|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2012 @ 07:09 AM EDT |
I don't agree with those conclusions.
Branches remain available because that
is how retail banking products - such as current accounts, savings accounts and
mortgages - are signed up for in practice. Without them, how would they be able
to explain the product to the level required by law, and obtain a reliably
signed contract from the consumer customer? No, to the psychos they are a
necessary cost centre, loathed and sidelined but never entirely
eliminated.
As for the bonuses, they are going to the people at the top of
the organisation chart, who are in law ultimately responsible for the whole
enterprise. It is their responsibility to keep their subordinates in line, and
make sure they keep *their* subordinates in line, etc. They have failed to
exercise responsible oversight to that degree, and they should not be awarded
enormous bonuses for that failure.
And meanwhile the front-line staff who do
their jobs competently in the aforementioned branches get only their basic pay.
They are paid a tiny fraction of what the big bosses get. Yet they are the ones
actually handling cash, actually signing contracts with customers, and actually
taking the abuse when a policy set by the bigwigs bites a customer unfairly -
and generally doing their best to keep the economy moving. They have no control
over the policies they are given to implement.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
"No, they don't. Most of the time the banks make an effort to re-negotiate
mortgages to get their money back. It's just that those stories don't make it to
the front page of the tabloids so most people don't know that the re-negotiating
is going on."
Actually, I know several people and houses that were foreclosed on and the
people kicked out DESPITE the people in the house offering to continue renting
and taking care of the place. The end result in all cases was the house did not
sell for what the banks wanted (no surprise, they wanted the full mortgage
amount, for a house selling for 1/2 that), the houses fell into disrepair and
were condemned by the city and torn down (charged to the bank). Banks ended up
with property worth at most 1/5th what the mortgage was, no income whatsoever,
and the people ended up homeless.
If they'd taken up the offers, they would have ended up with rental income and a
well-maintained house, which could have eventually sold for something (although
not the mortgage amount - at least not for another 20 years).
Don't know who is making the decisions, but I suspect their problem is they're
graduates of American MBA programs - the worst thing to happen to American
business (and we did it to ourselves).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
Bank of America charges people to talk to a teller. At least in those states
in
which they haven't closed their branches. (In Fly Over Country BOA relies
on
ATM's, and the Internet for most banking things.) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
If the company almost fails, then it is the fault of the CEO, and Board of
Directors --- the people who gave themselves the bonus for abysmal
performance. That they were not directly responsible is irrelevant. They
failed their fidicury duty, and in a just society would be penalized for their
lack of prudence. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|