I will continue to keep the $9 or so in my bofa checking account and use my bofa credit cards about once a year to buy something cheap and pay them off.

quote:

Originally posted by DSgrouse:
Wells is also facing billion dollar fines, alienating patrons would not be a smart move.

Yes, but if they're facing billion dollar fines then eating Bank of America's lunch would certainly be a smart move.

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:
I will continue to keep the $9 or so in my bofa checking account and use my bofa credit cards about once a year to buy something cheap and pay them off.

Unless you're ok with the FICO score penalty, that seems to be the crux for many who have CC that are financed via BofA...AAA, Alaska, Asiana, Sprint, Amtrak, Celebrity Cruise, Allegiant, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise, Virgin Atlantic, and World Points Rewards.

I got a response from Anne Finucane at BofA. It is interesting reading. It is not good for a money company to forget basic economics.

If someone wants to read the pdf, let me know how to post it. Postimage.com does not do .pdf, and my screen resolution would make a poor quality .jpg if I screenshot it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Boston:
If someone wants to read the pdf, let me know how to post it. Postimage.com does not do .pdf, and my screen resolution would make a poor quality .jpg if I screenshot it.

Email to me and I'll host it for you, if you want.

^^^ You can 'select all' and copy and paste it into your post.

ensigmatic- it is on its way- edit (missing manners on my part) Thank you.

Chellim- it is a protected pdf, and copy/paste does not work. I am sure there are ways around it, but not in the time I have this morning.

Here ya go: A letter from Bank of America Vice Chairman, Anne Finucane (PDF) You're welcome

I was able to get it into text, then copy-n-paste:

quote:

A letter from Bank of America Vice Chairman, Anne Finucane


We operate in and support communities throughout the United States. Our employees and clients have been
touched directly and indirectly by mass shootings from military style firearms in many of those communities.

We know there is a limited role we can play as a company to make a direct contribution to reaching a day we all
want, when we no longer have to suffer a mass shooting tragedy in our country.

Firearms with military characteristics have been used in many of these recent tragedies, including at schools in
Florida and Connecticut.

We have firearms industry clients who do not manufacture this type of firearm. But we are engaging the limited
number of clients who do, to learn their plans to keep this type of firearm from being used in mass shootings. In
those discussions, we have indicated it is our intent that we will not finance the manufacture of this type of
firearm for non-law enforcement, non-military use. We want to understand what those clients are doing to end
mass shootings, and what we can do to help them.

Our policy is not a perfect solution to the challenge we face in the communities where we operate and where our
employees and clients live. But we feel we cannot stand idly by as these mass shootings continue to devastate the
communities we serve. We feel we are taking a balanced and respectful approach to address these challenges.
Other public companies are trying to do the same thing.

Some believe the sale of firearms should be restricted. We think it would not be effective or appropriate for us to
attempt to restrict the purchase of firearms. That is a matter of public policy, and of the policy of merchants and
others to decide what products they choose to sell.

Some merchants, including Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods, have stopped selling the type of firearm that has
been used in recent mass shootings, and which are illegal for sale to civilians in several states where we operate.

That is their decision. We have not taken a position on that. We also understand there are many who support
tougher background checks and other ways to ensure the responsible use of these firearms. Because these are not
matters we can directly affect, we have not taken a position on them, either.

The individual right to bear arms is in our Constitution and has been sustained by Supreme Court decisions. Our
discussions with clients to learn what they are doing to end the tragedy of mass shootings have nothing to do with
that right. But there are many steps that can be taken.

The one step we are taking as a company is to work with our clients to better understand what they are doing to
keep these firearms out of the hands of people who are using them in mass shootings.

What we are doing will not solve the problem. We know that. Doing so will take collective action, including public
and private cooperation. Together we can make the communities we serve safer and, hopefully, help avoid future
tragedies.

Regards,


Anne Finucane
Vice Chairman
Bank of America

Here is a letter I have just sent to someone who has purchased one of my genealogy books.

“April 16, 2018

Jessie XXXXX
Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Tulsa, OK 74133

Dear Jessie,

Thank you for the order for the History of the Fairchild Family. I will be sending it to you by Friday, the 20th.

In addition, I am returning your check for $25 drawn on your account at Bank of America. I would hope you will replace it with funds not drawn on Bank of America. I do not accept payments from any organization that uses its business standing to engage in political pressure thus forcing its clients, employees or related customers to conform to standards foreign to the United States Constitution sustained by Supreme Court decisions.

I know this will likely be an inconvenience to you. For that I apologize. I also realize that my small voice will not likely make any real difference to such a large company, but I do feel as though businesses should not play political games.

I hope you will enjoy the book.

Look for it soon.”

EasyFire

American Spectator
Stephen Kruiser

Remember, they don’t really want to take our guns. They keep reassuring us of that.

There’s just one thing: they really do.

As legal gun owners in America are still — for now anyway — protected by the Constitution, the increasingly zealous anti-gun crowd is getting creative in their attempts to take away freedom.

And they’re taking their cues from a traumatized adolescent.

There are any number of ways for the anti-gun people to make life even more difficult. Deep blue states are already ahead in the game with onerous obstacles to merely owning a firearm.

Gun owners, however, are small fry to the zealots. The big fish are the gun manufacturers.

The effort to shame various entities into stop investing in gun companies has been picking up steam in recent months.

Bank of America — the nation’s second largest bank — was fairly quick to jump on the post-Parkland hysteria bandwagon.

Bank of America will stop lending to business clients that manufacture military-style weapons for civilian use, becoming the latest U.S. financial institution to break ties with gunmakers following the mass shooting massacre at a Florida high school.

“We want to contribute in any way we can to reduce these mass shootings,” Anne Finucane, vice chairman of the Charlotte, N.C.-based banking giant, said during a Bloomberg TV interview on Tuesday.

It’s disturbing that a corporation which relies on precision will now craft business policies based on anti-2A vague talking points like “military-style weapons.” Try to pinpoint any gun hater on what that or “assault weapons” actually mean and you won’t get an answer that gets within miles of coherence. In fact, if you talk to any anti-gun activist for more than a minute (I do a weekly hit on NRA News, I get a lot of these interactions) you quickly realize that they think every firearm ever made is a machine gun.

After BofA was brat-shamed into penalizing law-abiding contributors to the American economy, it was revealed that the bank still had some business pending to help Remington Outdoor Corp. emerge from bankruptcy. That didn’t sit well with the bank’s new pubescent overlord:

Bank of America lied to everyone about not doing business with manufacturers of assault weapons https://t.co/fI5czJzTcC
Guess I'll be changing my bank soon! #BoycottBankOfAmerica

— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) May 7, 2018
That was on Monday.

This was on Thursday:

Bank of America affirms gun pledge, hints at Remington loan exit https://t.co/MlbyAoBSrW pic.twitter.com/PPA8ZlWkgo

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) May 10, 2018
More from Reuters:

The statement by Vice Chairman Anne Finucane follows a Reuters report on Sunday that the lender was participating in a $193 million credit facility that will help stabilize Remington’s business when it emerges from bankruptcy this month.

After the report, activists including student gun control activist David Hogg were critical of the bank and took to Twitter using the #BoycottBankofAmerica hashtag. Hogg was a student at the high school in Parkland, Florida, where a February shooting helped touch off a renewed push for stricter U.S. gun control.

“Let me be clear – we are not changing our policy to end financing of the manufacture of these military style firearms,” said Finucane, who emphasized the policy change was on a go-forward basis.

BofA had committed to the Remington deal before they began jumping for Hogg, but now may be heeding his wishes with their “go-forward” plans:

The banks have committed to providing the credit, and when Remington exits bankruptcy the credit facility will be established to replace an existing facility of the same size that Remington used to get through its Chapter 11.

The letter also indicated Bank of America may be preparing to exit the Remington credit facility soon after it is financed by selling its participation, as the agreement allows.

“Remington is aware of the policy that we subsequently announced, and that policy will dictate our future actions after the bankruptcy proceedings conclude,” said Finucane’s letter.
Imagine owning stock in a company whose board danced for a teenager’s tweets. A traumatized teenager who was being used as a puppet by left wing activists because they have no shame whatsoever, no less.

Now imagine that said activists are opposed to free speech, the Second Amendment, due process and a host of other bedrock American freedoms.

Things are becoming uncomfortably dystopian in the United States but, thankfully, we aren’t at the nightmare stage.

Yet.

Link