Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
BofA chief: We have a 'right to make a profit'
Thursday, October 6, 2011 6:46 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Bank of America's CEO defended his bank's new $5 fee on debit cards on Wednesday, saying that customers and shareholders understand the bank has a "right to make a profit." Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) CEO Brian Moynihan defended the move, which the bank announced last week in response to new caps on debit card swipe fees that the banks charge retailers. Moynihan stopped short of criticizing President Obama who earlier this week said to ABC that banks don't have an "inherent right" to a "certain amount of profit." But BofA's chief did say banks have an inherent right to make a profit in an interview Wednesday with CNBC's Larry Kudlow at the Washington Ideas Forum, sponsored by the Newseum, the Aspen Institute and the Atlantic magazine. "I have an inherent duty as a CEO of a publicly owned company to get a return for my shareholders," Moynihan said. Moynihan said that the bank will talk to its customers, teammates and shareholders and "they'll understand what we're doing -- understand we have a right to make a profit." Moynihan said the bank had made the fee clear and transparent to its customers and noted the bank had given plenty of advance notice because the fee won't kick in until next year. But he said the new charge was necessary because the "ability to be profitable" in retail banking has changed. He added that Wall Street reforms in the so-called Dodd-Frank Act will cost his bank "billions." When Kudlow asked Moynihan if he felt the bank was under attack, Moynihan said "no." "We have the best bank in the world, we do a great job for our customers," he added. http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/05/news/economy/bank_of_america_moynihan/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2
Quote:Later, Moynihan was asked about an entirely different issue, whether he supported a proposed tax on millionaires that Senate Democrats proposed today. He said he'd echo what he hears from his millionaire customers: "Yes, but what for?" "If the belief is that it puts our fiscal house in order, then they support that," Moynihan said.
Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:26 AM
BYTEMITE
Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:48 AM
FIVVER
Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:50 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:54 AM
Thursday, October 6, 2011 8:33 AM
HERO
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Where in the Constitution does it guarantee corporations the "right" to make a profit?
Thursday, October 6, 2011 8:47 AM
Quote:I mean who will put up their money in a risky venture with no chance of a return.
Quote:I note for the record that the purpose of this fee is to make up for revenue lost when Congress restricted other fees. Its an unintended consequence, kind of like price controls. Price of bread goes up, Congress sets a limit, suddenly the shelves are empty.
Thursday, October 6, 2011 9:10 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Those fees have become egregious. There's no way the consequence is "unintended"...we all knew any cost would be passed on to the customer, but with any luck, tne NON-price-gouging banks and other institutions won't do the same, with the result that more people switch to them.
Quote: Your analogy doesn't stand; more honest would be: "Price of overpriced bread goes up, Congress sets a limit, suddenly the shelves are full of lower-priced bread." Capitalism at work, yes?
Thursday, October 6, 2011 9:48 AM
Quote:You neglect to consider the fact that the market lends its own regulation to business.
Quote:the shelves of state-run Soviet stores overflowing with bread. Socialism at work.
Quote:If you eliminate your consumers ability to buy your product, you wont sell anymore products.
Thursday, October 6, 2011 10:13 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: And if they price gouge, we have a right to go elsewhere with our business.
Thursday, October 6, 2011 10:56 AM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: You neglect to consider the fact that the market lends its own regulation to business. If you eliminate your consumers ability to buy your product, you wont sell anymore products. Where govt needs to step in is not regulating profits, but rather taking steps to ensure competition, safety, and consumer protection (areas that may not be as vulnerable or as quick to react to market forces).
Thursday, October 6, 2011 10:58 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Americans are waking up to this radical communists ass hole.
Thursday, October 6, 2011 11:05 AM
Quote: When did Stalin get a morning radio show?
Thursday, October 6, 2011 11:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Not Stalin, but one of his disciples ...
Thursday, October 6, 2011 11:42 AM
Quote:I agree with this, but ask where is the Government trying to control the banks profits? The regulations on card transaction fee was to help the other businesses that were having to pay them. These new regulations are just putting market forces to work. Instead of the banks charging other businesses, that need to take cards to compete, now the banks must try and make their profits from there customers. They are the ones that can decide what they are willing to pay for and what they are not.
Thursday, October 6, 2011 12:46 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Thursday, October 6, 2011 12:59 PM
Quote:Originally posted by fivver: The banks developed the debit card and then went to merchants and said 'here's what we've come up with where you get paid immediately from the customer's account. For this service there will be a 44 cent swipe fee per transaction. Do you want it or not.' The banks did not use any force or fraud on the retailers. The merchants could have negotiated a lower fee or walked away. Instead they signed up for the service and then lobbied the government to do away with the fee. Managing debit card purchases takes a lot in the way of technology and people which is being paid for by the banks. How should they pay for it?
Thursday, October 6, 2011 1:27 PM
Quote:Originally posted by fivver: Quote:I agree with this, but ask where is the Government trying to control the banks profits? The regulations on card transaction fee was to help the other businesses that were having to pay them. These new regulations are just putting market forces to work. Instead of the banks charging other businesses, that need to take cards to compete, now the banks must try and make their profits from there customers. They are the ones that can decide what they are willing to pay for and what they are not. The banks developed the debit card and then went to merchants and said 'here's what we've come up with where you get paid immediately from the customer's account. For this service there will be a 44 cent swipe fee per transaction. Do you want it or not.' The banks did not use any force or fraud on the retailers. The merchants could have negotiated a lower fee or walked away. Instead they signed up for the service and then lobbied the government to do away with the fee. Managing debit card purchases takes a lot in the way of technology and people which is being paid for by the banks. How should they pay for it?
Thursday, October 6, 2011 1:30 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: And if they price gouge, we have a right to go elsewhere with our business. In theory. When folks abandoned GM cause of overpriced cars of extremely shitty quality, the Gov took OUR money and gave it to them, and we didn't even get the shitty car. When folks abandoned the airlines cause of the shit they had to put up with (far less, in fact than they do at this time) the Gov took OUR money and gave it to them, and we didn't even get a ticket to ride. Do you think it's gonna be any different when folks abandon the big banks, and they go crying to the Gov for another handout of OUR money since we refused to do biz with them ? Ergo, I propose that if a boycott is no longer an effective tactic because of this, we can and should engage the practice of sabotage. -Frem I do not serve the Blind God.
Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:01 PM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Quote:I mean who will put up their money in a risky venture with no chance of a return.People do that every single day, if you don't know that, you don't know squat!
Quote:Also bullshit. Those fees have become egregious.
Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:24 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Not Stalin, but one of his disciples ... Oh, that’s right I forgot that you have no idea what Communism or Socialism are. ....sorry, carry on.
Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:49 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Americans are waking up to this radical communist ass hole.
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: It's juvenile, petty little replies like yours which make the internet such a complete waste of time. Just dismiss that which you don't like, out of hand, with out even an iota of civility or intellectual honest on your part.
Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:55 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: M52nickerson now presents....AURaptor in Arguing With Myself
Thursday, October 6, 2011 5:21 PM
PIRATENEWS
John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!
Thursday, October 6, 2011 6:25 PM
HKCAVALIER
Friday, October 7, 2011 2:33 AM
Quote:Originally posted by HKCavalier: HKCavalier Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Friday, October 7, 2011 10:23 AM
Quote:The banks developed the debit card and then went to merchants and said 'here's what we've come up with where you get paid immediately from the customer's account. For this service there will be a 44 cent swipe fee per transaction. Do you want it or not.' The banks did not use any force or fraud on the retailers. The merchants could have negotiated a lower fee or walked away.
Quote:And if you think smaller banks and credit unions are the answer, don't count on it. While they are exempt from caps on "swipe" fees for now, there is growing concern that retailers will eventually stop honoring cards from institutions with higher "swipe" fees causing those banks to simply find other ways to keep the income flowing, like debit card charges.
Friday, October 7, 2011 10:51 AM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Friday, October 7, 2011 12:53 PM
Friday, October 7, 2011 1:02 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Geezer, I missed the part about "no chance of return" and caught the "risky". My mistake. There is no "no chance of return", your statement is a fallacy.
Quote:As to what the banks "lose", I don't come CLOSE to using my debit card 20 times in a month...that would be an awful lot of use!
Friday, October 7, 2011 2:02 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I've never credited you with and over abundance of brains.
Friday, October 7, 2011 2:20 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I've never credited you with and over abundance of brains. Classic Rappy. Making an enormous fool of himself while trying to call others foolish.
Friday, October 7, 2011 4:12 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I've never credited you with and over abundance of brains. Classic Rappy. Making an enormous fool of himself while trying to call others foolish. An 'enormous' fool ? Really? For a common, minor typo ? One which most folks can clearly over look and understand what was being said? Per usual, you have nothing to say, and instead resort to the most inane, childish and petty thing on which to comment.
Quote: Also, I never used the word " fool " in that reply, so you're lying, and therefore showing everyone you are an ENORMOUS liar, beyond the scale of all others on this , or any other message board.
Friday, October 7, 2011 4:22 PM
Quote: trying to call others foolish.
Friday, October 7, 2011 4:37 PM
Friday, October 7, 2011 5:27 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: "... you have zero substance with which to debate ..." Kwicko, do you find this as ironic as I do?
Friday, October 7, 2011 6:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: "... you have zero substance with which to debate ..." Kwicko, do you find this as ironic as I do? Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither....
Friday, October 7, 2011 6:31 PM
Friday, October 7, 2011 6:41 PM
Saturday, October 8, 2011 5:32 AM
Quote:Niki. All I can go by is what you say. When Hero states "Yippie, now we can regulate everything and make sure nobody profits. What does this mean? No profit equals no investors, I mean who will put up their money in a risky venture with no chance of a return." And you reply "People do that every single day, if you don't know that, you don't know squat!" I have to figure you know what you're talking about. The fact that you're so eager to insult someone that you can't take the time to read their comment properly isn't MY fallacy.
Monday, October 10, 2011 2:24 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: I missed the "no profit" in part because it has no relevance whatsoever. It's not a realistic statement, as what he proposed has never happened and never will.
Quote:The regulation at issue wouldn't mean "no profits", so it's what you guys call a strawman argument.
Quote:He's talking about communism, for heaven's sake, which is a far cry from stopping big banks from making huge profits off small businesses.
Quote:CARACAS: Venezuela’s legislature approved a law on Friday increasing state control over the banking system in what the opposition warned was a prelude to nationalisation. The law strengths the power of the superintendence of banks “to control and apply sanctions against the institutions and persons that form part of the (financial) sector.” It declares the banking system a public utility, places limits on the formation of financial groups and bars banks from having an interest in brokerage firms or insurance companies. It was the latest in a series of measures that President Hugo Chavez has sought to ram through the National Assembly before January, when he loses the near absolute control over the legislature that he has enjoyed since 2005. The assembly was expected to vote as early as Friday to give Chavez extraordinary powers to rule by decree for a year. Chavez, speaking to the nation late Thursday, said he has “nearly ready” some 20 laws that he will announce as soon as the legislature grants him decree-ruling powers. “I already have the first raft of laws. I have nearly ready some 20 laws,” Chavez said late Thursday during an event broadcast by all radio and TV networks. The Venezuelan state already owns about 25 per cent of the banking system. 2010-12-19
Monday, October 10, 2011 4:25 AM
Quote: "I have an inherent duty as a CEO of a publicly owned company to get a return for my shareholders," Moynihan said.
Monday, October 10, 2011 5:33 AM
Quote: If you know someone who gets a pension, there's a good chance all or part of it comes from investments in BofA or some other publicly traded company.
Monday, October 10, 2011 7:20 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: And there's an equally good chance - or even a greater one, really - that part of their "pension" comes in the form of Social Security. Yet some on the right would gladly abolish that system and leave those people holding the bag.
Monday, October 10, 2011 8:14 AM
Quote: need as big a return on their investments as possible
Quote:90% of Companies Set Out to Overpay Their CEOs The Washington Post today has a doozy of a report trying to explain why executive pay keeps going skyward at American companies while the economy falters. One of the main reasons? The king-of-the-hill way corporate boards set salaries for their executives. Almost every major U.S. company--90 percent, according to researchers--sets its CEO's salary higher than the median pay of his or her peers. That's because every corporation wants to think its head honcho is better than most others--something more broadly known as the "Lake Wobegon" effect, named after Garrison Keillor's fictional town where "all the children are above average." And of course, everyone can't be right: "if every company tries to keep up with or exceed the median pay for executives, executive compensation will spiral upward, regardless of performance." As Warren Buffett once wrote in one of his letters to investors, it's "the argument we all used when children: ‘But, Mom, all the other kids have one.’” http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/10/90-companies-set-out-overpay-their-ceos/43304/ most egregious "welfare" goes to corporations, by far, it's there in so many studies and even from the government:Quote:Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes. More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml, for example, recorded $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion. http://www.prometheus6.org/node/27600 you want the focus to be the (what percentage again?) of people engaged in welfare fraud?? How exactly do you justify that? Aside from believing that, when it comes to your tax dollars, whatever Big Business does is good and whatever individuals YOU believe don't deserve welfare do is bad. The numbers alone are so astronomically different, it doesn't make sense. You're saying that BofA has the right to charge whatever it wants for its services to its customers because many of those customers have portfolios with investments in BofA, so they should make the most return on investments. Isn't that kind of robbing Peter to pay Peter? By the way, my husband and I have a retirement account with our local (small) bank. There are no investments in BofA in our portfolio. Prior to that I had a 401k. Same thing. So yeah, I "know" someone for whom that is not true. Small point, but you mentioned it. Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani, Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”, signing off
Quote:Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes. More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml, for example, recorded $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion. http://www.prometheus6.org/node/27600 you want the focus to be the (what percentage again?) of people engaged in welfare fraud?? How exactly do you justify that? Aside from believing that, when it comes to your tax dollars, whatever Big Business does is good and whatever individuals YOU believe don't deserve welfare do is bad. The numbers alone are so astronomically different, it doesn't make sense. You're saying that BofA has the right to charge whatever it wants for its services to its customers because many of those customers have portfolios with investments in BofA, so they should make the most return on investments. Isn't that kind of robbing Peter to pay Peter? By the way, my husband and I have a retirement account with our local (small) bank. There are no investments in BofA in our portfolio. Prior to that I had a 401k. Same thing. So yeah, I "know" someone for whom that is not true. Small point, but you mentioned it.
Monday, October 10, 2011 12:43 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: No, I don't think theyQuote: need as big a return on their investments as possibleNot when it comes at the expense of those very people--in fact virtually EVERYONE (who doesn't have money in a bank? Who doesn't have a checking account? Who doesn't have an ATM?). There are many instances where you can't get something without a checking or savings account, and paying bills by money order is very difficult. So they have what you could call a "captive market", and raising their rates to make the "most profit possible" is inexcusable to me when it contains actions which harm their customers.
Quote:If we're being honest, this is a tiny thing for the banks, they will just fight like hell to lose ANY of their profits, however gained.
Quote:Corporations already have tons of questionable ways to make obscene profits; to justify that by saying they have the right to make as much profit as possible is just plain wrong to me.
Quote:Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
Quote:GE, for example, recorded $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.
Quote:And you want the focus to be the (what percentage again?) of people engaged in welfare fraud?? How exactly do you justify that?
Quote:You're saying that BofA has the right to charge whatever it wants for its services to its customers because many of those customers have portfolios with investments in BofA, so they should make the most return on investments.
Quote:By the way, my husband and I have a retirement account with our local (small) bank. There are no investments in BofA in our portfolio. Prior to that I had a 401k. Same thing. So yeah, I "know" someone for whom that is not true. Small point, but you mentioned it.
Monday, October 10, 2011 12:58 PM
Quote:BofA proposes charging folks a whole $60.00 A YEAR to use debit cards. This is hardly gonna put any one individual in the poorhouse.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:49 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:BofA proposes charging folks a whole $60.00 A YEAR to use debit cards. This is hardly gonna put any one individual in the poorhouse. Similarly, I doubt a 3% income tax hike will put any of the top 1% in the poorhouse. Sure as hell makes an awful lot of people cry and whine when anyone suggests it, though, doesn't it?
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:28 AM
Quote:Just out of curiosity, define "obscene profits". Is it 50%? 10%? 1%? Nothing?
Quote:To gaze upon the world of American corporations is to see a sunny place of terrific profits and princely bonuses. American businesses reported that third-quarter profits in 2010 rose at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion, the steepest annual surge since officials began tracking such matters 60 years ago. It was the seventh consecutive quarter in which corporate profits climbed. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/weekinreview/09powell.html?pagewanted=all
Quote:Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. …The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented. The New York Times adds, “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average real hourly earnings for all employees actually declined by 1.1 percent from June 2009, when the recovery began, to May 2011, the month for which the most recent earnings numbers are available.” So as average wages fall, and nearly 14 million people remain unemployed, America’s economic recovery has almost entirely benefited corporations. This development adds another chapter to the decline of the middle class, whose incomes are shrinking and wages are stagnating. Last year, top executives’ salaries increased 27 percent, while workers’ salaries increased only 2 percent. At the moment, income inequality in America is the worst it’s been since the 1920s, as the richest 1 percent make nearly 25 percent of the country’s income.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:27 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Quote:Just out of curiosity, define "obscene profits". Is it 50%? 10%? 1%? Nothing?To me, it's when their profits go EXTREMELY high in comparison to the rest of the country...
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL