Bankofamerica online banking
bankofamerica Consumer
Global Consumer and Small Business Banking is the largest division in the bankofamerica, and deals primarily with consumer banking and bankofamerica card issuance. The acquisition of FleetBoston and MBNA significantly expanded its size and range of services, resulting in about 51% of the bankofamerica's total revenue in 2005. It competes directly with the retail banking divisions of Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase. The GC&SBB organization includes over 5,700 retail branches and over 17,000 ATMs across the United States.
bankofamerica Corporate
Global Corporate and Investment Banking, also known as Banc of America Securities, provides mergers and acquisitions advisory, underwriting, as well as trading in fixed income and equities markets. Its strongest groups include Leveraged Finance, Syndicated Loans, and Mortgage Backed Securities. It also has one of the largest research teams on Wall Street.
bankofamerica Investment Management
Global Wealth and Investment Management manages assets of institutions and individuals. It is among the 10 largest U.S. wealth managers (ranked by private banking assets under management in accounts of $1 million or more as of June 30, 2005). In July 2006, Chairman Ken Lewis announced that GWIM's total assets under management exceeded $500,000,000,000. GWIM has five primary lines of business: Premier Banking & Investments (including Banc of America Investment Services, Inc.), The Private Bank, Family Wealth Advisors, Columbia Management, and Banc of America Specialist.
Bank of America is currently constructing a massive new headquarters for its New York City operations. The skyscaper will be located on 42nd Street and Avenue of the Americas, at Bryant Park, and will feature state-of-the-art, environmentally friendly technology throughout its 1.2 million square feet (120,000 m?) of office space. The building will be the headquarters for the bankofamerica's investment banking division, and will also host most of Bank of America's New York based staff.
bankofamerica Controversy
bankofamerica Raiding Social Security
In 2004, a California jury decided that Bank of America had illegally raided the Social Security benefits of a million customers. The jury awarded damages that could exceed $1 billion. Bank of America had been accused of withholding customers' direct deposit social security benefit payments to cover debts in cases where a debt is owed to the bank by the customer (e.g.: due to an overdrawn account, various service fees, etc.); this practice violates California state law. The suit claims that Bank of America knew about the law and concealed the facts of this law from their customers. Bank of America counters that it only followed standard industry practice of using monthly pre-authorized direct deposits to cover overdrafts and the like. The case is on appeal.
bankofamerica Excessive overdraft fees
In 1999, a class action lawsuit was filed against Bank of America for engaging in the practice of "Biggest Check First" check-clearing. Put simply, the bank clears checks and ATM/debit card transactions in order from biggest to smallest, with less regard to what time they come in during that business day. The lawsuit claimed that this is done on purpose: that the bank is manipulating the order of transactions to trigger more overdraft fees to collect.
Customers cannot avoid these fees by avoiding use of written checks; the bank employs the same practice for ATM and debit card transactions. Compounding the issue, the bank authorizes transactions in such a way that one debit card purchase - with funds that were available at the time of purchase - can trigger multiple overdraft fees.
When customers make debit card purchases through any modern bank, the charge is immediately deducted from their available balance. Technically, this is just a hold on the funds; the charge is not deducted from the actual balance until the merchant settles the transaction with the bank. At Bank of America, if the merchant does not settle within three business days, the funds are once again made available for spending. Thus, the same money can be spent twice. When the merchant does settle the transaction, these funds are again deducted, even if this overdraws the account, which can result in an overdraft fee.
Here's an example: A customer has $100 in her account. On Tuesday, using her debit card, she buys coffee for $3, a small amount of gas for $15, and $25 worth of groceries. The $43 she spent is immediately deducted, and her available balance decreases to $57. If the merchants with whom the customer made the Tuesday purchases fail to settle the transactions before Friday, the $43 shows up on the account as available, bringing her account back to $100. On Saturday she withdraws the $100 from an ATM. As of Sunday night, her account shows exactly $0 remaining available. On Monday evening, all of the merchants with whom she has made purchases the prior week settle their transactions.
When the customer checks her statement Tuesday morning, she finds three overdraft charges, for the three purchases on the prior Tuesday. The customer is naturally confused, as she had not overdrawn her account for any of these transactions when she made them on that day. However, because all four transactions clear on Monday, and the bank clears biggest items first, Tuesday's purchases are all listed after the $100 ATM withdrawal that occured four days later. The customer is charged three overdraft charges total, instead of one or none.
BOA's response is that their online banking and ATM systems should not be used to determine balance; customers should keep a written account register to be sure of their actual balance.
Bank representatives claim that "Biggest Check First" insulates the Bank from undue risk. By paying the largest items first, the Bank ensures that no loss is incurred on the largest items, and most risky items. Smaller items pose less liability to the Bank, and are therefore paid last. Also, the order in which checks are presented doesn't always correlate with their post time, because their negotiation can happen in a number of ways.
Bank representatives also claim that this benefits customers: larger transactions typically represent more important items on a customer's account such as a mortgage or rent payment, car payment, etc. By paying these items first, the bank helps insure that the customer's most important transactions go through.
The "Biggest Check First" policy is not unique to Bank of America, and is common among other large U.S. banks, such as JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Wachovia. It was this policy, in conjunction with the other practices listed above, that prompted the lawsuit. BofA paid a $9M settlement and the lawsuit was dismissed without an admission of fault; BofA continues to process transactions from highest to lowest amounts.
BofA has increased the length of time [debit card] authorizations are listed as pending in online banking from 1 business day to 3 business days to reduce confusion over the actual available balance.
bankofamerica Online Bill Pay
Another relatively new policy Bank of America has implemented is the sending of automated bill payments without available funds -- and the related charging of fees. If previous Fleet or BankBoston customers had an automated bill payment set up but either scheduled the payment for the wrong day or else didn't deposit necessary funds in time, the bank would attempt to make the payments for three days until the money was available, before cancelling the payment attempt. As no money would be transferred unless funding was available, no fees were charged.
Bank of America, however, changed their policy to send the payments even with a zero balance, even electronic payments where it is clear the funds do not exist. They then charge customers up to $35 per scheduled payment. They also do not then cancel the payments, but continue to re-attempt the payments one more time, meaning that if customers do not deposit funds immediately into their account, they can be charged up to $35 per mistakenly scheduled payment, for up to two mistaken payments, or $35 per incident, where their previous banks would have charged nothing.
In February 2006 Bank of America also changed their online bill pay policy to send customers' automated bill payments without debiting the payments from their account until the day after they are processed by the payees' bank. This differs from most online banking customers' previous experience with having the funds immediately debited from their account, making online bill pay more inline with mailing out a paper check. Funds are deducted from a customer's account when the payee processes the payment rather than on the day the payment is sent out. This ensures funds are available longer to the customer and not tied up "in limbo" while waiting for processing to occur.
bankofamerica Online banking security
bankofamerica Website redirection weakness
In April 2005, Bank of America was the target of a phishing scheme that exploited a flaw in the Bank of America online banking website. Normally, a phishing link that accesses an illegitimate website can be detected by carefully reading the URL in the web browser. One URL for the Bank of America website allowed a second URL to be passed to the Bank of America website for redirection. This allowed the phishing link to access an illegitimate website through the Bank of America website and thereby display a "real" Bank of America URL while accessing the illegitimate site. [3]
bankofamerica SiteKey
Announced in May of 2005, SiteKey, provided by Passmark Security, is an additional login step added to the Bank of America online banking website. If the Bank of America system recognizes the user's computer it displays a small image and a text token previously selected by the user. If the user does not recognize the image the user is instructed to not log in and call a phone number for "Electronic Banking Services." If the Bank of America system does not recognize the user's computer the user is asked one of three security questions that had previously been selected and answered by the user. The bank claims this as an added security measure to help reduce the likelihood of phishing attacks by allowing users to easily verify the authenticity of the server to which they are connected.
Though SiteKey will by no means render Bank of America customers immune to phishing attacks, it is a step in the right direction since it demands a two-way exchange of authenticating information: The Web server presents the user its credentials (your chosen image and text) as a means of proving they really are the bank. Only after seeing the image they have chosen, the bank instructs its users, should they, in turn, present their credentials (user ID and passcode).
Some people have noted that Sitekey, or at very least customer account numbers, may be subject to exposure via brute force attacks. When a user enters any valid bank account number, Sitekey prompts for the selection of the correct Sitekey. Thus it is possible to confirm the existence of a valid account by inspecting the format of a valid account number, cleverly tuning guesses of account numbers, and repeatedly submitting the numbers.
While the two-way authentication is currently an uncommon function among the consumer banking industry, the recognition of the user's computer, or more accurately, their browser, is still done in the normal way using HTTP cookies. Additionally, an Adobe Flash Local Shared Object is added to the user's computer that stores identifying details of customers, such as log-ins, in a way that is said to prevent most customers from finding or deleting them.
bankofamerica Matthew Shinnick's Arrest and Clark Howard's Challenge
In December of 2005, a San Francisco man named Matthew Shinnick attempted to sell a pair of bicycles on Craigslist. His negotiations with a person appearing to be an interested buyer eventually yielded a check for $2,000, which he had received by early January of 2006. This amount was in excess of the $600 price they had discussed and "he was made suspicious by the unexpectedly large payment."[4]
According to his version of events, Mr. Shinnick decided not to deposit the check into his own account for fear that it would bounce. The check was issued–he had been told--from the buyer's "bankofamerica's Bank of America business account," and he took it to their nearest branch where he would cash the check if it was legitimate.[4]
Mr Shinnick asked the teller "if sufficient funds existed in the . . . business account to cover the check," to which the teller replied that "it was a valid account and that there were funds to cover it."[4] Acting on this information, Mr. Shinnick endorsed the check and attempted to cash it.
The business account to which the check was supposed to belong had been flagged, and bank employees were to look out for fraudulent checks. So when Mr. Shinnick presented the signed check to a teller, she phoned the business account-holder to inquire about the validity of the check. They informed her "that no check had been written to Shinnick for $2,000 or any other amount." That was when the branch manager called the police and then pressed charges. Mr. Shinnick "was taken into custody 'for the safety of the bank employees as well as the bank customers.'"[4]
All of the charges against Mr. Shinnick were dropped within 24 hours of his release (he had been in jail for nearly 12 hours ). "In July, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that Shinnick was innocent by 'findings of fact' -- a decision that essentially erases all record of the case." Mr. Shinnick has supporting documents indicating he "spent about $14,000 clearing his name of the felony arrest." And he would like Bank of America to cover that expense.[4]
Bank of America has said they regret what has happened, but refused to pay the $14,000. William Minnes, a bank vice president, said that the bank, "has no legal liability in the case because of the 2004 Supreme Court ruling" in Hagberg v. California Federal Bank," and "warned that 'litigation would not prove financially beneficial' to Shinnick."[4]
Consumer advocate and radio personality Clark Howard decided that Bank of America has mistreated Matthew Shinnick. In response to many rebuffed attempts (mentioned on air) to talk to Bank of America about the situation, Mr. Howard has launched a national challenge to Americans requesting that they withdraw their money from Bank of America in protest of Mr. Shinnick's treatment. Howard claims that since October 27, 2006, his listeners have taken out more than fifty million dollars from the bankofamerica.[5]
Mr. Howard had the opportunity to speak to some Bank of America representatives, and offered to pay half of Mr. Shinnick's legal fees if the bank would also pay half. They declined.[6]
The popular blog boingboing offered the same challenge to its users in a November 15th article by Mark Frauenfelder. Currently about a million dollars have been pulled; a running tally is being kept on the site. [1]
bankofamerica International operations
In 2005, Bank of America acquired a 9% stake in China Construction Bank, China's second largest bank, for $3 billion. It represented the bankofamerica's largest foray into China's growing banking sector. Bank of America currently has offices in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Guangzhou and is looking to greatly expand its Chinese business as a result of this deal. Bank of America has also invested in opening new branches in India, particularly Mumbai.
Bank of America operated under the name Bank Boston in many other Latin American countries, including Brazil. In 2006, Bank of America sold all BankBoston's operations to Brazilian bank Banco Itau, in exchange to Itau shares. The BankBoston name and trademarks were not part of the transaction and, as part of the sale agreement, cannot be used by Bank of America. That, in practical terms, deemed the definite extinction of the BankBoston brand.
wallmart
kellybluebook
freecreditreport
freeslots
morgage calculator
craiglist
verison
homedepot
travelosity
ticketmaster
freegames
freeonlinegames
deltaairlines
Global Consumer and Small Business Banking is the largest division in the bankofamerica, and deals primarily with consumer banking and bankofamerica card issuance. The acquisition of FleetBoston and MBNA significantly expanded its size and range of services, resulting in about 51% of the bankofamerica's total revenue in 2005. It competes directly with the retail banking divisions of Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase. The GC&SBB organization includes over 5,700 retail branches and over 17,000 ATMs across the United States.
bankofamerica Corporate
Global Corporate and Investment Banking, also known as Banc of America Securities, provides mergers and acquisitions advisory, underwriting, as well as trading in fixed income and equities markets. Its strongest groups include Leveraged Finance, Syndicated Loans, and Mortgage Backed Securities. It also has one of the largest research teams on Wall Street.
bankofamerica Investment Management
Global Wealth and Investment Management manages assets of institutions and individuals. It is among the 10 largest U.S. wealth managers (ranked by private banking assets under management in accounts of $1 million or more as of June 30, 2005). In July 2006, Chairman Ken Lewis announced that GWIM's total assets under management exceeded $500,000,000,000. GWIM has five primary lines of business: Premier Banking & Investments (including Banc of America Investment Services, Inc.), The Private Bank, Family Wealth Advisors, Columbia Management, and Banc of America Specialist.
Bank of America is currently constructing a massive new headquarters for its New York City operations. The skyscaper will be located on 42nd Street and Avenue of the Americas, at Bryant Park, and will feature state-of-the-art, environmentally friendly technology throughout its 1.2 million square feet (120,000 m?) of office space. The building will be the headquarters for the bankofamerica's investment banking division, and will also host most of Bank of America's New York based staff.
bankofamerica Controversy
bankofamerica Raiding Social Security
In 2004, a California jury decided that Bank of America had illegally raided the Social Security benefits of a million customers. The jury awarded damages that could exceed $1 billion. Bank of America had been accused of withholding customers' direct deposit social security benefit payments to cover debts in cases where a debt is owed to the bank by the customer (e.g.: due to an overdrawn account, various service fees, etc.); this practice violates California state law. The suit claims that Bank of America knew about the law and concealed the facts of this law from their customers. Bank of America counters that it only followed standard industry practice of using monthly pre-authorized direct deposits to cover overdrafts and the like. The case is on appeal.
bankofamerica Excessive overdraft fees
In 1999, a class action lawsuit was filed against Bank of America for engaging in the practice of "Biggest Check First" check-clearing. Put simply, the bank clears checks and ATM/debit card transactions in order from biggest to smallest, with less regard to what time they come in during that business day. The lawsuit claimed that this is done on purpose: that the bank is manipulating the order of transactions to trigger more overdraft fees to collect.
Customers cannot avoid these fees by avoiding use of written checks; the bank employs the same practice for ATM and debit card transactions. Compounding the issue, the bank authorizes transactions in such a way that one debit card purchase - with funds that were available at the time of purchase - can trigger multiple overdraft fees.
When customers make debit card purchases through any modern bank, the charge is immediately deducted from their available balance. Technically, this is just a hold on the funds; the charge is not deducted from the actual balance until the merchant settles the transaction with the bank. At Bank of America, if the merchant does not settle within three business days, the funds are once again made available for spending. Thus, the same money can be spent twice. When the merchant does settle the transaction, these funds are again deducted, even if this overdraws the account, which can result in an overdraft fee.
Here's an example: A customer has $100 in her account. On Tuesday, using her debit card, she buys coffee for $3, a small amount of gas for $15, and $25 worth of groceries. The $43 she spent is immediately deducted, and her available balance decreases to $57. If the merchants with whom the customer made the Tuesday purchases fail to settle the transactions before Friday, the $43 shows up on the account as available, bringing her account back to $100. On Saturday she withdraws the $100 from an ATM. As of Sunday night, her account shows exactly $0 remaining available. On Monday evening, all of the merchants with whom she has made purchases the prior week settle their transactions.
When the customer checks her statement Tuesday morning, she finds three overdraft charges, for the three purchases on the prior Tuesday. The customer is naturally confused, as she had not overdrawn her account for any of these transactions when she made them on that day. However, because all four transactions clear on Monday, and the bank clears biggest items first, Tuesday's purchases are all listed after the $100 ATM withdrawal that occured four days later. The customer is charged three overdraft charges total, instead of one or none.
BOA's response is that their online banking and ATM systems should not be used to determine balance; customers should keep a written account register to be sure of their actual balance.
Bank representatives claim that "Biggest Check First" insulates the Bank from undue risk. By paying the largest items first, the Bank ensures that no loss is incurred on the largest items, and most risky items. Smaller items pose less liability to the Bank, and are therefore paid last. Also, the order in which checks are presented doesn't always correlate with their post time, because their negotiation can happen in a number of ways.
Bank representatives also claim that this benefits customers: larger transactions typically represent more important items on a customer's account such as a mortgage or rent payment, car payment, etc. By paying these items first, the bank helps insure that the customer's most important transactions go through.
The "Biggest Check First" policy is not unique to Bank of America, and is common among other large U.S. banks, such as JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Wachovia. It was this policy, in conjunction with the other practices listed above, that prompted the lawsuit. BofA paid a $9M settlement and the lawsuit was dismissed without an admission of fault; BofA continues to process transactions from highest to lowest amounts.
BofA has increased the length of time [debit card] authorizations are listed as pending in online banking from 1 business day to 3 business days to reduce confusion over the actual available balance.
bankofamerica Online Bill Pay
Another relatively new policy Bank of America has implemented is the sending of automated bill payments without available funds -- and the related charging of fees. If previous Fleet or BankBoston customers had an automated bill payment set up but either scheduled the payment for the wrong day or else didn't deposit necessary funds in time, the bank would attempt to make the payments for three days until the money was available, before cancelling the payment attempt. As no money would be transferred unless funding was available, no fees were charged.
Bank of America, however, changed their policy to send the payments even with a zero balance, even electronic payments where it is clear the funds do not exist. They then charge customers up to $35 per scheduled payment. They also do not then cancel the payments, but continue to re-attempt the payments one more time, meaning that if customers do not deposit funds immediately into their account, they can be charged up to $35 per mistakenly scheduled payment, for up to two mistaken payments, or $35 per incident, where their previous banks would have charged nothing.
In February 2006 Bank of America also changed their online bill pay policy to send customers' automated bill payments without debiting the payments from their account until the day after they are processed by the payees' bank. This differs from most online banking customers' previous experience with having the funds immediately debited from their account, making online bill pay more inline with mailing out a paper check. Funds are deducted from a customer's account when the payee processes the payment rather than on the day the payment is sent out. This ensures funds are available longer to the customer and not tied up "in limbo" while waiting for processing to occur.
bankofamerica Online banking security
bankofamerica Website redirection weakness
In April 2005, Bank of America was the target of a phishing scheme that exploited a flaw in the Bank of America online banking website. Normally, a phishing link that accesses an illegitimate website can be detected by carefully reading the URL in the web browser. One URL for the Bank of America website allowed a second URL to be passed to the Bank of America website for redirection. This allowed the phishing link to access an illegitimate website through the Bank of America website and thereby display a "real" Bank of America URL while accessing the illegitimate site. [3]
bankofamerica SiteKey
Announced in May of 2005, SiteKey, provided by Passmark Security, is an additional login step added to the Bank of America online banking website. If the Bank of America system recognizes the user's computer it displays a small image and a text token previously selected by the user. If the user does not recognize the image the user is instructed to not log in and call a phone number for "Electronic Banking Services." If the Bank of America system does not recognize the user's computer the user is asked one of three security questions that had previously been selected and answered by the user. The bank claims this as an added security measure to help reduce the likelihood of phishing attacks by allowing users to easily verify the authenticity of the server to which they are connected.
Though SiteKey will by no means render Bank of America customers immune to phishing attacks, it is a step in the right direction since it demands a two-way exchange of authenticating information: The Web server presents the user its credentials (your chosen image and text) as a means of proving they really are the bank. Only after seeing the image they have chosen, the bank instructs its users, should they, in turn, present their credentials (user ID and passcode).
Some people have noted that Sitekey, or at very least customer account numbers, may be subject to exposure via brute force attacks. When a user enters any valid bank account number, Sitekey prompts for the selection of the correct Sitekey. Thus it is possible to confirm the existence of a valid account by inspecting the format of a valid account number, cleverly tuning guesses of account numbers, and repeatedly submitting the numbers.
While the two-way authentication is currently an uncommon function among the consumer banking industry, the recognition of the user's computer, or more accurately, their browser, is still done in the normal way using HTTP cookies. Additionally, an Adobe Flash Local Shared Object is added to the user's computer that stores identifying details of customers, such as log-ins, in a way that is said to prevent most customers from finding or deleting them.
bankofamerica Matthew Shinnick's Arrest and Clark Howard's Challenge
In December of 2005, a San Francisco man named Matthew Shinnick attempted to sell a pair of bicycles on Craigslist. His negotiations with a person appearing to be an interested buyer eventually yielded a check for $2,000, which he had received by early January of 2006. This amount was in excess of the $600 price they had discussed and "he was made suspicious by the unexpectedly large payment."[4]
According to his version of events, Mr. Shinnick decided not to deposit the check into his own account for fear that it would bounce. The check was issued–he had been told--from the buyer's "bankofamerica's Bank of America business account," and he took it to their nearest branch where he would cash the check if it was legitimate.[4]
Mr Shinnick asked the teller "if sufficient funds existed in the . . . business account to cover the check," to which the teller replied that "it was a valid account and that there were funds to cover it."[4] Acting on this information, Mr. Shinnick endorsed the check and attempted to cash it.
The business account to which the check was supposed to belong had been flagged, and bank employees were to look out for fraudulent checks. So when Mr. Shinnick presented the signed check to a teller, she phoned the business account-holder to inquire about the validity of the check. They informed her "that no check had been written to Shinnick for $2,000 or any other amount." That was when the branch manager called the police and then pressed charges. Mr. Shinnick "was taken into custody 'for the safety of the bank employees as well as the bank customers.'"[4]
All of the charges against Mr. Shinnick were dropped within 24 hours of his release (he had been in jail for nearly 12 hours ). "In July, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that Shinnick was innocent by 'findings of fact' -- a decision that essentially erases all record of the case." Mr. Shinnick has supporting documents indicating he "spent about $14,000 clearing his name of the felony arrest." And he would like Bank of America to cover that expense.[4]
Bank of America has said they regret what has happened, but refused to pay the $14,000. William Minnes, a bank vice president, said that the bank, "has no legal liability in the case because of the 2004 Supreme Court ruling" in Hagberg v. California Federal Bank," and "warned that 'litigation would not prove financially beneficial' to Shinnick."[4]
Consumer advocate and radio personality Clark Howard decided that Bank of America has mistreated Matthew Shinnick. In response to many rebuffed attempts (mentioned on air) to talk to Bank of America about the situation, Mr. Howard has launched a national challenge to Americans requesting that they withdraw their money from Bank of America in protest of Mr. Shinnick's treatment. Howard claims that since October 27, 2006, his listeners have taken out more than fifty million dollars from the bankofamerica.[5]
Mr. Howard had the opportunity to speak to some Bank of America representatives, and offered to pay half of Mr. Shinnick's legal fees if the bank would also pay half. They declined.[6]
The popular blog boingboing offered the same challenge to its users in a November 15th article by Mark Frauenfelder. Currently about a million dollars have been pulled; a running tally is being kept on the site. [1]
bankofamerica International operations
In 2005, Bank of America acquired a 9% stake in China Construction Bank, China's second largest bank, for $3 billion. It represented the bankofamerica's largest foray into China's growing banking sector. Bank of America currently has offices in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Guangzhou and is looking to greatly expand its Chinese business as a result of this deal. Bank of America has also invested in opening new branches in India, particularly Mumbai.
Bank of America operated under the name Bank Boston in many other Latin American countries, including Brazil. In 2006, Bank of America sold all BankBoston's operations to Brazilian bank Banco Itau, in exchange to Itau shares. The BankBoston name and trademarks were not part of the transaction and, as part of the sale agreement, cannot be used by Bank of America. That, in practical terms, deemed the definite extinction of the BankBoston brand.
wallmart
kellybluebook
freecreditreport
freeslots
morgage calculator
craiglist
verison
homedepot
travelosity
ticketmaster
freegames
freeonlinegames
deltaairlines