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

page: 5
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtticusRye

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.


My posts get junked by the mods whenever I neglect to employ the genteel filter phrasing when describing the kind of impression you're making with posts like this, so I'll simply let you in on the truth that you're really crippling your team's efforts to derail the OWS movement.

The OWS people are seen in a positive light by a majority of the mainstream of society. Not the same case with the people being targeted by the OWS movement. People like you.

All that belligerent (and clearly ignorant) tough-guy talk is building resentment, and as a result, you're doing important online heavy lighting work for the OWS crowd. At first blush, it offends me, but then I realize how tough it is to effectively vilify your crowd - especially since it's not allowed on big sites like this. But if I sit back and think that most people don't like bullies and negative cranks, I end up being grateful for your efforts. No one can make you and your Wall St. heroes look worse than you make yourselves look.

It's pretty amazing to see how unattractive some people make themselves appear to others, and how ignorant they are that this is what they're working so hard to accomplish. Keep it up. You guys are failing wonderfully.

ps - I was talking (before a poll worker training class I was conducting) with a tough-guy who was crabbing about "all that politically correct crap". When he got to the rant about schools cracking down on bullies, I had to toss something in for him to think about.

"Well, y'know why that happened?"

He didn't even think before replying "Some little nerd's mom went crying to the school board."

"No," I said. "They started really shutting that stuff down after Columbine. Bullying changed in the minds of school management once the victims started coming to school with automatic weapns and bombs."

He shut right up and I could see the wheels turning for the first time since meeting him.

This OWS thing is the reaction to something, and it's not the need of prostitutes to have something to do they're not getting effed by paying Johns. It's also not the sort of thing that drug dealers, who need to turn their inventory into hard cash, would see as a profitable way to spend their time. Hell, dope dealers and hedgefund managers have exactly the same way of seeing life - a series of money making ventures, with laws being hurdles to overcome. As far as homeless vagrants, they're in that park already, and have been for years. They'll just shove over and let these protesters have their space. Especially if they can get a meal here and there in the process.

It's amazing that you can make this sort of statement and remember your log-in password while using the same brain/mind configuration for both efforts.
edit on 11/6/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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?


Listen Vic, where does it designate that you are a Mod, and can dictate what other people post? I'm addressing another concern within the general framework of this thread, Please get a grip.
It's late, and goodnight!



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by QueSeraSera
 


Did I attempt to moderate you? No, I can't. I was just putting a spotlight on how you guys were consistently using incorrect information which I can only assume was in attempt to alter the perception of the reality of the events for other ATSers who were reading. I mean, why else would you use incorrect information to make statements like that? Not to deny ignorance. You can be offended (as you appear to be), but really, I am curious, why draw and then spread conclusions you had come to based on incorrect information?
edit on 6-11-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Yep go right ahead and move all those accounts and end up doing what?
Not giving any of your money to the greedy banks who crashed the economy with their reckless business practices in the name of profits, and holding up a nationwide middlefinger to the people who have corrupted our government.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
So what is that a loss of 200 mil? yawn....



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Exactly. It's really annoying that these people seem to think that all these closed accounts only equal a small amount of money (because for some reason they think the only people closing their accounts are poor???). What they don't get is that when they close these accounts and stop using these banks, the banks are not only losing the money in the accounts, but they are losing lifetimes of service charges, interest fees, fines, etc.

So it has been recorded that 650,000 people have opened credit union accounts this month (more this month than inthe entirety of 2010).

Let's say, and juts for absolute FUN, after averaging, each account had 1000 bucks.
That's 650,000,000 dollars taken out. More than half a billion.
PLUS 650,000 lifetimes of fines, fees, and interest.

That's a huge f-ing hit!



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Read my above post. Probably closer to three quarters of a billion to a billion + billions of future moneys made off of those ex customers lost fines, fees, and interest.

You guys keep coming in and not reading, then saying the same exact things. I hate having to repeat myself attempting to educate these people.
edit on 6-11-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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?


hmmmmm indeed.

And why do some people continue to defend and support an elite that has proven that they don't like them - or even think at all about them when making the big decisions that the elites make?

You aren't one of the 1%, and they would never even sit down to a midday meal with the likes of you.

You don't exist to these people. You aren't important enough or capable enough to even be presentable within an everyday context to these people. To them, you're a dirt person.

I know it sounds harsh, but they've proven this to be true by their complete disregard for the futures of people that are exactly like you. They keep on proving it by leveraging their GOP foot soldiers against any effort to initiate a recovery that follows the advice of a majority of economic experts (ones that aren't being paid by GOP-centric "thinktanks" of course). They want Obama to be run out of office over a completely crippled economy, and they wouldn't even flinch if you - you, personally - lost your job, your career and your home in the effort to grab back the 100% of the power they had under Bush/Cheney.

And you work so hard to defend them and their disregard for you. It's like you're engaged in some sort of slow-motion suicide attack against the rest of us. It's pretty bizarre. I hope you don't succeed. Then again, I'm not out to destroy myself or those who are similar to me. Or anyone else, for that matter. The folks you're obsessed with have made enough money. They'll be fine if the rest of us shut down their party from here on out.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
nvm
edit on 6-11-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



lol, dude, go back and re read. I am defending the 99%.

You missed my point.
My argument is in favor of the 99 percent. I was addressing that he was using the wrong numbers on the amount of people that opened credit union accounts/dropped using banks this month and that 70,000 isn't the true number it's in all likelihood much higher.
edit on 6-11-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
nvm
edit on 6-11-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


I just did a quick post search on ou, and if I misunderstood your overall perspective, then I apologize for my ignorance. I was sent this thread by a friend, and as such, I didn't read earlier into these exchanged that this page - after having the general focus of the thread established in the 1st page, of course.

It may be that you and I are actually battling the same foe, and if so, then please accept my admitting to having misunderstood the true meaning of your post.

I may be a genius, but that doesn't mean that I possess anything approaching wisdom.

edit on 11/6/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I did, and I apologize for jumping too quickly. This is a very emotional issue for me. I cool off in the Metaphysics/Philosophy fourms, and lately it's been more and more necessary for me to stay there to keep from being disciplined by the staff.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


It's cool.
I was arguing that they were saying 70,000 people pulling their money out is nothing to these banks.
They first incorrectly assume that all 70,000 are likely poor which is a mistake. Then they chose to ignore that the number of credit union accounts opened this MONTH was greater than all of last year. So that most likely puts the number of people taking their money out of big banks closer to the difference in the number of credit union accounts opened this month compared to this month last year. So it is more likely around 600,000 (in the last month 650,000 new credit union accounts were opened, when only 600,000 were opened all year in '10).

So I asked why they would continue pushing that 70,000 poor people is a drop in the bucket theory when information leans towards 600,000 people leaving the big banks. Which to me reads that the banks are having closer to a half a billion to a billion taken out and losing 600,000 lifetimes of fees, fines, and interest charges.

See what I was getting at now. Confusion forgiven



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
As I said in another thread:
There have been 650,000 new credit union accounts opened in the last month.
There were only 600,000 credit union accounts opened in the entire year of 2010.
Divided evenly that means 50,000 accounts per month were opened in 2010.
So in the last month 600,000 more accounts were opened than in the same month last year.
That means the 600,000 recently opened were likely in direct response to the bank transfer day and that number could be a fair representation of the amount of bank accounts that were closed/had money removed to transfer.
That is a huge hit to the banks.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 





So I asked why they would continue pushing that 70,000 poor people is a drop in the bucket theory when information leans towards 600,000 people leaving the big banks. Which to me reads that the banks are having closer to a half a billion to a billion taken out and losing 600,000 lifetimes of fees, fines, and interest charges.


You nailed it there.

Once people realize that their community banks or credit unions provide all of the same services they got from the big boys with none of the fees and actual customer service (including having a person answer the phone when you call - not a damn press 1 for english and here we go down the rabbit-hole time waster), they'll never, ever go back.

And it's not just "average" consumers. A few pretty big bucks successful business people have very publicly done it too, moving both their personal and corporate accounts and lines-of-credit too. Each of those folks represent millions on their own.

These big bankers almost bankrupted this country, took hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailout money (our money!), kept their fat salaries and bonuses and didn't even get fired let alone indicted. There's a gross unfairness there that really rankles people.

Time to pay the piper....



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:31 AM
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.


Don't take this personally as it's not intended to be a personal slur, however, I can't read every single post that gets shotgunned out in the forms. I tend to read those that best present themselves. If a poster can't properly conjugate "you're" it's highly likely I'll skip it. Again, I sincerely don't want you to take this as an insult, I'm just noting the reality of the situation. I'm sorry.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by AtticusRye

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.


My posts get junked by the mods whenever I neglect to employ the genteel filter phrasing when describing the kind of impression you're making with posts like this, so I'll simply let you in on the truth that you're really crippling your team's efforts to derail the OWS movement.

The OWS people are seen in a positive light by a majority of the mainstream of society. Not the same case with the people being targeted by the OWS movement. People like you.

All that belligerent (and clearly ignorant) tough-guy talk is building resentment, and as a result, you're doing important online heavy lighting work for the OWS crowd. At first blush, it offends me, but then I realize how tough it is to effectively vilify your crowd - especially since it's not allowed on big sites like this. But if I sit back and think that most people don't like bullies and negative cranks, I end up being grateful for your efforts. No one can make you and your Wall St. heroes look worse than you make yourselves look.

It's pretty amazing to see how unattractive some people make themselves appear to others, and how ignorant they are that this is what they're working so hard to accomplish. Keep it up. You guys are failing wonderfully.

ps - I was talking (before a poll worker training class I was conducting) with a tough-guy who was crabbing about "all that politically correct crap". When he got to the rant about schools cracking down on bullies, I had to toss something in for him to think about.

"Well, y'know why that happened?"

He didn't even think before replying "Some little nerd's mom went crying to the school board."

"No," I said. "They started really shutting that stuff down after Columbine. Bullying changed in the minds of school management once the victims started coming to school with automatic weapns and bombs."

He shut right up and I could see the wheels turning for the first time since meeting him.

This OWS thing is the reaction to something, and it's not the need of prostitutes to have something to do they're not getting effed by paying Johns. It's also not the sort of thing that drug dealers, who need to turn their inventory into hard cash, would see as a profitable way to spend their time. Hell, dope dealers and hedgefund managers have exactly the same way of seeing life - a series of money making ventures, with laws being hurdles to overcome. As far as homeless vagrants, they're in that park already, and have been for years. They'll just shove over and let these protesters have their space. Especially if they can get a meal here and there in the process.

It's amazing that you can make this sort of statement and remember your log-in password while using the same brain/mind configuration for both efforts.
edit on 11/6/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry I didn't have time to read this but I'm sure you made some good points in it and I hope you find satisfaction in whatever it is you are seeking.

All the Best,
AR



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Read my above post. Probably closer to three quarters of a billion to a billion + billions of future moneys made off of those ex customers lost fines, fees, and interest.

You guys keep coming in and not reading, then saying the same exact things. I hate having to repeat myself attempting to educate these people.
edit on 6-11-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


I understand you believe you are making a highly salient point and I recognize and appreciate you are frustrated that some others, myself included, disagree with the salience or relevance of it and have ignored it. You are a valuable human being and I celebrate your contributions to the forum.

That said, I just spent $1.12 on licorice. I obviously didn't need licorice and, afterwards, I regretted the loss of $1.12. I did not, however, regret the loss of $778.72 (the compounded value of $1.12 after 70 years invested with a rate of 9.8% return).

In the most successful scenarios I've seen written, banks may lose $200 million split among half-a-dozen of them. But it's not a loss of $200 million in revenue, it's a loss of $200 million in holdings which translates to about $7 million in revenue ... divided among six or seven banks ... really nothing about which anyone will take notice.

As I said, I've never used a commercial bank and have only used a credit union for financial services. I think it's great if people switch to CUs and hope more people do it. But this high school drama is a tad silly.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by daynight42
I have left only what I think I might need to cover any "dangling" expenses to be paid from Chase bank. I now have transferred the bulk of the money to a community bank.

I guess I didn't look around enough, though. The community bank charges $12 for an ATM card. Chase gives the debit card for free. This actually doesn't matter in my case because I moved money into a savings account, but $12 versus $0 puts the community bank as more expensive. The fees on overages might be less, but I am beyond the stage where I live on the verge of a zero balance and overspend. (Happened to me enough while I was younger though.)

So, I'm still in search of a better community bank. The credit unions are only open to certain employees of certain institutions (like schools). They aren't open to anyone and everyone.

Anyway. Just a reminder to people to read the details. I'm all for sending a message to the large banks, but extra fees are to be avoided of course.

good for you for making the effort.
since i don't know your location, perhaps this advice may help ... not all credit unions are non-profit ~~ only Member-Owned CUs are non-profit (profits circulate back to members).

some CU members of the NCUA (National Credit Union Admin) are in fact, profit driven parcels of the mega-banks, they are never owned by their members but often disguise / present themselves as such ... and frequently send lobbyists to - you guessed it, DC -- do look harder.

here are a few links to help ... in FL ... gtefcu.org ... South Florida FCU ... SFF homepage ... First Florida FCU
from 1st hand experience i can tell you the first and last ones do not charge extra for any of the standard services including Mastercard/Debit/Check Card ... online banking is free and easily accessible and i am also sure those two are member-owned facilities.

the SFFCU i am not personally familiar with but, i included the news notice because it shows they have recently been approved to expand their membership "base" ... they are no longer limited to certain businesses, regions, employees, family relations, blah, blah, blah.
(and, since there is one, there are more)
some are very rigid with their memberships but you'll often find a gem or jewel in the pack if you look hard enough.

personally, i vacated the mega-banks back in 89/90ish, however, i recently added two more members to their rosters a couple weeks ago.
(and earned $50 for 2 referrals
)

if you care to u2u me a location (state), i'd be happy to help you locate a better provider.
or, if you prefer ... perhaps this link will help ... CUs by state (however, review this listing carefully because it is {dare i say, jaded} lacking quality CUs - no gtefcu listed.

(CUs on this list are generally members of the (F)CUL or in my case, Florida Credit Union League and this is the group of CUs that lobby DC and some are corporate sponsored.

also, be very wary of situations like this one in Wisconsin ...

source
The Wisconsin Credit Union League is asking Gov. Scott Walker to veto provisions in the state budget bill that that would allow direct conversions of member-owned credit unions to shareholder-owned banks.

The direct-conversion provisions subvert the interests of a credit union’s full membership to that of a few who intend to own and profit form a stockholder-owned – and not member-owned – business structure,” said Brett Thompson, president and CEO of The Wisconsin Credit Union League. Thompson said many major deficiencies in the conversion language are stunning.
you may quickly find your choice in CUs is manipulated right out from underneath you while you're getting comfy.

good luck and remember, caveat emptor (buyer beware) always


here's a wiki example of the schmooze i mentioned above {misrepresentation} ...

source
Due to their small size and limited exposure to mortgage securitizations, credit unions have weathered the financial meltdown of 2008 reasonably well.
-- snip for emphasis --
However, two of the biggest corporate credit unions in the United States (U.S. Central Credit Union and Wescorp) with combined assets of more than $57 billion were taken over by the federal government National Credit Union Administration[13] on March 20, 2009.

be thorough and you won't get snookered



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Your money is just a note promising to pay the bearer the equivalent in gold. Take your money out if the system and trade with it - use cash only. The banks will fail if nobody uses them. Or just take the note and get your value in gold.






top topics



 
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join