It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bank of America refuses to let customers close accounts

page: 6
78
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jason88
BOA absolutely has the right to make money, here's quote yesterday from their CEO: "He said that once BofA talks to customers and shareholders 'they’ll understand what we’re doing—understand we have a right to make a profit.' Moynihan also said that the Dodd-Frank Act cost the bank 'billions.'"

Video source: video.cnbc.com...

That said. The CEO is doing the job for which he was hired, to increase the bottom line, but BOA does no have a right to take as much as they are from hard working people.

banks have the right because we give them the right
if we dont use banks, they have no power
please join a credit union and take power away from the banks (info in my signature)




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by UniverSoul

Originally posted by Jason88
BOA absolutely has the right to make money, here's quote yesterday from their CEO: "He said that once BofA talks to customers and shareholders 'they’ll understand what we’re doing—understand we have a right to make a profit.' Moynihan also said that the Dodd-Frank Act cost the bank 'billions.'"

Video source: video.cnbc.com...

That said. The CEO is doing the job for which he was hired, to increase the bottom line, but BOA does no have a right to take as much as they are from hard working people.

banks have the right because we give them the right
if we dont use banks, they have no power
please join a credit union and take power away from the banks (info in my signature)


They have the right to make a profit, yes.
You have the right to not do business with them.

Go Credit Union all the way!!!



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


Before looking into credit unions (thanks, and I will look at your link), is there an instance of a global bank doing something good? Or is it all evil, all the time?
edit on 6-10-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


You claim that a bank can only make a profit off an account of $3000 or more. Not true. Many little bank accounts add up to a whole lot of money, and they speculate on Wall Street with ALL OF IT. Not only do they charge the little accounts monthly fees for just having the account, but they hammer you with unholy charges if you go over the amount in your account. Most people use debit cards now, and how convenient for the bank when you use your debit card and it goes through, even though you don't have enough. $35 per each overdraft. Add it all up, it's not peanuts. They could put a stop on the card so your purchase does not go through, but then they wouldn't get the extra fees. It's a racket.

All those "little people" with their small amounts of money add up to quite a bit, and when all those "little people" take their money out, the banks will squeal like the pigs that they are.

Bank of America will fail. TPTB have decided to throw them under the bus. When they fail, the other giant banks will swoop in like vultures and pick up their assets for pennies on the dollar. If you are a Bank of America account holder, take your money out NOW and help this diseased creature die already.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


Before looking into credit unions (thanks, and I will look at your link), is there an instance of a global bank doing something good? Or is it all evil, all the time?
edit on 6-10-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)

well i would consider 'good' to be all in the intent
and there would be very few examples of banks doing something that wasnt for monetary gain or publicity.
of course some small branches would do good stuff, but that doesnt represent the organistion they work for.

banks are only good if your taking out a loan that is going to pay for itself (even then credit unions are better)..in all other cases they are simply pointless and a waste of your hard earned money



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


very true..and guess what, they dont have the right to say anything about it

please spread the word where possible



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


ok so you still have to check. I know the regional bank that we use, and my step daughter opened an account at, well after no activity after so many days, below a certain amount they still put a fee on her. so you might want to check with the bank.
~~~~~ on other posts~~~
I know I've had personal experiences just like some of you on here, pending, overdraft charges because they "fixed" it that way. I have also been Lied to by the President of the Bank I was going to. it was 1:15 on a saturday, I along with a dozen others were trying to go thru the drive thru and they were Stopping us and saying that they closed at 1. I Asked when they started this cuz The last time i was there it was just before 2 and they were still open and this is the bank I've had for well over 10 years and done banking on saturday afternoons. He looked at me and said "we've always closed at 1 on saturdays" I just gave him an 'i'm no idiot, you're lying to me look' and told him "I find that funny since I had been there at 1:30 the other saturday.
well he asked what I needed to do,which was a deposit. offered to go ahead an do that for me. now I was a couple cars behind the one getting "taken care of" by the teller. I told him that He could tell me all day who he is but I didn't trust is word. so they kept the teller there and waited for me when I just threatened to take my business elsewhere, because of the problems I've had with them.
Banks are run by liars. no matter which one, you cant trust any.

as for Bank of A$$holes, well, I met my man over 2 years ago just before he was to leave for Afghanistan. well he was just getting thru his divorce. his exwife bought the house a month before he cam home from Iraq. thier house was going thru forclosure and she was already living with her new boyfriend, and My man was living with his friend. the day before he left after his furlow before leaving country he recieved papers from a third party that BoA had given his case to so as to help him keep his house. we agreed that Me and My child would stay in the house while he was gone so as to keep it in shape. I also sent the payments for said house. they cashed the First check, after that I kept sending checks for monthes that were never cashed. since then He has filled out the same paperwork for them at least 5 times. they haven't sent any info and now we don't know what is going on. they haven't called, we still recieve bills but have not paid for well over a year. there were a few times that they sent ppl to take pictures of the house to gauge the conditions, but nothing in the past 6 months at least. Figured if they weren't gonna cash the checks anyway, why bother wasting the stamp? I'm figuring that we stay here until they force us out. and when they do, First we're gonna ask to see the proof of their ownership of the property as they bought it from another party that went bankrupt. until then they can kiss it.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I found this info on google.

To close your account at Bank of America, you should just be able to walk into a branch, withdraw your funds, instruct the teller to close the account, and walk out a free man or woman with a cashier’s check or cash in hand. It’s not always quite this simple, however. California, Idaho, and Washington are the only states that let you close your account just by walking into a bank branch. Residents of all other states must follow a different process. Bank of America insists that most customers throughout the country — those living in the 47 states not mentioned — send a letter stating your desire for the bank to close your account and describing how the remaining funds should be distributed to you. For example, your letter might state that you want to receive your funds via check to an address you provide. The letter, including a signature from each account holder, must be sent to this address: Account Closure, FL1-300-02-07 4109 Gandy Blvd Tampa, FL 33611-3401



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17
I no longer have direct deposit so BofA started charging me $12 a month. Last week, I went to go close my account and they said there is free checking as long as I don't use the teller. Hmmmm... So my balance sits at $2.90.

Same thing happened at Union Bank. These banks will try hard to keep you as a customer.
It is one way to handle it.

But if they have a million customers with $2.90 sitting in their account that they never touch......
There's $2.9 million on their ledgers to show to regulators, which they can loan out $8.7 million against.....
To the people that will still bank with ( I mean get raped by ) them.
edit on 6-10-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bixxi3
I found this info on google.

To close your account at Bank of America, you should just be able to walk into a branch, withdraw your funds, instruct the teller to close the account, and walk out a free man or woman with a cashier’s check or cash in hand. It’s not always quite this simple, however. California, Idaho, and Washington are the only states that let you close your account just by walking into a bank branch. Residents of all other states must follow a different process. Bank of America insists that most customers throughout the country — those living in the 47 states not mentioned — send a letter stating your desire for the bank to close your account and describing how the remaining funds should be distributed to you. For example, your letter might state that you want to receive your funds via check to an address you provide. The letter, including a signature from each account holder, must be sent to this address: Account Closure, FL1-300-02-07 4109 Gandy Blvd Tampa, FL 33611-3401


Another reason why people should have dropped BoA a long time ago.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I use a small local bank. They only have about 6 locations and are family owned. They've been great for everything I've every needed or asked for. I've also used credit unions they are great as well. We had a situation with an insurance settlement where my husband's ex was to get half the settlement. Their bank would not process the check at all due to the way it was written. (made out to an estate. The settlement was due to a death). My credit union had no problem processing it so long as all members of the estate signed the check. They also immediately cut a check for the ex's half at the time of deposit of the check. They didn't even wait for it to clear.

As to the mortgage issue, we have had some issues as both of us have been laid off. I was laid off two years ago and tried to get my mortgage company to approve a loan modification. They declined for the very reasons that are supposed to qualify you. We did not buy more house than we could afford. However, life throws curves that you can't always anticipate. Even being laid off we managed to make the payments until this past summer. I asked the mortgage company to work with us and defer a couple of payment to the end of the loan so that we could get things back together. They refused. Their only options to help the noteholder is either foreclosure or short sale. I later found out that the loan modification program had a special section that required the lender to do the modification if the homeowner was unemployed. This lender was on the list of companies required to do the modification. So in my opinion they committed fraud by refusing to do the modification because I was on unemployment. Unfortunately, they didn't feel obligated to tell me about that part of the program and I wasn't educated/informed enough to know about it (my bad). I am now researching and pursuing the "produce the note". They don't have it. Their response to me was that they had "copies" of the note that I could review. They mailed me a copy of what they have. At the top it says "certified copy" signed by the mortgage company they bought it from. So apparently they never received the original wet ink note.

My note was one that was sold in the "bundles". Kinda surprised me because at the time my credit score was close to 800 and my husband's was too. I thought only the shady loans were being sold. I guess they had to bundle some good ones in too. Didn't find that out until I received the notice of acceleration. They refused to tell me who was the noteholder. This company is strictly a "servicing company" not a lender. They refuse to give you any way to contact the "investors".

BTW, I don't object to paying for my house. I'll be happy to do that with the entity that holds the "original" note. I read about a woman who lost her house to foreclosure and 2 months later was contacted by the "original" note holder wanting payment. So she now has no house, will be 1099ed for the balance from the foreclosing entity and still has to pay the original noteholder for a house she no longer has.

They make it extremely difficult to know all the details and twists/turns that can apply. They don't want you to pay the note. They would rather foreclose, stick you for the balance and then sell the house again so they can start the process all over.

Also, this isn't my first house. The last one was not only paid off when sold, at the time I was on schedule to pay it off in 18 years instead of 30. I'm not a deadbeat trying to get something for nothing. I just want an honest shot at taking care of business.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
banks are charging you money to use your own money....i actually have a 'check book'
for you younger crowd. they are little peices of paper that can be used as paymnet


whats the real reason you have money in a bank?? ever really thought about it? in this day and age where people are easily persueded to live via credit and outside of thier means, one needs a bank account. what do people buy with credit?? homes, cars, flat screen tvs, computers and even food and clothing....i know credit cards are not debit cards......banks are using your money for their own 'credit' so-to-speak and then want to charge you to acces your own money..cause you dont have any money..its sitting in a bank...how much cash do you have in your wallet?

this is want banks want..for the sheople to give them all their money and just like a little kid asking mom for an allowance, cept they are now gunna charge you for the convienence of them storing your money for you.

so when banks start to fail cause people are pulling thier money out..will the govt do another bailout



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by KySc5
 


I remember about a year or so ago, when I still listened to the Alex Jones show, Alex had said something about the Banks could now delay the withdrawal of your funds. It's been a while so I can't remember all the details - I've moved 3000 miles since then - but I do remember it was for situations like this. Loss of confidence, emergency situations.

Anyone else remember this? Or more importantly the particulars about this?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I use a local credit union. I don't trust the Bank of Italy I mean Bank of America.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Chai_An
 


If you saw the video posted yesterday of Congressman Dennis Kucinich speaking to OWS you will see that he mentions Fractional Reserve Banking.



What is Fractional Reserve Banking? Many on ATS no doubt understand this already, but for those of you who don't...

Well if you look it up, and I really don't like Wikipedia, but;

Wikipedia

So, Ish Kabibble deposits $10,000 in the bank owned by Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe. All of a sudden, the bank has $10,000 more dollars to lend out, right? No! Now the bank has $100,000 to lend out. How? Fractional Reserve Banking.

Some of you are saying this doesn't seem like a sound idea from a financial point of view, but the fact is that Fractional Reserve Banking has been with almost as long as banking has. So the bank now has $100,000 dollars in loans out and it is making money from the interest from these loans, but in reality they are gambling on Ish Kabibble not showing up for his $10,000. If he does though, that is fine, because they will just use Harry Chinwhisker's and Justin Case's money. I mean they have someones money on hand, and it makes little difference to them whose money is whose, as long as too many do not show up for their cash all at once. If too many do show up for their cash, the bankers will label it a "run" on the bank, and this is what the FDIC was put into place to avoid.

However, during the years preceding the bailout of 2008 there was a lot of printing of money going on so that George W. could finance his all important war(s) in the Mid East. In fact, the reason we left the Gold Standard was so that the Fed could produce money for the financial and business sector more easily; without the pesky Gold to back it.

Well, when money gets printed up like that, in that quantity, there is a surplus of the money supply. Money, untied from the Gold Standard becomes a commodity. We all understand that the more money printed, the less each dollar is worth, but the easier it is for the banks to get their hands on it. A bank does not make money from having money sitting in the vault, so they are anxious to lend it out. Enter the Sub-Prime mortgage scheme. Now I know we have all been indoctrinated to believe that it was these irresponsible borrowers who are guilty for the toxic assets bubble, but that lets the banker off the hook completely and unless these homeowners snuck into the bank in the middle of the night and drew up mortgage agreements for the money they "borrowed", a bank loan officer had to say ok. But he can't be to blame, he had a lot of money to lend out, what was he to do?

But there is another villain in all this which we have neglected to mention so far. During the Clinton Administration the Larry Summers gang decided to repeal the Glass-Steagell Act which was passed in 1933.

Glass-Steagall Act

SO, since the Great Depression Savings banks - for us - and Investment banks - for some of us but mostly them - were required to be two separate entities, but not anymore! Now the Investment banks were free to mingle at the party with the Personal Savings banks. Suddenly the Sub-Prime mortgages, which the bankers of course knew were dangerous investments, could be bundled together and traded - they were now a commodity. That's right, you got the home you thought you couldn't afford because it was a commodity.

What followed was a game of financial hot potato, and your Sub-Prime mortgage as the potato. The banks bundled them, put pressure on the credit rating folks to help them out and call them AAA investments so they could move them out quickly. These guys are no dummies.

And everyone wanted in on this new commodity, especially since the trusted rating service were saying these investments were sound. "Ahah! A new source for a new stream of income." So everyone jumped on board, and everything was peachy for a long while, until mortgage holders could not make the payments. Banks and financial institutions started to leverage.

Leverage is the ratio of cash on hand to loans outstanding. Under the model presented earlier the banks started at a leverage rate of 10:1, but as the financial crises grew worse the leverage rate climbed as high as 85:1. Why? Because the loans were not getting paid. A bank makes no money of a foreclosed home, and when it is eventually resold it is only for a fraction of what the original loan value was. It is better for the banks to leverage for a short while than to repossess and foreclose, however when the default of loans become widespread and long term, the banks are left with there leverage hanging out. Except in this case these toxic assets had been traded as AAA investments, which they obviously were not, which means that whoever was holding these hot potatoes at the end of the game was stuck.

So, Ish Kabibble, remember him? Well he deposits the same $10,000 in the bank, but under the banks leverage they are loaning out - in the case of 85:1 - $850,000. Fast forward to today. The leveraging is over, BoA wants to make more money because they are over leveraged, and under new owners - used to be owned by the Rothschilds through two consecutive Irish trusts - so they decide that they are going to charge $5.00 a month for having a debit card. They have already made a lot of people angry by charging non-depositors high percentages for cashing checks drawn on BoA. I have heard a lot of grumbling in my retail establishment over both of these. After a few days of grumbling and talking to their friends the depositors decide that they can close their account at BoA and go across the street to a local bank, just like I did. But if too many people make a "run" on the over leveraged bank (Well the leverage figures didn't just go away did they?) they are in trouble.

"How dare the depositors do that. After all we have done for them."

$1 in the vault equals, in the admittedly worst case scenario of 85:1 means that they are collecting interest on $85 worth of loans. $10,000 in the vault = $850,000 in loan interest. I do not know what the leverage figure is on BoA but if the Rothschilds sold it, you can bet your mortgage it is a lot higher that 10:1. Oh... You did bet you mortgage on them...

So depositors, just relax. You are involved in yet another Ponzi scheme, and this one is older than all the rest. But when the leverage rate gets this high, a bank run cannot be tolerated. The FDIC couldn't handle it at high leverage rates. So settle down and pay that $5.00 a month debit card fee and do your part to keep these bankers from having to go get jobs like the rest of us. (Sarcasm)

Yes we need to end the Federal Reserve Bank who makes this possible, and worse. But we also need to do away with Fractional Reserve Banking. It is actually a sort of reverse Usury.


Definition of USURY

1 archaic : interest

2 : the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates

3 : an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money


Usury

BTW sorry it took so long to join into this discussion. I am on the west coast.
edit on 6-10-2011 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2011 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2011 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skewed
There is a way around this. In reality, it does not really matter if the bank accounts get closed or not.

All the BOA customers have to do is just open an account at another bank, have direct deposit switched to the other bank and just quit using BOA. Use the ATM to withdraw all the money a little at time, depending on the balance of the account. Or write a cash check at the new bank and cash it in, thus removing all the money in the BOA account. Just empty the account, as long as there is no money in the account then BOA has no benefit of an empty account. Then tell them to stick any fees where the sun does not shine.



It might be wise also, in case you are not able to close the account, to write and send a letter (keep a copy for yourself, of course) indicating that your account should be closed, and why it was not closed through the avenue that was blocked. I think (though I'm no lawyer) that this should give you a certain legal coverage for not paying service fees on an active, yet empty account. (Since you probably agreed to those fees on some account setup agreement that has probably changed millions of times since you signed it.)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Banks have you by the balls! I assume the US is the same, roughly, as the UK. Here, you can't do anything now without a bank, you have to have a bank account! If you don't then you're either too young to need one, to broke to care about one, or too dead for both those reasons. That's of course if you want to live on the system. Almost every bank charges, Barclays charges me £14, I don't have an overdraft and I have a couple of grand going in every month, but they feel that they should still charge me, even though having a bank account is a necessary evil! They can do what they want with our money, what do they care! In the UK and US the BOE and Fed can just print loads more to give the banks once they mess up again and gamble it all away!

I'm going to sell up, withdraw all my money, buy a tent, canned food by the tonne, a shotgun, a few thousand shells and go live in the wild...until the council take me down! It's the way forward, the current way just keeps going backwards!



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
It seems the S is hitting the fan in slow motion...



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave
Well, I see this from two angles.

They should have let them close their accounts if you ask me, but BoA clearly does not give a damn anymore about their customers.


By law, the bank has to notify the customer of any changes in account rules in advance of those changes, so that the customer can close his account if he disagrees with the change in terms. I'm not sure what the number of days is, that the bank must give notice. This notice must be mailed and postmarked I think 30 days before new terms take effect. So, the bank cannot hold your funds "AND" charge you new fees. Under certain circumstances, the bank may deny withdrawals for a period of time, to avoid a run on the bank, but it can't impose any new fees or terms during that exceptional period.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 

Can I ask what bank you work for? The bail out was a fiasco that never should have happened. There should be no such thing as "too big to fail". They should have went bankrupt and been split into smaller, regional banks. Mega banks and international mega corporations are sounding the death knell of this country. They own dear leader and most of congress and the courts.


I am against the bailouts. I completely agree with you.

No, I don't work for a bank. BUT if I worked for a bank, and the government offered me a bailout, I would probably be desperate enough to take it.

Again....blame the government, not the banks.



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join