ET
Dec 14, 2002, 1:04 PM
Post #10 of 19
(2462 views)
Shortcut
|
"Esperanza" writes:
Every time I read Bank of America I think 'napalm'. Doesn't anybody remember the late 60s-early 70s Bank of America scandals during the Vietnam War? I can't get past their corporate moral bankruptcy to open an account there. For me, it's cleaner to bank elsewhere. The personal is the political; the simplest choices I make have repercussions, not only for my own integrity but for the integrity of the global community.
Actually I'm not familiar these scandals. Perhaps you can summarize them for me and others "in the dark", and tell us who you do think passes your "cleaner" banking test.
A lot of people seem to find a particular time period to settle into and use as their frame of reference to evaluate events and actions. The problem is this frame of reference doesn't necessarily exist for others, leading to (a) frustration on the part of the "settled" individual ("doesn't anybody remember [fill in the blank here]") and (b) anywhere from confusion ("huh?"), through varying degrees of exasperation, all the way to laughter and mocking of the individual (think "Disco Stu") on the part of others who come in contact with the person.
A few post 60's data points, which I'm interested in hearing how they impact (if at all) your opinion on Bank of America (BofA)include:
1. BofA, as it exists at present (2002-2003) isn't the same bank as in the 60's and 70's. In October of 1998, BofA merged with NationsBank out of North Carolina. At the time the merger was widely billed as "a joining of equals", adopting the well-recognized Bank of America name but merging the two banks operations and customer bases, which were similar in size and complimentary in scope. Within a few months it became apparent that this was not the case, with BofA senior management being eliminated one by one, including the CEO of BofA who at the time of the merger was designated as the heir apparent CEO for the merged bank, upon retirement of the NationsBank CEO. Since this time, the original BofA's various San Francisco corporate operations have been closed, sold off, or relocated to North Carolina, NationsBank's home and operating base. As it stands at present, BofA is an expanded NationsBank, operating under a "new" name. With this in mind, should the present BofA be held responsible for the sins of a now-defunct ancestor?
2. David Coulter, the former chairman and CEO of BofA who was forced to resign within three months of the BofA NationsBank merger, is believed by some (I'm not convinced) to be one of those responsible for the late 80's and 1990's reshaping of BofA into a more employee and community oriented "kinder, gentler" BofA. In the 90's BofA's track record for community lending was better than some of their major competitors (Wells Fargo as an example), and although they didn't offer domestic partner benefits until forced to do so by San Francisco ordinance, they were an early major corporate adopter of diversity policies and and current/social issues training. Once they've done "evil" can a company ever be redeemed?
3. Hugh McColl, scion of a southern banking family, started with a small regional bank and through an extremely aggressive (and by some measures questionable) series of buyouts and mergers with subsequent mass layoffs of staff and dumping of less profitable businesses lines and loans, built NationsBank to the size that it could propose a merger with BofA, to form the second largest bank in the US. The now-retired McColl, who used to keep a hand grenade on his desk, is quoted as once saying during negotiations with another bank (not BofA) ""We'll come in and take over your operations." When someone asked if he could have been more polite, McColl is reported to have replied "That was my polite offer." Rather than this degree of aggression being focused solely on business, McColl's staff is claimed to have always travelled with a coffee maker, after a scene in a hotel during the early phases of the NationsBank/BofA merger talks, when McColl publicly humiliated a hotel staffer for arriving late with his coffee. Are we focusing our distaste on the proper entity? Why are we worried about problems from the 60's and 70's, in comparison to recent doings?
4. Citigroup's stock prices collapsed this summer when investigations brought to light that Citigroup as well as J.P. Morgan/Chase had extensive involvement in Enron's financing schemes. Citigroup owns Banamex, the former Banco National de Mexico, which has at least part responsibility for the primitive state of banking in Mexico, as well as the distrust in Mexican banking institutions. Is Citigroup/Citibank/Banamex any less worthy of scorn than BofA?
- ET
|
Forums Index
Search Posts
Who's Online
Log In or Sign Up
