Talk:Bank of America controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Rationale

I begin to wonder if portions of this article or the whole thing were written for POV reasons or by people working for competing banks. The whole article seems longer, more indicting, and more detailed than necessary. As evidence, I present the long "example" narrative that seems to intentionally personalize the possible losses incurred by someone from the biggest-to-smallest policy. I also present this quote:

"This differs from the policy of FleetBoston wherein funds would not be transferred unless a sufficient balance was available, and no fees were charged if the payment wasn't sent."

That sounds almost like a commercial.

And in case the question comes up, I am in no way affiliated with BofA.

Creationlaw 02:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The FleetBoston mention does sound a little fishy, and at any rate, this is the policy of several banks, not just Fleet.

But I disagree with your larger point. This article is not disproportionately indicting; the bank itself is disproportionately deserving of controversy and criticism. Bank of America engages in lots of questionable practices, moreso than other banks, as evidenced by the huge number of complaints mentioned on this site and on the internet.

And if something mentioned here seems especially indictive, it's because it describes an especially heinous policy. For example, bank reps say - and I have spoken personally with them - that their website and ATMs are not a reliable source for tracking one's balance information, and that one should keep track themselves instead. If it looks bad to read that, good. It should look bad. It's insane. And it's 100% factually correct.

The biggest-check-first example has been here for 1.5 years and I think it's an excellent explanation of how their process works. It's detailed, factual, concise, and very informative. It's been through lots of edits and stood the test of time. Yes, it's a bit long, but it's a complex process and difficult to explain in few words.

Rasi2290 10:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

When you say, "For example, bank reps say - and I have spoken personally with them - that their website and ATMs are not a reliable source for tracking one's balance information, and that one should keep track themselves instead," I can't help but think that's a good rule of thumb no matter WHAT bank you're using. It's impossible for any bank to keep 100% up-to-date information on accounts the way electronic transactions are handled in this country, for a variety of reasons. I bank with an institution completely unrelated to BofA, and the website and ATM's never even agree with each other, much less with my personal up-to-date records. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just saying that this is a problem broader than a single financial institution :) 67.163.165.236 (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Alderman's Overdraft Fees

This section reads almost like an article off The Onion. Please add sources or it will be removed. See WP:NOR for more information.
--JKeene 22:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This reference clarifies the section and verifies the content.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.6.68.28 (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice try. Your "reference" does not even mention overdraft fees, Dean Alderman, or Mike Boguslawski. It does mention "overcharges of trustee fees on "fixed fee" trusts managed by Security Pacific National Bank [. . .] which was merged into Bank of America in 1992". It seems you also changed the date by seven years and moved the location a few thousand miles from your original version.
I'm deleting the whole section for now, until you can come up with a credible story with verifiable references. Please do not delete my Talk posts again.
--JKeene 23:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mountaintop Removal

I'm not sure how this is really a notable point of controversy. Bank of America has granted loans to commerical mining companies, just as banks have done for hundreds of years. I'm sure that every other bank that does commerical loans has similar clientele. There have been no lawsuits, TV coverage, or protest outside of a minor rally at a single banking center. Short of a more compelling reason to include the entry, I intend to remove it. Stile4aly 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

-Actually, only Citibank and BankofAmerica loan to companies that use mountaintop removal. Just because there hasn't been media coverage widespread doesn't mean the controversy doesn't exist. I know of another protest that is going on Nov 16th 2007 at Raleigh, NC's Bank of America.--Nielad 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

One protest at a single banking center doesn't make a national controversy. Please provide reliable sources indicating that this is a widespread point of controversy, and the paragraph can be reinserted. Stile4aly (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Determining notability

This page is supposed to detail notable controversies related to Bank of America, but I wonder how notable some of them are. I think we need to set a precedent so that something has to meet a minimum standard of notability before we include it in the article. As things stand now we have some legitimate controversies (such as the Credit Card application policy, Parmalat Bankruptcy, Overdraft Processing, Matthew Shinnick's arrest, and Social Security Benefits) and some items that seem to be less notable (such as the online bill pay entry which contains no citations, or the Interest Maximizer change in terms which refers only to Bank of America documents). The difference between these two categories is coverage by regional or national media. Essentially, we're not enforcing WP:Notability in this article, and I think we need to be more vigilant. Stile4aly (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Notability is rather subjective so it is hard to enforce. Also it reads:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those requiring Verifiability, using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines.

—WP:NNC
Some of this article could definitely be cut per WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:TRIV.
--JKeene (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think the two sections I've identified (Online Bill Pay and the Interest Maximizer change in terms) are good candidates to be cut. Unless there's any objection, I plan on removing these within a few days. Stile4aly (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

the first 2 cases listed here are from previous incarnations of the Bank of America family (eh, having a hard time summing up what i want to say- neither of the first 2 cases deal with Bank of America as it is today) They seem only to shine bad light on the BofA name- i'd like to nominate the first 2 cases for either permanent removal from the article, or moving to separate subheadings such as "Criticisms of Previous Policies," or rewriting the cases to refer to CURRENT policy criticisms. Tingrin87 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Both cases cite reliable sources regarding significant court decisions against major predecessor companies of Bank of America. No indication is given in either case that the bank's policy was ever changed. I believe both cases are still relevant, but may need to be reviewed for POV problems. Ensure that any questionable statements are sourced from one of the references provided; if not, delete or rewrite the statement.
--JKeene (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Endorses Scams & Funds Payday Loans

I am a customer of BoA, and they frequently send me offers for scams and schemes, like worthless travel-clubs that run afoul of the BBB and are under investigation by various state's attorneys. These offers arrive in BoA envelopes and have the BoA logo on them. Usually they offer a low-value gift (like a travel dvd-player) and provide of no value, automatic withdrawals are then made from one's account. Often the fees increase after 6 months. It is really shady but i cant find any articles about it anywhere. Maybe next time I get one, I'll scan it. Also, BoA is a major equity holder and credit provider for Payday_loans. http://consumerist.com/consumer/loansharks/payday-lenders-funded-by-bank-of-america-chase-wellsfargo-us-bancorp-wachovia-270636.php

Anyone think any of this belongs in this article?128.227.27.215 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV regarding overdrafts

(moved from Talk:Bank of America) I am reviving this discussion from the archives, where I did not reply to some replies to my point. I hope this concise summary of the statements made is accurate and sufficient to continue discussion:

ACH and debit/credit transactions cannot bounce after authorization, negating BoA's assertion that largest-item-first posting is a benefit Sparr

ACH items can bounce Stile4aly

Taking that correction as true, we still have the matter of debit and credit transactions. In any batch of transactions where all funds are pre-authorized and cannot bounce, there is no benefit to the customer in processing the transactions in order of decreasing size. In batches involving bouncable transactions, there can be benefit. I believe (and will, if requested, attempt to provide citations) that the vast majority of transactions in modern consumer banking are of the pre-authorized variety, to the point that the majority of daily or even weekly batches contain no bouncable transactions. If that is true, then BoA is being deliberately misleading (read: lying) in their argument that their posting method provides benefit to the customer. Without expending large amounts of space with examples, there should be SOME text in this article that indicates the falseness-in-most-cases of BoA's assertions. I have re-added a more neutral version of my previous edit, and welcome any changes in verbiage that are required. Sparr (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved this conversation here to eliminate the confusion of having the edits on one page and the discussion on another. Sparr, I don't understand what you mean by "pre-authorized and cannot bounce". In any case, you need a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Keep in mind, this is not a policy limited to BoA, it is practiced throughout the industry (see Overdraft).
--JKeene (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)