos, firearms, and the like. That's not their business to support these industries. That's their choice. It is -- after all -- their bank and their money to invest it as they choose to do so.

Don't like their decision? Fine. Start your own bank. Then you can call the shots and make your own credit decisions any way you see fit.

Barrawk Huesane did it!

BOFA sucks balls

And don't forget, guns are polling very high this election season, you have
to get ready for the race wars which will coincide with the president launching
the FEMA camps or lower student loan rates.

All seriousness aside, I am not sure how guns would interfere with BOFA's
criminal organization.

I posted this story on my facebook.

Bank Of America Does Not Believe In The Second Amendment?

market-ticker.org...

Glad you put the story on ATS.

I'm sure they can find a bank willing to do business with them. BofA did them two favors: They severed their relationship, so the customer no longer has to do business with a criminal enterprise. And, they will owe them a fat settlement after the lawsuit.

And, they will owe them a fat settlement after the lawsuit.

Doubtful. The borrower, according to the article, verbally agreed to leave the bank.

Due to privacy reasons, banks cannot disclose the reasons why a borrower is in default, or why they are exiting a lending relationship. Part of the reason could be the reputation risk, as I noted earlier, as well as a change in the type of business to which this client was engaged --- meaning, they borrowed initially under the premise that they were a firearms accessories dealer, and then changed their business model to firearms manufacturing.

This change in business operations could be very well a covenant default in their loan agreement. Most commercial loans state quite clearly that you cannot fundamentally change the operations of the business without the bank's prior consent.

So, if I lend you money for you to distribute widgets, and then it turns out that you start to manufacture widgets instead, you have fundamentally changed your business from distribution to manufacturing, and I lent you money on the premise that you were only going to be in the distribution business.

Due to privacy laws, you will never get the full story. Banks cannot disclose private, confidential borrower information. We don't know the full story, just hearsay. How about these questions:

Was the borrower in default?
Did the borrower misuse funds from the credit facility?
Has the borrower repaid the principal balance, or was the Line of Credit perpetually at its credit limit?
Did the borrower borrow money under the false pretense that he was a dealer, and not a manufacturer?
Has ownership changed, triggering a default?
Has the company's sales been falling, which triggered the bank to clamp down on the credit facilities of this business?

You get the idea. You are only hearing one side of the story. I can assure you that the bank thought very carefully before exiting this relationship, and that there were sound, prudent, and logical business reasons as to why they chose to exit.

And one more thing - Bank of America may have inherited this loan from another bank. While the loan may have fit the credit parameters of the prior banking institution, it might not fit the credit blueprint of Bank of America, which has tighter credit policies and a much more conservative lending policy.

I always thought BofA stood for Bunch of A$$holes.

reply to post by CookieMonster09
Your explanations are all well and good, but B of A stated that they were severing the relationship for "political" reasons.

Not financial.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by CookieMonster09

 

Your explanations are all well and good, but B of A stated that they were severing the relationship for "political" reasons.

Not financial.

Spot on.

Kind of throws that whole angle,out the window........

Originally posted by beezzer
Folks, they're not going to get rid of firearms by making them illegal. They;ll just put them out of business. I guess there is no law against this, but lines are being drawn even as we speak.

Where do you stand?

edit on 28-4-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Glock 19 w/ x4 33 round mags and x3 17 round mags, check. Springfield XD-9 w/ x4 17 round mags, check, Bushmaster AR-15 A2S w/ x15 20 round mags, x5 10 round and x5 5round mags , check.

Perhaps they are already a day late and a dollar short as I along with MANY MANY more Americans are good to go in that department. The BIG concern will be over ammo. That is what most fear will be strangled next. TPTB KNOW that the war on our guns is a moot issue by now (however they will STILL continue their attacks on our 2nd Amendment for sure) and that they stand to make the biggest impact on targeting our ammo. But that will soon be okay also as everyone I shoot regularly with as well as most others I talk to at the ranges are WELL AWARE of that BS now and have begun watching what we expend at the range and am keeping more in reserve just in case

That being said, I would HIGHLY recommend that my fellow shooters on here do the same if you haven't yet began doing so already. Even MORE SO if you shoot .40 cal rounds as well as .223/5,56 NATO.

Some food for thought on the CEO of B of A.

Less than a month into his tenure as CEO, Moynihan attended a dinner at the Treasury with Geithner and other administration officials and the heads of several banks, including Bank of New York Mellon Corp., US Bancorp and BB&T Corp. Throughout the Jan. 20 dinner, some executives criticized what they described as the administration’s populist tone toward Wall Street, an attendee says.


Moynihan was more attuned to the public anger toward his industry and called on the group to help restore trust in banks, the attendee says.


Presidential spokeswoman Valerie Jarrett dismissed the idea that Dimon had been dumped and denied there was a "popularity contest" among bankers in Washington, but she did concede that the president had feelings for Moynihan. "In addition to being an active leader of his bank, he has also expressed a willingness to work with the administration and have a level of corporate responsibility beyond the bank," she told Bloomberg. "We appreciate that effort."

nymag.com...

Le me highlight the salient point. . . . .

Presidential spokeswoman Valerie Jarrett dismissed the idea that Dimon had been dumped and denied there was a "popularity contest" among bankers in Washington, but she did concede that the president had feelings for Moynihan. "In addition to being an active leader of his bank, he has also expressed a willingness to work with the administration and have a level of corporate responsibility beyond the bank," she told Bloomberg. "We appreciate that effort."

I wonder if "Occupy" will bother with B of A anymore.

Makes one think. . . wheels within wheels within wheels within. . .

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by OldCorp


It is stupid, fiscally stupid. Banks are in the business of making money, so the question is: What did BoA get in return, and from whom, to drop the company's business?

And is any of it illegal?

If not, okay, business (even bad business) is still business.

But who benefits?

I guess it depends. They are a private corporation and they have the right to do business with whomever they choose, for any reason. I would like to know their real reason before making a comment on legality.

Your explanations are all well and good, but B of A stated that they were severing the relationship for "political" reasons. Not financial.

Hearsay. We only have one side of the story - The client.

The bank cannot publicly come out and disclose private confidential information on their borrowers.

The client claims the reason was "political". I call B.S. on that statement. Banks make credit decisions for financial reasons, not political reasons. Commercial bankers are bottom-line oriented, not political actors.

As I stated earlier, very few banks will lend money to restricted industries, and firearms manufacturing is considered by the banking industry to be a restricted industry. Don't believe me? Call any bank -- Chase, Bank of America, Comerica, Regions Bank, BB&T, etc. - and ask them if they will lend money to a restricted industry.

Other restricted industries? Adult Entertainment. Casinos. You get the idea. This concept of not lending to restricted industries is nothing new, folks.

In the banking industry, it's called "Reputational Risk". Which means that banks don't want the reputation of supporting restricted industries, such as the adult entertainment industry. They don't want that reputation of being the lender in town that lends to strip clubs, for example.

It is stupid, fiscally stupid. Banks are in the business of making money, so the question is: What did BoA get in return, and from whom, to drop the company's business?

Banks could make money lending funds to coc aine dealers. But they don't. It's not about how much profit can be made in a particular industry. It's about reputation risk when you lend to industries that are generally considered unacceptable.

Banks don't want to be involved in lending to firearms manufacturers because they don't want to be seen as supporting ---- rightly or wrongly --- deaths from firearms, legal or illegal. Banks don't lend to strip clubs because they don't want the reputation of supporting the adult industry. You get the idea.

Example: You can only imagine the protests from the public if a firearms manufacturer was involved in supplying guns to home-grown terrorists, for example. And then it was determined that XYZ Mega-Bank provided loan funds to that manufacturer.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


www.usacarry.com...

We want to let you know that we hear your comments and questions regarding one of our customers. While we cannot discuss the details of any individual client we work with, we can assure you the allegations being made here are completely false. Bank of America does not have a policy that prohibits us from banking clients in this industry. In fact, we have numerous, longstanding customers in the industry. We are also extremely proud of our support of the US military and reject any assertion to the contrary. We count as clients many companies that provide for our nation’s defense. We employ thousands of veterans, Guardsmen, and Reservists, and plan to increase our hiring this year.

thats their response but it does say that they do do buisness with gunmakers etc so i dont think the therory of banks dont do buisness with gun owners casions etc is valid at least in their own words to they do work/buisness with the government and other firearms companys but figured id share the link for every ones benefit and a few other relevent links savingtherepublic.com...


www.facebook.com...

www.gunsnet.net...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com...
www.handgunsmag.com...


perhaps its time to have a meetign of gun manufacturing companies and body armour/armoured car manufactures and make it so its almost impossible for boa to guns and body armour for its armoured cars and bank guards that would be a nice little screw you from the other gun companies(assuming they are willing to take the hit in their profit margins it would be quite an interesting devlopement if their gaurds could not get guns to protect their money,......
and your kidding me you dont thing banks used to launder the coke dealers money???? half of mami was built with coke money! books.google.com... FM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q5GdT4WKOYigiQLpk7xy&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=miami%20banks%20and%20coc aine&f=false

www.whentheshipcomesin.com... aine-cowboys-2006

onepearsallandhisbooks.blogspot.com... aine-era.html
www.guardian.co.uk...

thats their response but it does say that they do do buisness with gunmakers etc so i dont think the therory of banks dont do buisness with gun owners casions etc is valid

In the banking industry, firearms manufacturing is generally considered a restricted industry based on the reputation risk associated with lending to firearms manufacturers. There are certainly exceptions, and I believe that as big as some of these mega-banks are, there are certain exceptions to the rule.

Their response is indicative that they do have some exceptions for the industry -- perhaps, for example, they do fund firearms accessory manufacturers, not firearms manufacturers themselves.

For example, I am sure that some of the mega-banks are involved in the adult industry in some form or fashion, knowingly or unknowingly. Perhaps they fund a software developer, whose clientele is in the adult industry, but they don't fund the industry directly themselves.

My point is simple:

1.) The banking industry has restricted industries to which it will not generally lend, and then only under certain conditions. Firearms manufacturing is widely considered to be a restricted industry due to reputation risk. That doesn't mean that banks don't lend to firearms manufacturing companies, but that banks view these firearms manufacturers as very high risk companies from a reputation standpoint. Credit guidelines will require the Credit Underwriter to be exceptionally cautious and conservative when reviewing their credit facilities.

2.) The bank states quite clearly that the allegations are patently false. As with any bank borrower, we will never hear the real reasons why the bank exited this relationship because the bank must adhere to confidentiality and privacy laws concerning a borrower's private financial condition. For all we know, this gun manufacturer could be facing severe financial difficulty, but is afraid to admit it publicly, so he slams the bank in the press for the purpose of spiteful revenge.

and your kidding me you dont thing banks used to launder the coke dealers money???? half of mami was built with coke money!

Agreed. However, this is not legal. Banks cannot legally support illegal activities, or they face being shut down by the Federal Government. This includes money laundering, and drug-related crimes.

My point is that, in the banking industry, banks have rules against lending to drug dealers due to reputation risk. I don't doubt that some crooked banks and crooked bankers are involved in illegal activities.

In fact, banks are required to report suspicious activities to FINCEN if an employee of the bank has legitimate reason to suspect a bank client to be engaged in illegal activities.