- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 9,349
- Reaction score
- 3,947
- Location
- Montana
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Advertising. Was branded all over the place. They also had reps on hand to explain products and sign up customers.
Like I said, standard stuff.
Oh? Like whom, and what?
Advertising. Was branded all over the place. They also had reps on hand to explain products and sign up customers.
Like I said, standard stuff.
:lol: thanks but no thanks. We (my company) went to court and won over it.
So. Tell me how much did this cost, and how many new checking accounts could possibly be signed up. :lol:
The standard needs to be changed when you are using bailout money.,
Standard even in an economic crisis when they asked for and received bailout money?
Right.
You tell me. You're making the accusation that this was inappropriate.
Well, be sure to report back what you did with every penny of the tax rebate checks you've gotten yourself, so we can decide whether or not it was appropriate use.
What's the point of advertising for new customers when probably 90% of them won't even be eligible for new loans due to tighter credit requirements? The bailout money was not for advertising, it was for freeing up credit.
Of course, we can't know if BoA used any of the bailout money for this advertising, because BoA has not recorded or accounted for what they've done with one penny of the bailout money.
FOXNews.com - Where'd the Bailout Money Go? Shhhh, It's a Secret - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
Why? That was my money in the 1st place. :2wave:
So you are suggesting BOA went into this blind?
I mean really. Lets see a thousand ^ new customers...
Ok that sounds like a stretch. how much did this shindig cost. Divide that by the average deposit account....
I dunno. Seems like they could have chosen a better way.
Right. And in the time I worked for BoA, it paid about 50 billion in corporate income taxes alone, let alone its shareholders being taxed on dividends.
Bottom line -- it's conducting its business according to standard practice.
50 billion?
Do you have a link please.
If this was not bailout money, fine. It was so not fine.
How do you know they used bailout money?
And what's a legitimate marketing expense/campaign/event? And who made you the arbiter of it?
Of course, but not when you're on your way to bankrupcy.It's pretty standard stuff.
Dude....seriously don't even try this. Advertising at an event that is watched by not only 100 million people in America alone but countless millions around the world is bad - mkay? I mean it doesn't even make sense. The potential for thousands of new customers is not enough reason to spend money putting your company out there. /eNd SaRcAsM.
Standard practice got us in trouble.Right. And in the time I worked for BoA, it paid about 50 billion in corporate income taxes alone, let alone its shareholders being taxed on dividends.
Bottom line -- it's conducting its business according to standard practice.
This is a little excessive imo
Standard practice got us in trouble.
Of course, but not when you're on your way to bankrupcy.
Standard practice got us in trouble.
Are they receiving any bailout money?BoA's on its way to bankruptcy? Since when?
BANK OF AMERICA CORP /DE/ (Form: 10-Q, Received: 11/06/2008 17:02:52)
Not exactly as bad as the market thinks it is.
Only if they misappropriated the bailout money into their "entire budget" instead of just boosting their credit capitol like they were supposed to.In order for the company to show where it allocated the money it would have to essentially "open its books" and make its entire budget public.
According to my link in post #24, Bank of America and Citibank are two of the largest recipients of the bailout money.Are they receiving any bailout money?
Hmmm, but they're not in real trouble or going bankrupt, right? So why do they need money?According to my link in post #24, Bank of America and Citibank are two of the largest recipients of the bailout money.
As Harshaw pointed out, it's not. The repeal of key aspects of the GSA by Republicans was a massive deviation from standard practice for decades. The use of mortgages as social policy on a wide scale (remember CRA loans were a measly $20 billion, less then the bailout to Detroit) wasn't standard practice. Conservative, standard practices don't lead to the Neil Bush (yes, that's dubya's brother) S&L crisis.
Hmmm, but they're not in real trouble or going bankrupt, right? So why do they need money?
Sure. And the Clinton amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act, coupled with Democrats' blocking of efforts to regulate the secondary markets created by them (again, this would be "racist" because it would have dried up subprime lending, and thanks for the contributions, Mr. Raines) had nothing to do with it.
Because lending to someone with 480 credit was conservative standard practice, of course.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?