Talk:Bank of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Finance (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Business (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / North Carolina / Charlotte (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina - Charlotte (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

include mistaken foreclosure case?[edit]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/06/bank-america-pays-florida-couple-in-mistaken-foreclosure-case/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


Merge?[edit]

VOTE: AGAINST: All this talk, and nothing about the proposed Wikipedia merger of this article and NationsBank? I would vote against the merge, because before the companies combined, each was a separate entity with its own history. The timelines, up to the point of the merge, are parallel and distinct. That history may include competition and conflict with its eventual corporate siblings, which would make the structure of a combined article tricky.

But if complaining about BofA's corporate practices is more important, then by all means, don't mind me, go right ahead. :) --Robertb-dc 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There's more about this above, in the "NationsBank" section - take a look at my suggestion up there. =) akendall(talk) 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

VOTE: AGAINST: Given the large size and Bank of America (as an org, not article) and the likihood that it will be expanded many times in the future, necessitating the creation of related pages, etc. I'm therefore gonna be against the idea of merging NationsBank, which has its own history nad BofA. Mbisanz 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

VOTE: AGAINST: If George H. W. Bush dies, do you merge his article in with George W. Bush? Why if a company dies do we merge that article into the buyer. NationsBank was a entity that was born and ceased to exist at certain days. It had a "life" of it's own, and should say so. The Hudson's Bay Company or the East India Company may no longer exist, but their articles should not be merged into the article of England. The voting has had more than the standard time limit ask for in Wikipedia regulations. I am removing the MERGE tag. Thanks. WikiDon 06:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

VOTE: FOR: Responding to the above, NationsBank bought BankAmerica, not the other way around, therefore the history of the current Bank of America is that of NationsBank. It was structured as a merger and chose to do business under Gianni's Federal Charter 13044, but the fact remains that NationsBank was the buyer. The beginning of the article is contradictory as well. It starts off by saying that Bank of America was known as NationsBank before the merger, and then suddenly dismisses that and lists BankAmerica's history instead. If we are going to have the companies history listed, then it needs to be accurate. If it causes any confusion having both, then remove BankAmerica's history to it's own page. The fact remains that the article as written is at the very least inaccurate and will need to be corrected. The solution is simple. As NationsBank was the buyer, add its history to the article... or remove BankAmerica's to a separate page. For a site such as wikipedia, accuracy MUST be preserved. Wintercoast 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

VOTE: FOR: I agree with Wintercoast. WikiDon, your examples are inappropriate; George W. Bush will never take over George H.W. Bush in a merger (or vice versa), Hudson's Bay Company still exists (though it doesn't govern much of Canada as it once did), and even if you assume the historical HBC is gone its successor is Canada, not England. (Historical HBC didn't give up control until the British Parliament added its territory to the then-Dominion of Canada in 1870.) Mbisanz, this article is NOT likely to expand that much as the 10% deposit cap restrains BofA's ability to make further acquisitions; if it expands greatly it'll be due to BofA criticism, not further mergers. (IMHO, big companies tend to draw an inordinate share of criticism; many other banks have the same faults as BofA, but you don't hear as much about them because they're not as big.)

Robertb-dc, your approach has led to all kinds of mini-articles on NationsBank predecessors (such as Commercial National Bank and American Commercial Bank) that have no apparent connection to NationsBank or BofA besides their inclusion in the "Bank of America legacy banks" category. (Edit: Link style edited to avoid adding this page to the category. --RBBrittain 12:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)) Though BofA predecessors with distinct histories (such as Barnett Bank and Citizens & Southern National Bank, ironically on the other side of the merger that turned North Carolina National Bank into NationsBank) should keep their separate articles, those that are only placekeepers (such as CNB and ACB) should become redirects to this article after NationsBank is merged here.

Though modern BofA has a polyglot history, its two most important predecessors are NationsBank (the taproot) followed by Giannini's BofA (not just for the name and history, but because Giannini was a pioneer of consumer banking). Those two histories belong here, along with certain elements of the Bank of Massachusetts-BankBoston-FleetBoston Financial history (since BofA now claims a founding date of 1784 from Bank of Massachusetts via Fleet), though the Fleet-related articles should remain separate. --RBBrittain 12:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing Merge Tag and Strong Vote Against Merge - I removed the merge tag which has been on this article since April 2007 (and has not been on the Nationsbank article since September 2007). Wikipedia has a precedent on writing articles on component corporations that have merged into other entities with railroads and airlines and even phone companies being notable examples. A similar example to this is Chemical Bank whose management did the big mergers with it changing its name to Chase to facilitate take overs. I'm getting ready to write a Boatsmen Bank article which has its own colorful history which probably would have been nuked if it were incorporated in the current big parent. Americasroof (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

NationsBank[edit]

I have a problem with this company, known as NationsBank until 1998, having the original Bank of America's history presented as it's own. It makes as much sense as saying that their history is that of Fleet, or MBNA, or any other bank they've acquired over the years. That said, I'm fine with leaving the story of the original BofA in this article, as long as it's made clear that the modern BofA's history is that of NationsBank. I've redone the intro to say just that. Rasi2290 17:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to split off the Bank of America history into a separate article, BankAmerica, and then merge in the information from the NationsBank article. Doing this will highlight the difference between the old Bank of America and the current Bank of America. janus657 13:51, 01 May 2007 (UTC)
If anything is to be done about having BankAmerica history on the Bank of America page, it should be separated out onto the BankAmerica page, but NationsBank history should not be combined. Rather, links to the two pages for the pre-1998 companies would be more appropriate. The sheer confusion of having NationsBank's history on the Bank of America page (when in fact BankAmerica was originally Bank of Italy then "Bank of America") would not clear up anything. I think having the post-1998 history of the combined (technically NationsBank, but not really) company on the Bank of America page is appropriate, with an explanation at the beginning of the section and links to NationsBank and BankAmerica. akendall(talk) 02:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, there's the obvious problem that BankAmerica redirects to Bank of America, so that would have to be fixed, with a disclaimer at the top of the BankAmerica page, saying "for the modern Bank of America, which was the result of the 1998 merger between BankAmerica and NationsBank, see Bank of America" akendall(talk) 02:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

One solution to some of this might be to have the part of this article that refers to the "old" Bank of America placed in an article titled "Bank of America NT&SA." This article can be the Bank of America "after" the merger, and start with a history section that specifies the merger and points to two separate articles, one for BofA, NT&SA and another for NationsBank for any prior history. Those articles should end with pointers here for a continuation of the companies after the merger. The same technique would apply to all of the other Banks that Nations/BofA has gobbled up as part of its history: SeaFirst, Barnett, Fleet, CountryWide, Merrill Lynch, etc. Each of these entities deserves their own record, and yet links need to exist to show proper flow. This kind of treatment would help a lot of readers to understand what has and is evolving in terms of corporate evolution and history. 98.234.94.177 (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Joe Van Steen Berkeley, CA

The history section is wrong[edit]

The Bank of America that exists today is not the California-based BankAmerica that the history section talks about. The Bank of America of today is the same bank as NationsBank, not BankAmerica, and the history section should reflect that. NationsBank bought BankAmerica—just like it bought Fleet, MBNA, etc.—then changed its name. I propose placing the BankAmerica history in its own article, then changing the history section of this article to reflect the history of NationsBank, the bank that is today known as Bank of America. In its current form, this article misleads the reader. --JHP 06:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There certainly is logic to what you are proposing. However, the average reader probably doesn't know the history of the bank. If it's done, then it should be clearly written (possibly twice, once near the beginning and one chronologically in the history) that B of A existed before as one of the largest banks in the country that was acquired by Nations Bank ...see history and link to separate article. Haveaquestion 15:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
A smaller company taking over a larger company then using the larger company name has happened before. Recently, America West Airlines took over US Airways and took the US Airways name. However, instead of having the US Airways article show the history of America West before the merger and then the current history, it shows the old US Airways/Allegheny history. Haveaquestion 16:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
NationsBank was not the smaller company, but the larger. By the time the buyout/merger occured, both NationsBank and First Union were larger, being first and second respectively. BankAmerica was the third largest bank at the time. I am disturbed that the article ignores fact and presents BankAmerica's history instead of NationsBank. This is not due to my being pro-NationsBank, rather it is because Wikipedia's intergrity must be preserved and the article as currently written is simply wrong.Wintercoast 00:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, there are multiple measures regarding smaller and larger, including deposits, Shareholder$$ & Book Value, number of households served, number of account-holders, etc.
Furthermore, there is the matter of continuity of the name of the entity. Consider what it takes to describe the Capital of The United States of America. The other cities were not physically moved to Washington, DC.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and hence someone reading a history of the name Bank of America should be able to start with the California entity and then flow into the North Carolina-based entity, albeit with the option of following hyperlinks to the NationsBank (pre-merger) entity's history. Trink24 (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FDIC insured or not[edit]

Are consumer checking and/or savings accounts FDIC-insured or not? The BoA website does not say that it is NOT FDIC insured. Can we add this information to the article? Do you have any credible source that I can use? --KushalClick me! write to me 15:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are insured. At the bottom of their web pages is the statement "Bank of America, N.A. Member FDIC.". 66.24.34.51 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


I believe the "not FDIC insured" notice is for the BancofAmerica/Merryl Lynch securities services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.131.203 (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

User "138.23.89.187" clearly has a beef against BofA - just reverted a load of silly edits. Strongly suggest someone blocks him before he does it again. Psidogretro (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


--Uatemyfish (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Bank of America WikiProject[edit]

Because of the edit war involving the ABN AMRO article, I am proposing a WikiProject for Bank of America and related articles including Bank of America legacy banks and financial institutions which sold operations to Bank of America including ABN AMRO. This way, all editors who closely monitor Bank of America and related articles can nip edit wars in the bud. What do you think?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelbeard1 (talkcontribs) 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I will join, but lack of free time has restricted my Wikipedia contributions lately.
--JKeene (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I got the WikiProject started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bank of America. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Military Branches?[edit]

Is there any information to put out on Military BofA? Dchagwood (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The first BoA[edit]

There was another New York based Bank of America, founded in 1812, later acquired by Transamerica in 1930. After Transamerica relinquished it, it was merged into National City, which later became Citibank. [1] A short disambiguation section would make things less confusing. Zipzipzip (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  • That should be "purchased by", not "merged into". Zipzipzip (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, this first BOA was the offspring of the 'First National Bank of the United States' founded by Alexander Hamilton. Looks like some history is being lost here without an appropriate disamb section! (See: this)

Include the federal bailout[edit]

Someone is probably intentially not including the TARP bailout information to make the article look good and positive, that is POV. 97.118.115.198 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Revenue, net income, total assets?[edit]

Acording to company's official data, link found on BoA page, (page two), the revenue is $73,9 billion, net income $4 billion, and total assets: $1.8 trillion. So, the data in the article seems very bugged. In 2007 the net income is indeed $14 billion, but the revenue is also half of the number in the article: $68,5 billion. Am I missing anyting? Ark25 (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section[edit]

What's to be done with the controversy section? It had grown out of proportion to the article and was separated into it's own article which has now been deleted as a soapbox. The current subsection is disorganized and doesn't read well. I'm not sure that it's necessarily encyclopedic to begin with, and perhaps should be deleted. After all, most articles about corporations do not include controversy sections. If we do choose to include a controversy section it should be kept simple and not grow to the size of the independent article. What does everyone think? Stile4aly (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the section could use some reorganizing and some cleanup. The criticisms referencing TARP could easily be incorporated into the "Federal bailout" section of the article; the quote from Virginia Hammerness isn't particularly notable and could be removed as it's just soapboxing; and the coal mining issue appears to have been resolved and is no longer an open criticism. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
BofA stated they would not, in the future, do MTR, but they still finance coal. The controversy is still active and not resolved. rkmlai (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a section about their "biggest check first" and other scams they pull, but shills for the bank have deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.100.233 (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Their actions have been outrageous enough to spur Congress into action. If the House, the Senate, and the President all think your practices are controversial, they obviously are. Redacting the controversies makes this an advertisement. Don't Be Evil (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If by "biggest check first" (above) the focus is on the practice of clearing one's rent/mortgage check before a group of other checks (e.g. utility and other bills), attacking B of A is, as of this comment/date, pointless, since other banks are now doing the same. Trink24 (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Controversy Section II[edit]

I am very concerned with this section. It's entirely uncited, apparently unsourced and sounds a lot like original research to me. Unless coverage of the stated controversies can be found, I say it's out. Vicenarian (T · C) 01:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be verifiable journalistic citations to back up the edits. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I would be happy to see it disappear entirely as sections on "controversy" tend not to exist on entries about other corporations. The issue is that historically it had been on the article where it grew to a disproportionate size, then extracted to its own article which was then deleted as a coat rack, and now reinserted at a greatly reduced scope into this article. Stile4aly (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The individual foreclosures need to be expanded. These were significant events and each event needs to be expanded upon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimblorski (talkcontribs) 08:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

BA Continuum Solutions Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

I wish to create an unbiased wikipage for BA Continuum Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which is a non-subsidiary branch of Bank of America and link it to the article of Bank of America. So what should I do for it? NiluKush (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

BofA "changed banking history"[edit]

I heard about the way BofA started lending money to "the working man" & farmers which had never been done before & it "changed history." Up until that time very few people could get loans because they assumed "the working man" wouldn't repay a loan. Could someone provide info on that in this article? Stars4change (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes no sense to change crap around!!! Leave it as it is, we do not need to split up the Merrill Lynch section...

I agree with the part after the above exclamation points, per what I noted below. Hence, for now, am removing the (month old) suggestion to split out (Forced or unForced) Acquisition by Bank of America of Merrill Lynch. Trink24 (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Forced" Acquisition[edit]

I am removing the Forced from the title of the Acquisition of Merrill Lynch section. While it is widely speculated that BofA was pressured or "forced" to buy ML, it has never been established as a fact, and therefore the use of forced is not correct and implies a certain POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.214.194 (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"An offer he couldn't refuse" by William D. Cohan, Atlantic Magazine, Sept. 2009, is more than merely "widely speculated" and, depending on how one reads the article, the word FORCED may be appropriate - later on, when more details surface, if not now. As for making a separate article about the Merrill Lynch acquisition, time will tell if this is just another part of the long history of the entity known as Bank of America. For now, my vote is Leave It Alone, a separate article is not needed, since otherwise there would be 2 places to make edits (the B-of-A article's summary and the stand-alone article). Trink24 (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Early BofA History[edit]

Your history states that Mr. Giannini was able to get his money out of his vault when the earthquake hit. I grew up with BofA in the 1950s & what I was told was that Mr. Giannini was a pioneer in "branch banking". Where other banks at the time of the quake had only one offices, he already had branches throughout the Bay Area serving the Italian community. His bank, like the other banks when the quake hit, could not immediately reach the money in the vault, but he sent riders to his other branches & had cash couriered into the city. He set a table up on the street corner outside his crumbled bank & began lending to people to rebuild, whereas other banks had to wait days to get into their vaults. It earned him the gratitude & loyalty of many San Franciscans. I was also told that he renamed the Bank of Italy to Bank of America as a result of Mussolini's rise to power in Italy. ----Bob Fraas, Vista CA

Above was posted at WT:Talk page guidelines. I have moved it from there to here in case anyone can investigate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a former BofA employee (1970-2005) and generally remember the same history cited by Bob Fraas. I believe there is a book titled "Biography of a Bank" which details this and other stories. It is also my impression that Giannini changed the name of the bank from Bank of Italy, its original name, to Bank of America as a result of buying another small California bank which had that name. He wanted the name in his efforts to compete with the major banks in New York. His desire was to extend his brand and form of branch banking for the little guy across the country. That I believe was his motivation. Bank of America continued to own and use the Bank of Italy name in Italy in the 1970s until that entity was forced to be sold to raise cash during som of the troubles of the 1980s (or so I thought). There are a number of other areas where there is a rich history of the "old" Bank of America that are not part of this article. Introduction of TimePlan Loans for little people, development and marketing of the BankAmericard which evolved into today's VISA, sponsorship and co-development of Magnetic Ink Character Recognition (MICR) on checks which is recognized in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institute, etc. These types of things are the reason this article should NOT be merged with the NationsBank article, but the history of the former BofA, NT&SA should stand on its own. 98.234.94.177 (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Joe Van Steen, Berkeley, CA

The problem with "Biography of a Bank" is that it was a PR piece built around the fallacy that Giannini created the BoA out of his business ability, which is not 100% true. These types of works seldom are because they are funded by the corporation and driven by marketing. BoA was the result of a merger between Giannini's Bank of Italy and the Bank of America, Los Angeles, which was built up by Orra E. Monnette. The two met in 1928 and after dicussing their shared sentiments that given the state of the American Economy that a regional bank holding corp would be on firmer footing if the markets fluxuated. But Monnette had something that Giannini felt was essential to banking growth - an advanced and secured branch banking system with centralized functions - far superior to anything that BoI had. And Monnette's BoA LA system covered most of Los Angeles County, which was a huge area even then. The main reason why so much is known of Giannini and not Monnette is that Monnette died in 1936 when he was in semi-retirement from banking. And history is written by those who out survive the others. Sjkoblentz (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

At 7:00pm (Feb 24th) I added the following criticism section to Bank of America:

"In 2010, Bank of America was criticized in a viral youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGC1mCS4OVo) for raising interest rates to customers up to a 30% APR for no reason. Another video by a former employee of Bank of America criticized its fee and recovery practices (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5E0WNO7e_Q), detailing the banks efforts to keep low-income customers from repaying fees or from leaving the bank. The former employee, Jackie Ramos, was recently featured on the Dailyshow with Jon Stewart (Feb 23, 2010)."

It has adequate referencing to original sources, and no superfluous information. If Wikipedia's policy of public knowledge holds, where is this section? If it was placed on a "Bank of America Controversy page" then where is this article? A search in Wikipedia revealed no such page. If a 'criticism' section does not appear in the BoA article, there should be a link at the top of BoA article to a BoA controversy page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.92.99 (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Two people making YouTube videos, even if one of them later appears on a television comedy/political satire show, hardly rise to the level of a substantial controversy ("criticism" sections, BTW, are discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines) important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. There is some accuracy in the edit summary comment that the article currently reads like a BofA press release, but adding farcical pop-culture "criticisms" is not the way to improve. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

These two videos have a combined viewer count of over 750,000. I would hardly call this a marginal controversy. To your earlier claims, note that most major companies have criticism in their Wikipedia pages: McDonalds, Walmart, etc. The Bank of America page has not one single critical comment. Your view that 'criticism' sections are discouraged is flatly wrong. Generally, the word "reception" is preferred, but Wikipedia has guidelines for criticsm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism). To quote Wikipedia's guidelines:

"These sections must not be used to hide or marginalize negative views by separating them from the relevant sections of the article. They also must not imply that the criticism section is in any way less important or less truthful than the rest of the article."

The events that Jackie Ramos and Ann Minch went through were actual events, not "farce", and widespread enough to appear in the public media. This places their stories in the category valid criticism. On March 1st, I changed the criticism section as follows to be more factually based, with dates, removal of opinion, and multiple references to news articles:

"In Feb 2008, Bank of America began doubling interest rates to as high as 28% without reason. While BoA has the right to increase its rates, it has come under criticism for raising rates on customers in good standing, and for declined to say why it has done so.[1]

In Oct 2009, Ann Minch posted a youtube video (500,000+ views) describing how Bank of America increased her rate to 30% despite her regular payments, and despite being in good standing. She demanded that BoA lower her rate, and was subsequently contacted by management who lowered her rate to 12%. Her story has appeared in CNN Money, ABC News and the Huffington post.[2][3][4]

In Nov 2009, employee Jackie Ramos was fired from BoA for attempting to help customers. In a widespread youtube video (250,000+ views), she describes Bank of America's practices which led to her being fired, including waiving fees for desparate families. Her story has appeared in major news networks [5], and on the Dailyshow. [6]"

As of March 1st, 2010, Fat&Happy has again deleted this section for Bank of America, and there is still no separate controversy page for BoA.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.92.99 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really quite sure what the issue is here. You posted something, Fat&Happy removed it saying it was unsourced/unreliable (it was). You rewrote the section (much better) and Fat&Happy edited it and made it even better. Nothing has happened in the more than 5 hours since then (except for requesting this third opinion), so I don't think there is actually a dispute here. The wiki has worked out the way it is supposed to! ~ Amory (utc) 05:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Amory, i didn't notice the heading was changed to "Consumer credit controversies", and to Fat&Happy for current edits.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.92.99 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have pretty massively edited the section down. Most of my edits were attempts to neutralize the section, as some of the language was a bit pointed. I also added a source to the first story to try to support it; it was (and maybe still is) a little bit WP:UNDUE. Most noticeably, I removed the entire third paragraph because the Huffington Post is essentially a blog and therefore not reliable. That entire portion was sourced solely on HP, so definitely could not stand. I'm not wild about it, and there's probably a great way to incorporate it all into the rest of the article instead of a stand-alone section, but it is improved. ~ Amory (utc) 05:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To Amory, your recent edits are worse than what was there. Both less informative, with important details removed. Wikipedia does not need the story of Jackie Ramos to be neutral, most news is noteworthy because it is not neutral, it must only refer to the sources and say that "it is noteworthy" and why. You have removed it altogether. By the way, the Huffington Post has 1.4 million viewers, 60 paid editors, financial backing, and a physical location. Read the entire BofA article. Would you claim that the Bank of America site itself is neutral?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.92.99 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When I say neutral I don't mean neutral toward BofA, I mean neutral toward how we present it. Saying things like "without reason," while sort-of true, sounds to the reader like the article is expressing a bit of an opinion, no? There's also no real need afaics to rehash the video's specifics - saying it criticized them for raising the rate is appropriate enough. And yes, I'm aware lots of people read the Huffington Post, but that's because it is a good way to get news. So is pretty much any blog that lists news items. I would say the huff is fine when accompanied by other sources (like it is in the section currently) but by itself? It stands a little weak, especially as the majority of the content was actually about the huff's coverage. That isn't particularly worthwhile to note, and certainly not by sourcing links back to them. It would be like sourcing the claim that Fox News is the most trusted news source in America to Fox News, rather than the recent article showing it is the most watched. ~ Amory (utc) 15:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
There's a certain ironic humor developing in this thread.
(Including that this was written before your response above.)
I can't seriously dispute the claim of undue weight applied to the section as I last edited it, but I am left wondering – for a major international corporation such as BofA, what sort of criticism or controversy, short of 61 Senators and 218 Representatives denouncing an action, would be eligible for a couple of paragraphs in Wikipedia without being proclaimed as "undue"? Certainly very few things would have a significant effect on their operations. In addition to being "to large to fail", are these companies – and not just financial ones – also now "to large to be meaningfully criticized"?
Some of the language may have been "pointed", but I think it in most cases fairly summarized the statements of the BofA critics rather than giving the claims editorial support (Added after: I agree on "without reason"; that one bothered me but I didn't bother to change it). To say Minch criticized the bank and got her rate lowered seems to be downplaying the event somewhat. Her threats and call to action, and the bank's swift reaction, seem relevant to the story. She has made several follow-up videos, and is attempting to start a "Debtors' Revolt" movement, even marketing T-shirts through Cafepress. Will she be successful? Probably not; I doubt we will see bank buildings besieged by peasants waving torches and pitchforks. And I left out that follow-up as being, in my mind, "undue". But the issue seems to deserve more than one sentence.
The Huffington Post is probably not a reliable source for many things; it is a reliable source for its own actions and columns. The deleted third paragraph, as rewritten, dealt with the reactions of one of their columnists, which I contend is as valid as a discussion of a controversy raised by The New Republic or the National Review. Omitting a link to Jackie Ramos' actual video to verify what she said may have been a mistake. One of the HuffPost links was to a video clip from The Daily Show – this does not require HuffPost to be reliable, only that we assume their lawyers were smart enough to get copyright approval.
And yes, one of my original objections was the segregation of this information in its own section. But the current structure – which I agree with the anon editor looks as though it could have been lifted intact from an annual report – didn't seem to have any place where it belonged. I thought about the "Federal bailout" section, since that seems to have fueled much of the current anger and controversy, but the specific connection was tenuous. The "Consumer" section seemed possible, but it is mostly a discussion of bank structure, not their consumer policies. So yeah, separate section.
Thoughts?
Fat&Happy (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's odd that there is no criticism or controversy section in this article (in response to your Request for comment). It makes the article look like a puff piece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery#Puff_piece. Here are some refs on various BOA controversies:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/23/eveningnews/main5333442.shtml
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123922365800702453.html
http://www.mainstreet.com/slideshow/moneyinvesting/news/bank-america-s-angry-customers
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/angry_about_27.99_credit_card_interest_attorney_refuses_to_pay--and_threate/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i_EgKFW-QSQqyefysdHEurErXIFQD9EGLJOO0 Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Parmalat controversy[edit]

Why is there no info at all about Bondi v. BoFA? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3724540.stm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.176.20 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a stab at it Ottawahitech (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Corporate history 1930-1950??[edit]

Why is there no history for BofA for this important era which includes the Great Depression and the Second World War? I cannot even turn up such information on Google though the entity has undergone such transformations I may need to be searching under a different name I am not familiar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.158.58 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The suicide of Kevin Flanagan[edit]

The same edit I made twice was reverted by the same wikipedian, each time using s different rationale for the reversion. I believe my third edit should stay put? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume that? This is poorly sourced, and has no demonstrated importance in the overall picture of Bank of America. So-called "controversy" sections are not a vehicle for piling on any local criticism of the article's subject that an editor wants to just throw out there. Where are the reliable sources showing this was a major controversy or had a real impact in any way on this multi-billion dollar international organization? The incident happened eight years ago; where are the reliable sources indicating any lasting impact of encyclopedic importance? Adding it in its current form is totally undue weight. I'd like to see some explanation and a consensus among editors that this should be added, not a brute force attempt to push it in. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree - but one person is not consensus Ottawahitech (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
First you said my addition was unsourced
Then you said it was trivial
Now you say it is “poorly sourced, and has no demonstrated importance in the overall picture”
So which one would you like me to refute? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, that depends. If you repost without any sources, as was initially done, then the "unsourced" would again reply; that one is pretty much irrefutable. If you continue to post content that is not even supported by the one apparent blog referenced, it continues to be "poorly sourced". And since nothing presented indicates that, in the eight years since it happened, Bank of America has been affected in any way by this one of several thousand suicides that occur every year, it continues to be undue weight given to trivia having no demonstrated importance in the overall picture of the bank. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Fat&Happy. Any lawyer working in employment law can tell you that U.S. case law reporters are overflowing with cases of employees who commit bizarre and desperate acts every day as a result of U.S. immigration policy. Flanagan was a mere statistic, nothing special. If his case should be mentioned at all on Wikipedia, it needs to be in an article on the effects of U.S. immigration policy, not here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Calling a person “a mere statistic” is, in my opinion, not a way to start this discussion. Why not read this Contra Costa Times story about how Kevin Flanagan’s death affected his father before we continue this discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Send his father a (somewhat belated) sympathy card and make a contribution in his honor to a suicide-prevention organization, or an isolationist cause; don't try to coatrack a mention into an article where he is "a mere statistic". Fat&Happy (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Concur again in full. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

Would it not be suitable to start the article with something hidden in the article? "Bank of America, N.A is a nationally chartered bank, regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury"

Bank of America does not follow state banking regulations, such as some of the overdraft protection components that states have adopted. State department of banking offices that regulate smaller banks are responsible to answer and field questions regarding banks but not nationally chartered ones like BOA.

From personal experience the office of the comptroller is either very slow at fielding complaints/questions or doesn't bother with them at all. It appears to me this would be more valuable in the article than to be tucked away. Woods01 (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I wonder if the article Bank regulation in the United States may help? BTW I also don't like the current bofa introduction Ottawahitech (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The current article structure is fine, because the article is focusing on the bank holding company, not the bank. Also, OCC has major problems with responsiveness to customer complaints, but that's an issue common to all OCC-regulated banks which should be discussed in the article on OCC, not in this article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this article about a bank or about a holding company?[edit]

See previous discussion: Talk:Bank_of_America#Introduction Ottawahitech (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating question. It appears, whether by design or uncontrolled expansion, to be about the holding company at this time, though much of the history and some of the controversies clearly pertain to the bank. It shares this split personality with the Wells Fargo article; on the other hand, Citigroup/Citibank and JPMorgan Chase/Chase (bank) are each divided into separate articles for each entity. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the above if this is to be the article of the Bank of America "holding company" then it's going to warrant it's own article and separate the (bank) from the holding company. Or perhaps breaking the article up into sections. Bank of America (Holdings) Banc of America (Investments) etc.... You cannot have it both ways with on the one hand saying it's for the holding company and on the other it's for the "banking". The raw numbers reflect the banking aspects of Bank of America. Woods01 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Fat and Happy's incisive analysis of the current situation and with Woods01's suggestion that the article should be split. After further reflection, I agree that the holding company and bank are probably separately notable enough in their own right so as to warrant separate articles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

the merger of Nationsbank and Bank of America depiction is incorrect.[edit]

Bank of America was sold to NationsBank well before the DE Shaw issues. Bank of America had only the year before proposed merging with NationsBank and they had agreed on redomiciling the headquarter in Washington. At the time of the merger, NationsBank was the acquirer and assumed all senior roles in the company, save President, was significantly more more profitable, had a more diverse revenue stream (other than foreign, for which BoA had lost money for 5 straight years with a disjointed strategy) and was slightly larger by assets. As was typically the case throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, the acquirer often times adopted the name of the acquired to curry favor with the target board and also because the target company was typically an older, sleepier firm whose name was just more known (First Union bought Wachovia, Chemical bought Chase took Chase then took JPMorgan, Norwest bought Wells Fargo, etc.)

The Russion bond crisis happened after the merger was announced yet NationsBank pushed for the completion of the merger. Shortly after the merger, within 60 days, losses in the BoA legacy portfolio, particularly the DE Shaw investment which should have been realized prior to the merger and losses in BoA's European banking operation where over $300MM of Russian bonds were purchased just prior to default, led to the immediate ouster of David Coulter from BoA. No senior legacy BoA people remained within 60 days of the "merger"

The real BoA story should be the story of NCNB, not a bank that lost its way and became irrelevant to an upstart run by Hugh McColl. Make this page about NCNB and make a side bar about how it got its name, and that would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.76.167 (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Would you or someone else here help me out? Is this the crisis you are alluding to: 1998 Russian financial crisis Ottawahitech (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction of events leading up to BOA in 1929/Removal of Bank of Italy history[edit]

I have removed the BOI information section, as that bank is covered in the Bank of Italy (USA) and does not need to be rehashed in this article.

I have also removed the coprotae Folklore that lead to the illusion that the formation of the Bank of America was a feat accomplished by Giannini alone, which is a piece of marketing folklore dreamt up by his biographers and by the bank's marketing men. The truth is, Giannini met with Bank of America, Los Angeles' President Orra E. Monnette, and the two found it advantagous to merge their corporate equals into what would be called The Bank of America. Prior to 1928 when the merger talk began, Monnette buil his self named Bank of America, Los Angeles up just as Giannini did, however Monnette's bank had the advantage of advanced branching systems that BoI never had until they acquired the Liberty Bank. Giannini needed Monnette's inventions in branch banking and that was the forward thrust of the merger. While Giannini remained the head of post merger BoA, Monnette was content to attend board meetings and continue heading up the Los Angeles Public Library system of which he was Board Chair. The story of the Italian immigrant working his way up is the story of America. But so is the story of a boy from Ohio who shrewdly parlayed his father's gold and silver strikes into banking, invented the modern bank model, and then spun that business model off to serve the largest public library system in the wetsern US. But neither man's story is sole and accurate story of what two banks merged, what the equal sides brought to the table, and what happened after they joined forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjkoblentz (talkcontribs) 20:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change - although if the problems with it can be resolved, then I would have no problem with it being reverted back again. The issue is that the original wording is sourced to multiple sources - although admittedly, only one or two of the existing sources in that section appear to meet the criteria of being a reliable source, the rest of the existing sources should simply be removed. Still, even with one or two good sources, it had better sourcing than the revised text which had no sourcing to support it.  :One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If better quality reliable sources can be found that supports the revised version, then those could be added to the revised text - thus resolving the verifiability issue. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Judge OKs $410M for Bank of America customers[edit]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/story/2011-11-07/bank-of-america-overdraft-settlement/51113170/1 Ottawahitech (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Bank of America Anonymous[edit]

Anonymous[edit]

On March 14, 2011, one or more members of the decentralized collective Anonymous began releasing emails it said were obtained from Bank of America. According to the group (along with recent federal investigations by State Attorneys General,[7] the New York Department of Finance,[8] and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)[9] the emails document "corruption and fraud" relating to the issue of "large scale and repeated" force placed insurance abuse accelerating home foreclosures and automobile repossessions nationwide.[10] The source, identified publicly as Brian Penny,[11] is a former LPI Specialist from Balboa Insurance, a firm which used to be owned by the bank, but was sold to Australian Reinsurance Company QBE, who subsequently branded the company QBE First in 2011[12] in order for the bank to obtain the funds necessary to pay back their Federal loans.[13] [14] [15] [16][17][18]

I would like to understand what why this article revision, which provides verifiable, cited, and thoroughly researched article continues being removed when it is cited thoroughly. Thank you kindly, Versability (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Current investigations of errors and business practices of BofA (and several other major banks) have nothing to do with anonymous.
  • Why BofA sold Balboa has nothing to do with anonymous.
  • What QBE did with Balboa after purchasing it has nothing to do with BofA.
Fat&Happy (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but the same information appears on an existing article about Anonymous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_involving_Anonymous#2011-2012_Operation_Empire_State_Rebellion

It was also connected through all various news sources, as well as within this blog:

http://thoughtforyourpenny.blogspot.com/2012/02/boy-who-cried-force-placed-insurance_29.html

Versability (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you added the same synthesized original research to another article doesn't justify adding it here.
Blogs are not reliable sources; if "it was also connected through all various news sources", cite them in the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So then why don't "you" as a "nonpartial" editor who "doesn't work for the bank" remove it from the Anonymous article as well? Otherwise, I'll ask "you" to please keep the sarcasm and allegations of synthesize to "yourself" and I will be happy to Versability (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(WikiMiniAtlas) Bank of America in the Himalayas[edit]

On the WikiMiniAtlas, right between Liushi Shan and Guozha Lake, there is a "Bank of America" marking. Can someone explain why it is there or preferably remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.8.81.92 (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

check[edit]

can I cash a check that is from bank of America if I don't have acct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.79.206 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ MSN Money, Bank of America blindsiding cardholders?. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/CreditCardSmarts/IsBankofAmericaBlindsidingCardholders.aspx
  2. ^ Woman Boycotts Bank of America, Wins. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/woman-boycotts-bank-america-wins/story?id=8688175
  3. ^ CNN Money, YouTube credit card rant gets results. http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/29/news/companies/youtube_bank_of_america/index.htm
  4. ^ Ann Minch Triumphs In Credit Card Fight. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/ann-minch-triumphs-in-cre_n_293423.html
  5. ^ Jackie Ramos, Bank of America Employee, Fired After Helping Customers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/jackie-ramos-bank-of-amer_n_381940.html
  6. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/24/jon-stewart-rips-banks-on_n_474826.html
  7. ^ Donovan, Shaun (15 February 2012). "Holding Banks Accountable". Huffington Post. Retrieved 1 March 2012. 
  8. ^ Woodruff, Mandi (11 January 2012). "BofA, Citigroup Are Rumored Targets Of A New York Insurance Fraud Probe Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-11/news/30615128_1_mortgage-servicers-citigroup-new-policy#ixzz1nrEx8OWa". Business Insider. Retrieved 1 March 2012. 
  9. ^ Aspan, Maria. "Wells Fargo and the Phantom Mortgage Settlement". americanbanker.com. Retrieved 1 March 2012. 
  10. ^ "Under Interrogation". American Banker. 27 January 2012. Retrieved 1 March 2012. 
  11. ^ Cynthia Koons, Dan Fitzpatrick. "Anonymous’ Perplexing Leak of Bank of America Documents". Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Retrieved 1 March 2012. 
  12. ^ "QBE Completes Acquisition of Balboa Insurance Co. Portfolio". Reuters. Reuters. Retrieved 1 March 2012. 
  13. ^ Michael, Smith (3 February 2011). "BofA sells insurance portfolio to Australia's QBE". Reuters. Retrieved 1 March 2012. 
  14. ^ "Hacker group plans BofA e-mail release Monday". Reuters. March 14, 2011. 
  15. ^ Rothacker, Rick (2011-03-14). "BofA might face another leak threat | CharlotteObserver.com & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper". Charlotteobserver.com. Retrieved 2011-11-03. 
  16. ^ "Hacker group Anonymous says it will release Bank of America emails". Herald Sun. 2011-03-14. Retrieved 2011-11-03. 
  17. ^ Katya Wachtel (2011-03-14). "Anonymous Hackers Release Trove Of Emails That Allegedly Show Bank Of America Committed Mortgage Fraud". Businessinsider.com. Retrieved 2011-11-03. 
  18. ^ "Corruption, fraud: Hackers plan to out Bank of America". The Sydney Morning Herald. March 14, 2011.