Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Stunning Number: Big Banks set to lose 70,000 accounts today

page: 4
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Riffrafter
 


Ya, know...I have a hunch that the mainstream media purposely underestimated the number of accounts lost by Banks today.

Imagine if that number was in 6 figures, or even 7 figures! That would certainly wreck havoc on the stock market on Monday alright!





posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AzureSky
 


Big numbers. But we can add this from October showing more moved their money in this month than in all of year 2010.:



The Credit Union National Association says an estimated 650,000 Americans have opened new accounts at credit unions since Sept. 29, the day Bank of America announced its wildly unpopular debit card fee. By way of comparison, credit unions only had 600,000 new customers open accounts in all of 2010.

moneyland.time.com...

So, we may see 1 million or more bank transfers before November ends. That is a HUGE chunk of money being moved.

I just went back and saw that this has already been brought up. Sorry for the duplicate. Worth repeating, though. when we see that we aren't just talking about accounts holding $1000 or even $10,000, but hundreds of thousands, such as this successful entrepreneur;


Mike Fox Sr., a beer magnate and well-known philanthropist, is set to announce Friday that he is divesting his long-held personal Bank of America account, which contains several hundred thousand dollars, in an effort to promote social and economic justice.


www.mercurynews.com...
edit on 5-11-2011 by earth2mayavision because: Addeed Mike Fox piece
edit on 5-11-2011 by earth2mayavision because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Local banks are where its at. You get way better customer service, far beyond what some major bank will ever give you. Most of them have everything a regular person needs, free checking, online bill pay, online statements, and so forth. Some of them even have Android and iPhone apps.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I liked this idea a whole lot more before I saw Van Jones name attached to it


FWIW, I keep savings in the credit union, and have for several years....I like my money kept a little closer to me than a mega bank. Also, credit unions actual give some interest on their shares

But, I've kept my checking account at the same bank for more years than I care to remember, when it WAS a small local bank.
I have the same account number, it feels comfortable. I keep enough money in it to pay my bills online.

I like the fact that I did this before it became chic and part of a movement.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 





I liked this idea a whole lot more before I saw Van Jones name attached to it


He is just one of many. Turns out that the 70K number is just a drop in the bucket. Sauron posted a link that shows that 650,000 accounts have already fled the big banks thru October. When they add in the numbers thru today I bet it's going to be a lot higher than that

I think the next few weeks will prove to be very interesting indeed....



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Numb2itall
 


I cant remember the exact figures, 45% increase in new money or new members. Either way, the credit union that has new money or new members shouldn't have to charge additional fees to handle it's new accounts. The new money from the new accounts earn it way more income than it had before.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Most of these accounts that are going to move from the big mega-banks to small credit unions have paltry deposits and don't earn much profit for the mega-banks.

Do the math. 70,000? That's a mere 1,400 accounts per state, not taking into account population concentrations. It's a drop in the bucket.

At the same time, when businesses reach a certain size, they are ultimately forced to bank with the mega-banks because only the mega-banks have the sophisticated technology, experienced personnel, and geographic footprint to adequately serve these growing, larger corporations.

So, while you might have 1,000 individuals move their paltry $1,000 to a credit union, a big business that needs a mega-bank will deposit upwards of $5-10 million or more in new deposits into one of the mega-banks.

Remember, deposits fluctuate and are not static. While the mega-banks shed consumer accounts, they are acquiring new business bank deposits at the same time.

Credit unions and even many regional banks cannot handle the banking needs of large corporations. This is where the mega-banks make their money - Banking large, Fortune 500 companies. The consumer deposits help, yes, but they aren't nearly as profitable.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Did you read any of the thread or the article? The bank transfer op was a month long operation. The 70,000 is for ONE day. 650,000 new credit unions have been opened in the last month (more than were opened the entire 2010 year). The article in Times tries to correlate that with the BofA swipe fee, but that is BS and we all know it (I highly doubt all 650,000 were BofA customers). It is really the bank transfer day that caused this.

So yeah, your new number to play with is 650,000 in a month.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Most of these accounts that are going to move from the big mega-banks to small credit unions have paltry deposits and don't earn much profit for the mega-banks.

Do the math. 70,000? That's a mere 1,400 accounts per state, not taking into account population concentrations. It's a drop in the bucket.

At the same time, when businesses reach a certain size, they are ultimately forced to bank with the mega-banks because only the mega-banks have the sophisticated technology, experienced personnel, and geographic footprint to adequately serve these growing, larger corporations.

So, while you might have 1,000 individuals move their paltry $1,000 to a credit union, a big business that needs a mega-bank will deposit upwards of $5-10 million or more in new deposits into one of the mega-banks.

Remember, deposits fluctuate and are not static. While the mega-banks shed consumer accounts, they are acquiring new business bank deposits at the same time.

Credit unions and even many regional banks cannot handle the banking needs of large corporations. This is where the mega-banks make their money - Banking large, Fortune 500 companies. The consumer deposits help, yes, but they aren't nearly as profitable.

It irks me to acknowledge this, but you're right. Still, this private grass roots movement will hopefully force the banks deemed "too big to fail" to second-think that they don't have a free pass with the public anymore.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Most of these accounts that are going to move from the big mega-banks to small credit unions have paltry deposits and don't earn much profit for the mega-banks.

Do the math. 70,000? That's a mere 1,400 accounts per state, not taking into account population concentrations. It's a drop in the bucket.

At the same time, when businesses reach a certain size, they are ultimately forced to bank with the mega-banks because only the mega-banks have the sophisticated technology, experienced personnel, and geographic footprint to adequately serve these growing, larger corporations.

So, while you might have 1,000 individuals move their paltry $1,000 to a credit union, a big business that needs a mega-bank will deposit upwards of $5-10 million or more in new deposits into one of the mega-banks.

Remember, deposits fluctuate and are not static. While the mega-banks shed consumer accounts, they are acquiring new business bank deposits at the same time.

Credit unions and even many regional banks cannot handle the banking needs of large corporations. This is where the mega-banks make their money - Banking large, Fortune 500 companies. The consumer deposits help, yes, but they aren't nearly as profitable.


starred

The people at OWS are chronic homeless, drug pushers, prostitutes and the mentally infirm (for the most part, not entirely), not - as a general rule - the mainstream of society. If the 70,000 who have pledged actually carry through you're probably looking at a couple hundred million spread out over a dozen or so banks. If it was tne times that number - 700,000 - it would still be fairly irrelevant.

I've never banked at a commercial bank and have only used credit unions. If people are so dumb to have ever started banking at a BoA or a Wells Fargo or a Chase (who gave Obama $1 million in donations in 2008) then, really, this is not a group that has the intelligence or attention span to fashion a long-sustaining movement.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
It would be good to close the banks but the people running them will just go back to their mansions and say, oh well, fun while it lasted.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtticusRye

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Most of these accounts that are going to move from the big mega-banks to small credit unions have paltry deposits and don't earn much profit for the mega-banks.

Do the math. 70,000? That's a mere 1,400 accounts per state, not taking into account population concentrations. It's a drop in the bucket.

At the same time, when businesses reach a certain size, they are ultimately forced to bank with the mega-banks because only the mega-banks have the sophisticated technology, experienced personnel, and geographic footprint to adequately serve these growing, larger corporations.

So, while you might have 1,000 individuals move their paltry $1,000 to a credit union, a big business that needs a mega-bank will deposit upwards of $5-10 million or more in new deposits into one of the mega-banks.

Remember, deposits fluctuate and are not static. While the mega-banks shed consumer accounts, they are acquiring new business bank deposits at the same time.

Credit unions and even many regional banks cannot handle the banking needs of large corporations. This is where the mega-banks make their money - Banking large, Fortune 500 companies. The consumer deposits help, yes, but they aren't nearly as profitable.


starred

The people at OWS are chronic homeless, drug pushers, prostitutes and the mentally infirm (for the most part, not entirely), not - as a general rule - the mainstream of society. If the 70,000 who have pledged actually carry through you're probably looking at a couple hundred million spread out over a dozen or so banks. If it was tne times that number - 700,000 - it would still be fairly irrelevant.

I've never banked at a commercial bank and have only used credit unions. If people are so dumb to have ever started banking at a BoA or a Wells Fargo or a Chase (who gave Obama $1 million in donations in 2008) then, really, this is not a group that has the intelligence or attention span to fashion a long-sustaining movement.


Wow...the chronically homeless, drug pushers, prostitutes, and mentally infirm. Really??? You're certain? I guess you've actually gone to the OWS camps and witnessed this for yourself personally, right? If not, don't make assumptions based on "facts" that you are apparently lacking. Please...
I was employed at MIT for 33 years. That is, until it decided to embrace the corporate "profits foremost" mindset and laid me off with no warning. Apparently my salary was suddenly too high to maintain for their bottom line. My option was to "retire", rather than to re-enter the job market and compete with people half my age, with far less experience than I brought to the table. Ageism is real.
So, I'd hardly consider myself among those easily labeled "misfits" you seem so sure of who comprise the OWS movement. Educate yourself and stop making blanket statements judging who we are, m'kay? And I'm hardly an anomaly in this movement.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AtticusRye
 


You and the poster above you must stop reading when it doesn't fit your opinion. My post right below the one are replied to shows that all three (you the poster above you, and the person you are both replying to) are all dead wrong and don't know what your talking about.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by AtticusRye
 


You and the poster above you must stop reading when it doesn't fit your opinion. My post right below the one are replied to shows that all three (you the poster above you, and the person you are both replying to) are all dead wrong and don't know what your talking about.


We are addressing related concerns. This is an open forum, is it not?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Most of these accounts that are going to move from the big mega-banks to small credit unions have paltry deposits and don't earn much profit for the mega-banks.

Do the math. 70,000? That's a mere 1,400 accounts per state, not taking into account population concentrations. It's a drop in the bucket.

At the same time, when businesses reach a certain size, they are ultimately forced to bank with the mega-banks because only the mega-banks have the sophisticated technology, experienced personnel, and geographic footprint to adequately serve these growing, larger corporations.

So, while you might have 1,000 individuals move their paltry $1,000 to a credit union, a big business that needs a mega-bank will deposit upwards of $5-10 million or more in new deposits into one of the mega-banks.

Remember, deposits fluctuate and are not static. While the mega-banks shed consumer accounts, they are acquiring new business bank deposits at the same time.

Credit unions and even many regional banks cannot handle the banking needs of large corporations. This is where the mega-banks make their money - Banking large, Fortune 500 companies. The consumer deposits help, yes, but they aren't nearly as profitable.


The bank walk-off isn't much, but I like the fact that it's being embraced by more and more people. If it continues, then it'll be easier to direct people toward walking off on targeted entire multi-business/sector corporations that engage in predatory practices. I remember that the anti-apartheid divestment movement started small like this, and it ended up being very influential on a global level. I had a professional acquaintance during the initiation of that anti-apartheid whose family were wealthy white Afrikaners. He was a classical concert violionist, and he laughed at the whole idea that a boycott would develop to the extent that it'd affect the system. It turned out - we discovered years later - that his RNC political fundraiser gigs (50K per engagement) were part of his government's stealth (and illegal, since he and his "German" entourage were undeclared S. African agents) lobbying efforts to head off the impact of that boycott/divestment effort.

This is just the beginning. B2B divestment hasn't even begun yet, and if the consumer walk-off gets serious enough, the small and medium business accounts will follow - mainly as a marketing effort ("we get it, and we're with you on this") designed to stand out from the rest of their competitors in the direct-to-consumer professional world that all small-medium size businesses navigate. Once B2B divestment begins, the primary large corporate offenders will be targeted for elimination by the same Wall Street carnivores that have been promoting their success.

I'm just enjoying the show. There US is the only market that matters for any and all large corporations. China hasn't got a market that can afford more than the basics, and India isn't much more likely to ever develop a middle class. If the US consumer (as disciplined whole) ever figures this out, the global corporate bloodbath will make the French Revolution seem like an alley knife fight. There's always a company that'll fill in the open spaces with what a shopper wants, and no corporation is irreplaceable. Kill off enough of the top business collectors and supporting a holding company will lose its appeal for the big money investors. The final death spirals will be Wall St. executions.

"Too big to fail" is on its way to "too big to survive". It's the cycle of life, and inevitable. All notions have their lifecycle.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
70,000 bank closed by poor people ain't gonna affect them.

It is the big guys that support them banks not us small dirt particles.
Sarcasm>
Also what is the government for? BAIL THEM NOW!!!!
/Sarcasm
edit on 6-11-2011 by DoctorSatan because: lol



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I liked this idea a whole lot more before I saw Van Jones name attached to it


FWIW, I keep savings in the credit union, and have for several years....I like my money kept a little closer to me than a mega bank. Also, credit unions actual give some interest on their shares

But, I've kept my checking account at the same bank for more years than I care to remember, when it WAS a small local bank.
I have the same account number, it feels comfortable. I keep enough money in it to pay my bills online.

I like the fact that I did this before it became chic and part of a movement.


I like this too! You are really cool and better than those who did it after you.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by QueSeraSera
 


Why would anyone choose to continue basing their post off of what is known to be faulty information unless they were intentionally propagating an agenda? Hmmm?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DoctorSatan
 


You missed the point.
First the number is 650,000 people. Second it isn't just whatever money they took out. That is 650,000 lifetimes of lost profit. Now do you understand?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
This MIGHT have an impact tomorrow on Wall Street:

www.zerohedge.com...






top topics



 
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join