Occupy Clarksville: Bank of America DOES NOT PAY TAXES!

CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. – November the 17th has been named International Day of Action by the Occupy Wall Street movement and for the local Occupy Clarksville group that meant a march to the downtown Bank of America located on Regions Street.

It is the 25th day the group has maintained an uninterrupted occupation of Public Square and even as the weather gets colder there appears no letup in their determination. Thursday’s march was Occupy Clarksville’s actin to take a stand against corporate greed and corruption.

According to some of the signs, Bank of America the group claims paid nothing in income taxes in 2010. In fact, according to a Forbes Magazine article analyzing the tax returns of some top 25 companies in America although the company declared $4.4 billion in income for the year.

According to the Forbes story the reason is because, “Of deductions like $860 million in tax-exempt income, $670 million in low-income housing credits and a $600 million loss on shares of foreign subsidiaries.” The article even projected the company probably will not pay taxes on the billions in income for some time.

Another one of the group’s signs proclaims the financial institution makes the most foreclosures on homes than any other U.S. bank. According to the U.S. Treasury Department B of A only modifies seven percent of the home loans in foreclosure. That is compared to 25 percent of modifications made by JP Morgan Chase another financial giant. Compare Bank of America’s seven percent to the next lowest percentage of 11 by the financial institution Wells Fargo and there is still four percent disparage. 

Often the complaint is that Bank of America makes the process to modify a home loan difficult and full of so much red tape that by the time a home owner in trouble can actually work through it, their home is outside the prerequisites. The most common complaint is the financial giant keeps losing documentation.

The Occupy Clarksville group invites the public out to Public Square at any time to ask questions or participate. During the International Day of Action the group put out a call to “Take our fight for economic justice out of the park and into the streets. Banks got bailed out. We got sold out.” 

Bank of America: Layoffs Begin In Charlotte, NC

November 15, 2001: The first phase of a massive layoff by handing out pink slips to an undisclosed number of Bank of America employees in Charlotte started today.

People familiar with the situation tell the Charlotte Business Journal that layoff notices were circulated at technology and operations division offices Tuesday afternoon. Others mentioned the layoffs on Twitter. It’s unclear how many employees have lost their jobs.

BofA has not responded to requests for comment on the layoffs.

The bank previously said it would cut 30,000 jobs companywide by the end of next year as it trims expenses and tries to improve its performance. It’s part of Project New BAC, Chief Executive Brian Moynihan’s efficiency initiative. The current phase of the project focused on the bank’s consumer-banking and support divisions. A second phase next year will focus on the investment-banking and capital-markets divisions.

BofA hopes to slash $5 billion in annual expenses by 2013.

Sources say this is the first of three rounds of planned cuts. And Charlotte is expected to be hit hard during the first phase of New BAC because it is home to many consumer-banking and technology and operations jobs.

“I’ve been getting pinged on LinkedIn like never before,” says a former BofA employee who now has his own business. “People want to know if I’m hiring.”

BofA shares have been down about 50% this year as investors have grown weary of its challenges amid a slow economy and ill-timed acquisitions.

BofA has about 15,000 employees in Charlotte, according to the most recent estimates.

Bank of America: Moynihan the Merciless!

Just listening to Sandra Simmons recall her two-year struggle with mortgage loan modification is exhausting.

To live through it, she says, is even more so.

The 50-year-old housekeeper and single mother of four is at risk of losing her three-bedroom Concord Drive home in Jackson to foreclosure after a string of miscommunication gaffes.

In 2009, falling behind on her house payments, Simmons applied with Bank of America to renegotiate her existing mortgage loan. She said her modification had been approved and stonewalled because she failed to provide information she was never asked for.

Then, once Simmons began making modified payments, she says she was bounced from one representative to another, each telling her she owed a different amount.

Then the cycle repeated.

"It's been a back-and-forth situation for two years. I don't think anyone should be put through that," Simmons said as she stood outside her home.

"Has this modification helped anybody? I haven't heard any success stories. Am I alone in this?"

Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens said in a email statement that the bank is committed to improvng its processes to assist distressed homeowners.

"Bank of America has completed more than 900,000 modifications since the housing crisis began," Bauwens said. "We will continue to work with Ms. Simmons until we have explored all options to avoid foreclosure."

Simmons has sought help from a local loan counselor and filed a complaint with the state attorney general's office.

Bank of America was to foreclose on Simmons' home last month, she said, but it has been postponed. Simmons is still uncertain of her standing with the bank.

"Be consistent with your story, then I'll understand," she said.

Stories like Simmons' are common among distressed homeowners facing foreclosure, said Scott Spivey, spokesman for the Mississippi Home Corp. Spivey said homeowners seeking help from MHC counselors often vent about modification programs.

Jan Schaeffer, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, said the office also has fielded some calls.

"The different (lender) divisions aren't talking to one another, and the homeowner is bouncing around between people," Spivey said.

"The homeowner is already desperate. Then there's the added frustration of, 'Nobody's helping me here.'"

Among large mortgage servicers, Bank of America left most struggling homeowners in limbo without either modifying or foreclosing, according to a study released earlier this year by ProPublica. In addition, the study showed the average modification occurred seven to 11 months after the borrower fell behind.

To be eligible for a loan modification, homeowners must prove financial hardship. In addition, they must prove they are able and willing to continue payments if modification is granted.

Spivey said such programs might not be the right fit for all, given each homeowner's circumstance.

"Some modifications don't go far enough," Spivey said. "Even a successful modification may not help depending on the circumstance. Every case is different."

Spivey said alternative options include the Mississippi Home Saver Program and the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP.

Home Saver, a federally funded program that debuted last year, makes a year's worth of mortgage payments for those who have lost their jobs and are seeking work.

It will end in December 2017, or when funds are depleted.

HAMP, another federal program, expands eligibility to borrowers who are delinquent as well as borrowers whose default is imminent. The program is effective for mortgages originated on or before Jan. 1, 2009, and will expire Dec. 31, 2012.

According to the ProPublica study, just over one in five homeowners who applied for HAMP have received a permanent modification.

Also, about 1.3 million homeowners were denied approval without being placed in HAMP's three-month trial period, which determines whether homeowners can afford their new payments.

Spivey said additional information about both programs is available through MHC's Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program. The service is free, and a list of counseling agencies is available on MHC's website.

Since July 2009, 284 Mississippi homeowners have sought counseling through MHC. Of that number, 70 have received some sort of modification.

Spivey said homeowners should beware of foreclosure counseling scams in which they are asked for pay for services.

He said MHC has not come across any victimized homeowners.

The attorney general's office discourages homeowners from using private companies that often charge thousands of dollars for services.

Schaeffer suggests contacting a lender directly and applying for a loan modification, if needed.

Bank of America: $410 Million Class Action Settlement

On Monday, November 7, 2011, a federal judge gave final approval to a $410 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit affecting more than 13 million Bank of America customers who had debit card overdrafts during the past decade.

Senior U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King said the agreement was fair and reasonable, even though it drew criticism from some customers because they would only receive a fraction of what they paid in overdraft fees. The fees were usually $35 per occurrence.

"It's really undisputed that this is one of the largest settlements ever in a consumer case," said Aaron Podhurst, a lead attorney for the customer class.

The settlement became final a week after Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America backed off a plan to charge a $5 monthly fee for debit-card purchases. The outcry prompted other major banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co., to cancel trial tests of their own debit card fees.

Bank attorney Laurence Hutt said 13.2 million Bank of America customers who had debit cards between January 2001 and May 2011 would get some payment. Those who still have accounts would get an automatic credit and the others would get a check mailed to them. No one would have to take any action or fill out any paperwork.

Barry Himmelstein, an attorney for customers who objected to the deal, said he calculated that the bank actually raked in $4.5 billion through the overdraft fees and was repaying less than 10 percent. He said the average customer in the case had $300 in overdraft fees, making them eligible for a $27 award — less than one overdraft charge — from the lawsuit.

"It's $4.5 billion that's gone missing from people's accounts," Himmelstein said.

Hutt said only 46 customers filed formal objections to the settlement and 350 decided to opt out, meaning they could take separate legal action on their own.

"It's very easy for people to say on the sidelines, 'I could do better,'" Hutt said. "Never is a settlement at 100 percent of what somebody thinks they can receive at trial. It's always a compromise."

Customers will receive a minimum of 9 percent of the fees they paid through the settlement, Hutt added. The bank has already paid the money into an escrow account.

The lawsuit claimed that Bank of America processed its debit card transactions in the order of highest to lowest dollar amount so it could maximize the overdraft fees customers paid. 

An overdraft occurs when the account doesn't have enough money in it to cover a debit card transaction. Similar lawsuits have been filed against more than 30 other banks.

Despite the settlement, Bank of America insists there was nothing improper about the processing sequence. New regulations enacted following the recent financial crisis prohibit banks from charging overdraft fees on debit cards without first getting customer permission.

Many of the objections concerned the fees for the team of class-action attorneys, which would amount to about $123 million. Lawyers for people opposed to the settlement said that amount should be cut down by at least $50 million, with the money going back to the wronged customers.

"The best use is to provide compensation to the class members," said Elliott Kula, who represents some of the objectors.

But King sided with the plaintiffs' attorneys, noting that they spent thousands of hours on the case and achieved "a superb result" for the customers.

"I don't see anything about this case that's simple or garden variety," the judge said.

Another complaint concerned missing records for customers from 2001 through 2003, which has made them impossible to identify. The settlement will take about 14 percent of the total — representing an estimate for the fees paid by those customers — and put the money into nonprofit financial literacy programs.

In addition, the 32 original named plaintiffs who represented the larger class will get bonuses of up to $5,000 each, $2,500 each if both plaintiffs are a married couple.

Bank of America Forecloses Over ONE DOLLAR (and less!)

It is really time for Brian Moynihan to resign.


The Bank of America makes mistake after mistake, it is also time for them to be closed down or broken up. 


They are NOT too big to fail.


Congratulations to all who have closed their accounts!


But now, read this, the latest Bank of America misadventure:

"Shantell Curtis and her family were threatened with foreclosure months after they had sold their Vernal, Utah house. What's more, the problem revolved around a single dollar. Months after the Curtises sold and moved out of the home in August of last year, their lender, Bank of America, sent them a foreclosure notice.

Bank of America claimed the family owed months of missed mortgage payments, before realizing a $1 coding error had held up the Curtises' title transfer. While BofA has taken months to resolving the issue, the Curtises' credit report has taken a beating since then.

The episode is far from the first foreclosure mishap BofA has dealt with in recent months, and not even the smallest dollar amount related to foreclosure threats. In June, BofA tried to foreclose on a man living in Massachusetts over a missed mortgage payment totaling $0.00."

Bank of America Retreats on $5 Fee!

November 1, 2011: About a month ago, Bank of America angered many of its customers by announcing that it intended to begin charging a $5 monthly fee to some customers who uses debit card. The fee would be created to fill a $2 billion a hole left by 2010's Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill. One provision would cut its revenue from debit card interchange fees (paid by merchants). 

Today, the petulant Bank of America announced a reversal; they have scrapped their plans for the fee!

The Fallout

When customers learned about Bank of America's new proposed fee, the reaction was swift.

Banks don't accept billions of dollars of PROFIT (that's after huge salaries, bonuses, and parties) as enough. Congress passed laws to prevent them from ripping off customers with esoteric policies, so instead they just come out and charge a fee.

So maybe banks really do listen to their customers. Will they escape new fees after all? That isn't likely. These banks still have the same costs of business to pay for and shareholders to pacify. Anyone who think that banks will just shrug as Congress attempts to cut their revenues by billions of dollars is rather naïve.

The Problem With Transparency

On some level, the situation here is almost ironic. For the past few years, Congress had chastised banks for having too many hidden fees. For example, politicians complained that overdraft fees were unfair, so they made new laws limiting them. In the case of interchange, they said that the fees hid the real cost of a debit card transaction, so Congress cut them.

Bank of America and others intended to respond to this change with a very transparent new fee: a direct fee on customers who use debit. Shouldn't this cause Washington to applause? Not so much. The author of the debit card interchange fee regulation, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) criticized Bank of America, calling the new fee "outrageous." But isn't this exactly what he wanted?

Remember, Bank of America could have acted differently. It could have tried to skirt new regulations by putting in place new, creative, sneaky fees that customers didn't realize they were paying. Perhaps they could institute a "card issuance fee" of $25 every time they sent you a new debit card. Certainly, there are lots of ways to make fees that are not particularly transparent.

But Bank of America didn't take that route. It effectively said, "Okay, we are losing revenue from interchange. So to make that up, let's be super-transparent and tell our customers that they'll have to pay a small monthly fee for using their debit cards." And then their customers flipped out. So much for clarity!

But Banks Will Get Their Money

This is an unfortunate story, because Bank of America and others are being condemned for finally providing the very transparency its critics called for. In the past, you just didn't use to see banks respond to regulation in such a direct manner.

That could be in large part because they suspected that customers would get annoyed if they learned that new fees were coming. Clearly, they were correct. So a rational reaction would be to hide these fees instead -- at least then only some customers will get angry when they get hit with the fees, and the impact will be delayed and spread out over time. When a bank instead announces a new fee that lots of its customers are subject to, it gets a sharp, widespread negative reaction. No wonder so many fees are opaque. 

We'll have to wait to see how banks end up making this money if not through a new debit fee as initially planned. But make no mistake: they will find a way to make up this money. They need to lure top bankers and management at salaries the market dictates. They need to continue to pay employees at thousands of retail branches. They need to spend billions of dollars on technology. They need to turn a profit that meets investor expectations. When Congress shakes its finger at banks and writes new rules, their costs don't simply disappear. The real shame is that future fees might end up being less transparent. Because let's face it: no consumer has ever met a fee he or she liked.