Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BOFA to charge $5 a month for check card use

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts




  • BofA to Get $20B More From TARP, Plus Backstop on $118B
    By Peter Barnes and Joanna Ossinger

    Published January 16, 2009
    | FOXBusiness

    Email Share Comments

    Text Size
    Bank of America (BAC) will receive $20 billion in additional bailout money from the U.S. government to help complete its merger with Merrill Lynch, the Treasury Department announced early Friday, in addition to a backstop on $118 billion of assets.

    Shares of BofA plunged 18% on Thursday amid reports the bank might get these funds, which are in addition to the $25 billion of funds the bank has already received from the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Plan.

    Most of the $118 billion in assets being backstopped were inherited by BofA from Merrill Lynch, which it absorbed on Jan. 1. Those assets include securities backed by residential and commercial real estate loans, and Treasury said in a press release that they have all been marked to current market value. The portfolio includes $37 billion in cash assets and a derivatives portfolio that Treasury said has maximum future potential losses of $81 billion.

    If there are losses in the $118 billion pool, the first $10 billion will be absorbed by BofA. All eligible losses after that will be absorbed 90% by the government (Treasury and the FDIC) and 10% by BofA, up to a $10 billion total loss possible by the U.S. government. BofA may draw on a credit line if mark-to-market and credit losses on the pool reach $18 billion.

    BofA will issue $4 billion in new preferred stock to Treasury as the FDIC as a fee for the backstop plus warrants on additional preferred shares.

    The $20 billion from TARP will be provided by the Treasury in exchange for preferred stock with an 8% dividend. Treasury said BofA will have to comply with enhanced executive compensation restrictions and implement a mortgage loan modification program in exchange for receipt of the money.

    BofA is prohibited from issuing dividends of more than one cent per share per quarter for three years without government consent.

    Senior government officials said the transaction was modeled after a similar deal for Citigroup (C), as FOX Business's Liz MacDonald had reported was likely. The officials said talks about this deal went on for several weeks, as BofA grew more concerned about the state of "certain assets" at Merrill and that they took this action "to avert a systemic risk."

    BofA, which declined to comment on earlier reports of this deal, recently announced that it was moving up its earnings report -- it's now scheduled to release its fourth-quarter earnings report on Friday a few hours before the markets open.

    In October, BofA received $15 billion in TARP funding under the Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program for banks. At that time, Treasury also pledged to inject $10 billion into Merrill Lynch, once its acquisition by BofA was complete. When the purchase of Merrill was completed on Jan. 1, the injection was completed.

    A source told FOX Business that BofA will use the additional $20 billion in TARP funds to help the bank digest and integrate Merrill.

    The source said that after BofA and Merrill announced their merger deal last fall, Merrill’s financial health continued to deteriorate. In mid-December, BofA executives met with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and asked him for assurances that if the bank needed additional TARP capital because of the Merrill merger, Treasury would provide it. Otherwise, the executives told Paulson, BofA would cancel the Merrill acquisition. The source said Paulson agreed to the request.

    For the latest TARP news, check out FOXBusiness.com’s Where’s My Money blog.

    The extra money for BofA, according to various media accounts, suggests the bank’s Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis may have underestimated the potential damage that may still lie ahead related to Merrill’s huge investment in bad real estate securities.“It’s not reassuring,” Kenneth Scott, a professor of law and business at Stanford Law School and former general counsel of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp., told Reuters. “There are more losses to be realized, but the question is the extent to which they are already reflected in values that banks are recording on their books.

    BofA agreed on Sept. 15 to a shotgun purchase of Merrill after less than two days of negotiations, which sprung from efforts to address problems affecting venerable investment bank Lehman Brothers, which went bankrupt that morning.

    BofA has estimated the Merrill price tag at more than $24.1 billion, based on regulatory filings. Adding Merrill gave it a huge investment bank, as well as a brokerage unit that Lewis called the “crown jewel” of the takeover.

    The transaction made BofA the largest U.S. bank by assets, but saddled it with tens of billions of dollars of troubled debt, despite Merrill Chief Executive John Thain’s success in offloading tens of billions of dollars more in the previous year.

    Elizabeth MacDonald contributed to this article.



    Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/mar...#ixzz1ZuJ08sAI
    Originally posted by racrguy
    What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
    Originally posted by racrguy
    Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

    Comment


    • I still have a hard time thinking about how Obama got elected. Just goes to show that most people favor an empty PR campaign over substance. Not that we've had very good choices in awhile, but his bullshit could be fucking seen from space. Asshole.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Broncojohnny View Post
        I don't know a single person outside of people on the internet blogs doing that. Even then it is people talking a big game. Even if they do, that is how it is supposed to work in a free market. If enough people leave then B of A will have to do away with the fee or reduce it and accept lower profits.
        I thought about this and I would have loved to see B of A just abolish debit cards completely. Then blame Congress for making them unprofitable. That would have been a much better solution to me because it puts the blame where it should go.
        Originally posted by racrguy
        What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
        Originally posted by racrguy
        Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Broncojohnny View Post
          I thought about this and I would have loved to see B of A just abolish debit cards completely. Then blame Congress for making them unprofitable. That would have been a much better solution to me because it puts the blame where it should go.
          Absolutely. Now they both look like the bastards they are.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by talisman View Post
            I still have a hard time thinking about how Obama got elected. Just goes to show that most people favor an empty PR campaign over substance. Not that we've had very good choices in awhile, but his bullshit could be fucking seen from space. Asshole.
            It's been a long time coming (way before this Administration), to the point of no return... barring a complete reset of our system.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by kingjason View Post
              Everyone is being nickle and dimed to death. Not only are trips to the grocery story higher, cable/internet is inching higher, and fing sprint is going to raise all their rates a lot come December. Hell all we need is gas to hit 5 bucks a gallon again and I say full blown recession worse then we have ever seen.

              I know I am solid lower middle class while the wifey is finishing school and I live right. I am being screwd left and right by all these damn programs and crap designed to help the poor suffering people out that have zero common sense when it comes to dealing with money. Cant pay your mortgage, hell we will reduce it. Cant afford cell phones, how about a free one. Drive an old ass car, hey we can give you money for that to get a new one. Last but least, overdraft your bank account often? Well hell we will make sure the banks cant get you anymore for that and stick it to everyone else that has been living right. I am so tired of this shit.
              It hasn't even started yet. The EPA is about to fuck everyone in the ass on their electric bill. I have seen some articles saying that we will have rolling power outages next year because our power plants are going to be illegal.

              Originally posted by racrguy
              What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
              Originally posted by racrguy
              Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Broncojohnny View Post
                It hasn't even started yet. The EPA is about to fuck everyone in the ass on their electric bill. I have seen some articles saying that we will have rolling power outages next year because our power plants are going to be illegal.

                http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-upgrades.html
                Shit!

                Comment


                • not sure if this commentor is being serious or sarcastic at the beginning.


                  We have met the enemy and he is us!

                  Take wealth from the rich and make work projects. Build roads and bridges!
                  Those with money can pay for it!

                  Where did their money come from?

                  We all need the basics in life
                  1) Food- comes from farmers, ranchers and fishermen
                  2) Water- comes from wells, dams lakes and reservoirs made by engineers
                  3) Clothing- comes from cotton farmers, ranchers, and petroleum producers
                  4) Housing- comes from lumbermen, miners
                  5) Energy- Coal and uranium miners, natural gas drillers, oil companies

                  Farmers, ranchers, miners, lumbermen, fishermen and petroleum producers create wealth.

                  This wealth is then spread amongst the rest of us who use those natural resources to make life better.

                  Try and open a mine today, or cut a tree down, or build a dam, or drill an oil well, or open a nuclear power plant or use fertilized on a crop. Almost impossible! PERMITS PERMITS PERMITS!

                  GOVERNMENT GETS IN THE WAY!

                  200 years ago the immigrants to North America found a vast land of natural resources. They mined the minerals, they cut the trees, they built dams, they established farms and ranches, they drilled wells and they created the wealthiest nation on earth.

                  Instead of creating new wealth we now prohibit the generation of wealth.

                  The Republicans say cut spending. The Democrats say raise taxes.

                  Why don’t we create wealth instead? All that government money should be used to build nuclear reactors, open mines, drill for oil, build more coal fired plants, open natural parks to responsible exploration.

                  We have turned in to a society that is more interested in saving the spotted owl, the snail darter, the black footed ferret, the whales and now the glaciers.

                  If you took all the wealth in the world and divided it evenly amongst everybody we would all be poor!

                  The first candidate that says “let’s make wealth” will get my vote!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Broncojohnny View Post
                    It is even more bizarre when you consider that B of A had no subprime mortgages, didn't want TARP money and was forced by the government to take TARP money. Then was sweet talked into buying Countrywide. Hmmm...what is going on here?
                    I think you have your chronology wrong here.

                    BoA (Nations) has been buying and consolidating for years, CW was just another acquisition IMO. It made some sense in some ways, at the time, and predates obammy and company for sure.

                    The CW investigation probably should have been a red flag, but they did it through Red Oak and felt safe enough, I guess.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bassics View Post
                      I think you have your chronology wrong here.

                      BoA (Nations) has been buying and consolidating for years, CW was just another acquisition IMO. It made some sense in some ways, at the time, and predates obammy and company for sure.

                      The CW investigation probably should have been a red flag, but they did it through Red Oak and felt safe enough, I guess.
                      I don't have anything wrong. And I wasn't talking about Obama and company. The government has pushed banks into deals for decades with their bullshit regulation. If the banks don't like it then the regulators can make their lives really tough. Exhibit A illustrating that fact is the TARP program. I don't believe for a second that Ken Lewis would have bought Countrywide without some government arm twisting. That deal fucking sucked ass from day one.
                      Originally posted by racrguy
                      What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
                      Originally posted by racrguy
                      Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Broncojohnny View Post
                        I don't have anything wrong. And I wasn't talking about Obama and company. The government has pushed banks into deals for decades with their bullshit regulation. If the banks don't like it then the regulators can make their lives really tough. Exhibit A illustrating that fact is the TARP program. I don't believe for a second that Ken Lewis would have bought Countrywide without some government arm twisting. That deal fucking sucked ass from day one.
                        Countrywide (check)
                        Foreclosure cluster F(check)
                        Forced tarp money (check)
                        Unwarranted regulations(check mate?)

                        Comment


                        • Comment


                          • Originally posted by Broncojohnny View Post
                            I don't have anything wrong. And I wasn't talking about Obama and company. The government has pushed banks into deals for decades with their bullshit regulation. If the banks don't like it then the regulators can make their lives really tough. Exhibit A illustrating that fact is the TARP program. I don't believe for a second that Ken Lewis would have bought Countrywide without some government arm twisting. That deal fucking sucked ass from day one.

                            Yes, you do. BoA bought CW long before TARP ever came about. That is what I corrected you on. Maybe you wrote it differently than you intended.

                            Comment


                            • ZOMG Citibank just raised fees, they must be money grubbing assholes too!!! Either that or they are a business that needs to make a profit. Maybe those two things are the same to the idiots in our government?




                              Citi hikes fees on checking accounts

                              * 69
                              *
                              * 5

                              * Print
                              * Comment


                              By Jessica Dickler October 5, 2011: 10:53 AM ET
                              Citi hikes fees on checking accounts

                              NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The fees keep coming. Citi is the latest big bank to slap customers with a round of fee hikes. This time, on its checking accounts.

                              Starting in December, customers who hold its mid-level Citibank Account will be charged $20 a month if they fail to maintain a minimum balance of $15,000 in their combined accounts. Previously, account holders had to carry a minimum balance of $6,000.

                              * 69
                              *
                              * 5

                              * Print
                              * Comment

                              At the same time, customers who have the bank's EZ Checking account will start being charged $15 a month if they don't carry a minimum balance of $6,000. Citi (C (C, Fortune 500)) says it is phasing out the EZ Checking package, which currently carries no monthly fee, and is instead offering customers either the Citibank Account or its Basic Banking account, which also carries a fee.

                              Last month, Citi said it is hiking the fee on its Basic Banking account from $8 to $10. Customers will be able to avoid paying the $10 fee by either maintaining a minimum balance of $1,500 or by making one direct deposit and one automatic online payment through their checking account each month, said Citi.

                              Currently, account holders must make five online transactions per month in order to avoid paying the fee and there is no minimum balance requirement.
                              9 most annoying bank fees

                              Citi's fee hikes come just days after Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) announced it would charge a $5 fee for debit card purchases. Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Sun Trust and Regions Financial (RF, Fortune 500) have all also rolled out similar fees in select markets in recent weeks.

                              "The regulatory environment has changed a great deal -- particularly with the Durbin Amendment -- and we're seeing the results of that now," said Claes Bell, banking reporter with Bankrate.com. Going forward, "we're going to see more large national banks announce fees."

                              With the new regulation that caps how much revenue banks can get from the swipe fees they collect from merchants, banks must look for other ways to cover that lost income, explained Nessa Feddis, vice president and senior counsel of the American Bankers Association.

                              "We don't expect to pay nothing to ride the train, it's the same thing with a checking account," she said.
                              Bank accounts: Get a fair shake, not a shakedown

                              Citibank said it chose not to charge a debit card fee because its customers did not want it. "There's a reason why we structured it this way," said Catherine Pulley, spokeswoman for Citi. There are also no hidden fees, Pulley added, and customers will benefit from free online bill pay and free access to non-Citi ATM machines.

                              While the majority of checking accounts were free last year, less than half now come without a price tag, according to a recent study from bank-comparison site Bankrate, which looked at 243 interest and 238 non-interest accounts.

                              Like Citi's new offerings, 92% of checking accounts have fee waivers, meaning that if you can meet certain financially requirements, most checking accounts are -- or could become -- free. To top of page
                              First Published: October 4, 2011: 5:11 PM ET
                              Originally posted by racrguy
                              What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
                              Originally posted by racrguy
                              Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bassics View Post
                                Yes, you do. BoA bought CW long before TARP ever came about.
                                He is saying the government forced Bofa to take CW. CW was in all kinds of trouble when that deal was done, and more than likely, the government told him they would back him if something happened. It did, and Ken didn't want the tarp, but they still gave it to BofA. BofA paid it off, with interest within a year and a half.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X