Bank of America Responds
To the NSSF’s inquiries about them ditching gun companies: I want to assure you and your organization that we do not have a policy that would deny banking services to entities because they are in the firearms industry
4 Responses to “Bank of America Responds”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 11th, 2012 at 9:17 am
Does anyone know the difference between having a policy to cover a coarse of action, and just doing a coarse of action without policy, and without any internal contradictions?
I’d bet the difference is being able to say “We don’t have a policy”.
May 11th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“I want to assure you that” something is true doesn’t mean that the thing is true; it just means that the speaker wants you to believe it’s true. If that phrase had been omitted. it would have been a simple declaration.
.
May 11th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Has the original subject of this nonpolicy gotten their BoA account renewed yet?
For the BoA statement to be believable, BoA should have fired the employee involved in closing the gun-related account and publicly welcomed the (former) account holder back with open arms and maybe a toaster (yes I am old fashioned about banks).
May 11th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
The latest explanation appears to be that McMillan represents a “Reputational Risk” to BofA. If that is the case, then BofA is still denying service to McMillan based on the fact that they are a firearms manufacturer – but BofA doesn’t want any negative feedback, so they sugar-coat and hide this fact with PR bullcrap.
In reality, the net effect is the same.
McMillan’s financial fundamentals seem sound and BofA certainly has clients in other industries (like porn) that represent a greater financial and liability risk. Have they been “fired” as well? I think not, and that is because guns are politically bad ju-ju, m’kay, but porn isn’t…apparently.
BofA’s Ray Fox (who met with McMillan) admitted that the reasons were political, yet BofA corporate mouthpieces say this is false. Fox has not denied his statements (that I can find), and BofA hasn’t explained his position.
So which is it, BofA? What’s the truth here? If Fox was wrong, why is he still employed with you, and why not publicly retract his statement?
I call BS on BofA’s denials. If it walks like a duck, etc…