Banks reward you for helping to bail them out.

[GostHacked]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/04/pf/citi_fee/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

Citi Bank now wants to raise checking fees. Just more thanks to those who helped bail them out.

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.

[Shady]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/04/pf/citi_fee/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

Citi Bank now wants to raise checking fees. Just more thanks to those who helped bail them out.

Nope, just more help from the governments financial reform legislation. I'm not sure why you continue to ignore it, and the consequences associated with it. I guess it's just easier to post populist sounding nonsense than actually take some time to look at the details. In other words, get off your high horse, or at least stop acting so clueless. It's obviously on purpose.

[GostHacked]

Nope, just more help from the governments financial reform legislation. I'm not sure why you continue to ignore it, and the consequences associated with it. I guess it's just easier to post populist sounding nonsense than actually take some time to look at the details. In other words, get off your high horse, or at least stop acting so clueless. It's obviously on purpose.

Why not just blame Obama Shady?

[Shady]

Why not just blame Obama Shady?

You're being obtuse. Is it deliberate?

[GostHacked]

You're being obtuse. Is it deliberate?

What do you mean obtuse?

[Bonam]

What do you mean obtuse?

Haha

[Shady]

Haha

Exactly!

It's like trying to have a dicussion with a little kid.

[Bonam]

Exactly!

It's like trying to have a dicussion with a little kid.

I thought GostHacked made a pretty good joke

"You're being obtuse!"

"What do you mean obtuse?"

[GostHacked]

I thought GostHacked made a pretty good joke

"You're being obtuse!"

"What do you mean obtuse?"

Thought I would put on my Shady Hat for that one.

[Shady]

Thought I would put on my Shady Hat for that one.

Still duckin and dodgin I see!

[GostHacked]

Still duckin and dodgin I see!

Duckin and dodgin what? I think I answered your relevant question redarging this thread. Unless you feel like derailing it some more?

[Shady]

Duckin and dodgin what? I think I answered your relevant question redarging this thread. Unless you feel like derailing it some more?

Nope. You still haven't acknowledged the changes in the law that are the cause of these new fees. And you still haven't answered why GM and Chrysler are allowed to raise their prices after taking bailout money. Money which unlike the banks, hasn't been paid back.

[GostHacked]

Nope. You still haven't acknowledged the changes in the law that are the cause of these new fees.

I answered that one, and I indicated I was wrong. Because I thought the deregulation happend under Bush Cheney, but it happend under Clinton, which was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. So other than that, I have no idea about the specific laws. Which is really besides the point, that a company that needs a bailout has to all of a sudden raise fees.

And you still haven't answered why GM and Chrysler are allowed to raise their prices after taking bailout money. Money which unlike the banks, hasn't been paid back.

It's because I do not have an answer for that Shady. But that would be something to look into.

[GostHacked]

Looks like Citibank wont allow people to close their accounts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH3kiaJ1-c8&feature=related

[GostHacked]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15338393

Citigroup has reported a 74% increase in its third quarter profit.

The US bank reported net income of $3.8bn (£2.4bn), marking its seventh consecutive quarter of being in profit.

The earnings were helped by the fact that the business set aside less money to cover bad loans.

Revenues were also lifted by an accounting gain, termed a credit valuation adjustment (CVA), which lenders can make when the markets are turbulent.

Citigroup said its revenues would have been 8% lower on the year had it not made the change to its numbers.

But yet fees need to be raised regardless of record profits.

[Guest American Woman]

Looks like Citibank wont allow people to close their accounts.

It doesn't look like that at all. I watched the entire video and didn't see anyone not being allowed to close their account. What it looked like to me is a protest taking place in a bank. From what I've read, one person wanted to close their account and was accommodated; apparently protesters were there to "support" those closing accounts. Why would they need "support?"

You have to ask yourself if it's at all believable that Citibank wouldn't allow people to close their accounts. Of course it isn't. Furthermore, I doubt whether anyone in that crowd had a balance that Citibank would even care about. But to believe that people weren't allowed to close their accounts, and that the police would aid the bank in such an illegal matter, leaves me wondering just how much critical thought people are putting into this and how willing they are to simply jump on the bandwagon.

There was clearly a disruption at that bank - it's a place of business, and the workers - who were WORKING (there's a concept some of those protesters might want to consider) - apparently felt threatened - and called the police. The protesters don't have a right to disrupt a place of business, create a diversion in a place like a bank, and then blame the establishment for reacting with less than kindness and understanding.

If this is supposed to make the bank and the police look bad to the 99%, the protesters most definitely failed to make a believer out of me - and I am as much a part of the 99% as they are.

If the only way they can make a point is through this sort of dishonest tactic, what does that say for them and their message/cause - whatever that might be?

A bank cannot legally refuse someone wanting to close their account - and again, I'd wager that the assets of those in question would hardly be coveted by the bank.

Edited October 17, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

But yet fees need to be raised regardless of record profits.

Who's forcing people to bank there? To do business with them? Don't like their fees? Don't give them your money.

Oddly enough, I don't hear anyone complaining about mortgage interest rates being practically at an all time low.

[Boges]

If this is a $5 charge above and beyond existing bank fees then yes it's a pretty shitteh surcharge. But if it's a flat fee then it's a good deal considering we all have to pay bank fees in Canada.

I avoid paying most bank fees by keeping a minimum balance on my chequing account.

[GostHacked]

It doesn't look like that at all. I watched the entire video and didn't see anyone not being allowed to close their account.

So what about the lady at the end who was dragged into the bank by police? Can you explain that?

[Guest American Woman]

So what about the lady at the end who was dragged into the bank by police? Can you explain that?

What about her? You can't explain her. You don't know anything about her, nor did the police, which i would guess is why, under the circumstances, it made sense to them to find out.

Looking at a brief video like that (without any context before or after), tells one nothing about her. I don't see where the woman was arrested, only that the police wanted her detained and she argued. Had she cooperated, she likely would have been questioned and released if she had done nothing she shouldn't have been doing. The climate at the bank was created by the protesters, not the bankers. If the woman was unjustly treated, that's the result of the behavior of the protesters - not the bank; that was a police decision, based on the climate/situation at the bank - which the protesters were directly responsible for. So why aren't you holding them accountable for their misbehavior? They were the instigators.

[GostHacked]

I agree some context would be nice but the guy who grabbed her first did not seem to just want to ask a few questions. That clearly was a message to other protesters I am thinking.

But here would be a nice way to scare of many people from closing their accounts, other wise a huge bank run might be put on the bank, potentially collapsing it.

Edited October 17, 2011 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

I agree some context would be nice but the guy who grabbed her first did not seem to just want to ask a few questions.

That's exactly what it seems like. They are talking to the woman, explaining that she was in the bank at the time of the disturbance, she starts to walk away from them in spite of their explanation - all she had to do was cooperate.

That clearly was a message to other protesters I am thinking.

I think it was clearly a reaction to her starting to walk away.

But here would be a nice way to scare of many people from closing their accounts, other wise a huge bank run might be put on the bank, potentially collapsing it.

"A huge bank run?" Are you kidding me? You think that group of people was a threat to the financial well being of the bank? Again, I sincerely doubt if any of those people had assets that Citibank would covet - hardly assets that would cause a collapse of the bank if the accounts were all closed. Furthermore, I doubt if they could "scare" people into not closing their accounts; seems to me such a tactic would have the opposite effect. I mean really, you can't actually believe that the cops were trying to scare people away from closing their accounts - and that Citibank was fearing collapse if those protesters were to close accounts?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I mean really, you can't actually believe that the cops were trying to scare people away from closing their accounts - and that Citibank was fearing collapse if those protesters were to close accounts?

Agreed...that's just bizarre and fulfills a deep seated paranoia looking for examples to confirm such a state of mind. Banks have been failing left and right for years now without much help from a run on them by account holders. No rational person can think that police officers were expressly trying to stop people from closing their Citibank accounts. Maybe their efforts to maintain law and order are interpreted that way by those not looking for any other possibility.

[GostHacked]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15375111

Citigroup is paying $285m (£180m) to settle civil fraud charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC said that Citigroup misled investors when it invited them to invest in a product based on US mortgage debt.

It said that Citigroup did not inform investors that it was betting on the value of the investment falling or that it had chosen the assets itself.

Citigroup settled without admitting or denying the charges.

This just keeps getting better !!!

[Guest American Woman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15375111

This just keeps getting better !!!

So evidently they were held accountable. And that's bad - how?