Bank of America

But on the other hand if he had stayed in Germany they would have just shot him and there would have been no churches or schools in Austria.
 
Vern said:
Jonathan,
Is that a response directly from a BofA Official?
If so do you know what level the official is?
Click to expand...

Im would think the response was from their social networking PR person, but Im sure the BofA officials know about it as there was a lot of negative comments on their Facebook and Twitter
 
benenglish said:
Wilbur - Sending you a pm shortly to ask about the appropriateness of the the post I'd like to make in response.

Added later - I see you don't receive PMs. That's understandable given your function. I've sent my request to you via your email address, instead.
Click to expand...

I finally found your email in that pile of spam...Yes, please post your thoughts as they are entirely appropriate. Appropriate not only to this thread but to others of this nature. Beyond the heat and light of the fire, this is also a consumer issue and I've chosen to let it run after deleting hundreds. Your thoughts, at a minimum, support those deletions in the face of letting this one go.

When I wrote that Kelly's words were good enough for me, I should have elaborated. What I should have written was that even if he made it up entirely it would have been "good enough for me" as I respect him enough to give him that degree of lattitude.
 
Vern said:
But on the other hand if he had stayed in Germany they would have just shot him and there would have been no churches or schools in Austria.
Click to expand...

Vern, you need to read your history before you write. Martin did stay with Germany and they did not shoot him. Besides, after the Communists came to Austria is when the churches were shut down.The Germans should probably have shot him because later he was a friend and campaigner for Ho Chi Minh. And look at what a nice fellow Ho turned out to be for his people!!

You've been exposed to too much propaganda!!
 
Wilbur said:
Yes, please post your thoughts as they are entirely appropriate. Appropriate not only to this thread but to others of this nature. Beyond the heat and light of the fire, this is also a consumer issue and I've chosen to let it run after deleting hundreds. Your thoughts, at a minimum, support those deletions in the face of letting this one go.

When I wrote that Kelly's words were good enough for me, I should have elaborated. What I should have written was that even if he made it up entirely it would have been "good enough for me" as I respect him enough to give him that degree of lattitude.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I think. Or have I just been as skillfully admonished as I've ever seen in an online forum?

I don't know Kelly and mean him no disrespect. I also am in no way questioning his honor or honesty.

However, as a consumer issue, the way it was handled was suboptimal. The original announcement on the McMillan Facebook page was not well written. In a subsequent Facebook post, Kelly has stated "I just reported the events which took place in my office." Well, yes, I'm sure that's true, but he didn't do a very good job of it.

The single most important line of the announcement was where the representative of BoA confirmed that the decision was political. Instead of providing a direct quote or expanded explanation that might help us understand exactly what BoA was doing and why, the confirmation was simply paraphrased as "Mr Fox confirmed that it was" (political).

All speculation deriving from a statement so lacking in specificity is unfounded. Nobody except Mr. McMillan and Mr. Fox actually know what was said. If the words of Mr. Fox were little more than "Go jump in the lake; this comes from the very top", then the attitudes of the folks who are calling for a boycott (or worse) are entirely appropriate. If the words of Mr. Fox were along the lines of "Look, I'm sorry but I've been given orders to do this by my crazy new boss" then maybe BoA will benefit from being clued in to the notion that some mid-level executive is pushing a personal agenda to the detriment of his employer. It's entirely possible that Mr. Fox didn't provide enough information for Mr. McMillan to have even the slightest idea why this was all happening (which is sort of the impression I got, but press releases are supposed to communicate facts, not impressions).

No matter what actually happened, a couple of obviously necessary lines of specific information in the original announcement were conspicuously absent. It would greatly help the situation all around if Mr. McMillan were to make another Facebook post providing that information.
 
benenglish said:
...It's entirely possible that Mr. Fox didn't provide enough information for Mr. McMillan to have even the slightest idea why this was all happening (which is sort of the impression I got, but press releases are supposed to communicate facts, not impressions).

No matter what actually happened, a couple of obviously necessary lines of specific information in the original announcement were conspicuously absent. It would greatly help the situation all around if Mr. McMillan were to make another Facebook post providing that information.
Click to expand...

My apologies for replying to myself; I know it's bad form but it seems to me to be the most palatable way for me to enjoy my initial (thus far small, I maintain) serving of crow.

I caught the Cam Edwards interview with Kelly McMillan at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wslpVZJCUWQ

I couldn't see the Beck interview; that site crashes my browser plug-ins. (Protip - Flash on Linux sucks these days.)

Mr. McMillan did an excellent job of filling in all the blanks that had previously given me pause. He admitted that he cut the meeting short so that he didn't get a full explanation from Mr. Fox and therefore has no real understanding of why his bank is firing him.

He also gave some very important extra details. First, his regular account rep was present but did not speak. Second, Mr. Fox referenced a "risk assessment" as the basis for discontinuing their relationship while also agreeing that part of the risk assessment was based on politics. That's very different from a purely financial risk assessment or an overt political statement. It's a combination and, IMO, worse than either of its constituent parts.

Note, however, that none of this conflicts with BoA's official policy statement. The host had to reach back to 2010 for a non-specific example of BoA previously making a "we don't discriminate against gun businesses" statement. Given the size of BoA, I think it's reasonable to infer that this isn't something that happens very often.

The BoA statement says the reports floating about were inaccurate without directly referencing Mr. McMillan, thus responding to the blogosphere in general rather than Mr. McMillan, directly. That's not really a response; that's talking past the statements made by Mr. McMillan.

That's a typical response from large organizations. It deliberately misses the point and paints BoA in the best possible light without directly calling Mr. McMillan a liar. That's something, I guess, but it's mostly spin.

I'd say that Mr. McMillan acquitted himself admirably during the interview and I was particularly impressed by his immediate willingness to admit he made mistakes in the meeting by not asking the right questions and more questions. Frankly, I'd probably have done the same and just asked them to leave, too, if I didn't already have far too much experience holding weasels to account and documenting these sorts of interactions.

My advice to Mr. McMillan, for what it's worth, is that when a bank does a risk assessment and fires a customer (which is, of course, their right), it's not done in a vacuum. There are internal emails to and/or from Fox that would lead to the source of this decision and explain (however flimsy that explanation might be) the business justification for firing their customer. While the standard "IANAL" disclaimer applies, I would argue that the final document that directed Fox to fire McMillan is a part of McMillan's banking records and he has a right to see it. Someone with some responsibility for risk management has made either a gross error in judgement or has abused his authority to hurt a business for indefensible, political reasons.

At minimum, McMillan Firearms has an absolute right to request that BoA provide them with written confirmation of the decision and reasons behind it. I'd have a lawyer write the request letter and send it to the right place, thus forcing BoA to either back up Mr. Fox in writing or back down.

Whatever documents he can get he should put on his Facebook page. BoA needs to be publicly shamed with that information so that the people responsible can be helped to understand the error of their ways.

(Also, Kelly ought to hire a real, experienced PR flack for just an hour of consultation to explain to him how ill-served his company was by the precise wording of his original press release on Facebook. It would be money well spent.)

The guy on the ground, the guy who knows the McMillans business, their regular account rep who was at the meeting but not allowed to talk is someone deserving of some empathy, too. Imagine knowing you have a good relationship with a good customer and then having some "pro from Dover" swoop in, shut you down, and dump your client...all while making you watch and stay quiet.

Admittedly, a radio interview is hardly an ideal way to "meet" someone but my initial impression of Mr. McMillan is that he's a stand-up guy who's being completely honest and that he was genuinely caught off guard, thus leading to a less-than-perfect press release. He definitely impresses me as deserving of the sort of respect Wilbur has professed for him.

Having heard him speak I'm no longer concerned about the particular construction of his first release but am seriously concerned with finding out just how far up the cancer in BoA extends. While I hope it's just a local thing I also hope McMillan keeps digging and the media pressure keeps up. The only way BoA can rescue this thing (if they even think it's a big enough problem to rescue; that's another "risk assessment" they'll have to make) is to do a full investigation, find a fall guy as low on the org chart as possible, and fire him. Somehow, though, "doing the right thing" or something close to it is a task most banks find nearly impossible. If they don't find the testicular fortitude to do it within the next day or two, though, I'll freely admit that the folks cutting up their BoA credit cards are doing the right thing.
 
With a set of titles as those listed in the announcement "Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Marlet Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking"
It sounds like Fox is already pretty far up the ladder.
To me:
IF this was not BofA policy why didnt they send someone else to "FIX" what Mr. Fox had done?
IF BofA didnt agree with Mr. Fox's actions they would have done more than playing the denial game. At the very least they would have terminated Mr. Fox.
IF McMillan poses or has some sort of "risk" associated with their accounts the general course would be to help the client make the necessary changes in order to be able to keep them if possible. Maybe the risk comes from what is in the wings for Gun manufacturers if Obama gets what he wants.

Again why hasnt BofA taken any action other than to play the denial card.
Remember when you ask the Obama administration why we are in the situation we are in today the answer has always been "It's Bushes fault...."
 
Vern said:
With a set of titles as those listed in the announcement "Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Marlet Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking"
It sounds like Fox is already pretty far up the ladder.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Banks hand out flowery titles to mid-level managers like I hand out candy on Halloween; everybody gets more than they deserve.

Vern said:
Again why hasnt BofA taken any action other than to play the denial card.
Click to expand...

That's partially easy to answer. What we really want to know is why BoA took these specific actions against McMillan. BoA can't help with that. It's simply illegal for them to publicly talk about the specifics of their relationship with a current client. Specific information about this incident will only become public if McMillan Firearms obtains it and lets us see it.

About the best BoA can do on their own is to issue a generic public statement/apology that they've done an internal investigation and found that what happened was an unfortunate violation of company policy and they'll try their best to make sure it doesn't happen again. They should have already done that. Each day that passes with them sitting on their hands makes me less and less willing to cut them any more slack. I've worked for a very large organization most of my life and I know these things take time but if they don't fix this by next week, then they're either uncaring or incompetent to a mind-boggling degree.
 
Again...

If we are analyzing this event beyond Kelly's initial statement, we are diminished. Guns are involved....
 
I can't remember if it was Obama or Eric Holder who said that they would be pursuing gun control "under the radar". Maybe this is the start of one method.
 
It would be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals, a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated “militia”. Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms means just that. There is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the Second Amendment said and meant.”
Justice Antonin Scaliea
It is simply not negotiable.

Joe Henderson
 
So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that
Right?"
Mr Fox confirmed that it was."

Is Mr Fox referring to the "REAL POLITICS" or could Mr Fox be referring to what's called "Office Politics" in Corporate America. Real Politics and Office Politics are similar in design but totally different in application/objective.

What was the real reason for the account termination? Could it have been a "Bone headed" impulsive decision of an egotistical maniac? Doesn't make sense to me. Just Curious.

Got no use for BOA for other reason's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_politics


Glenn
 
adamsgt said:
I can't remember if it was Obama or Eric Holder who said that they would be pursuing gun control "under the radar". Maybe this is the start of one method.
Click to expand...
This is one of the few possibilities in all this that makes me shudder. Considering the other "under the radar", highly successful gun control tactics that have recently come into play, I consider this theory to rise above paranoid delusion and deserve consideration. When it's no longer possible to just stick a magazine spring or a barrel blank or a collectible cartridge case in the mail and send it anywhere in the world without going through a government-mandated, written approval process, then some serious gun control has been implemented without, apparently, getting much notice from most of the shooting public in the U.S.
 
Wilbur said:
If we are analyzing this event beyond Kelly's initial statement, we are diminished. Guns are involved....
Click to expand...
I don't understand this.

I greatly appreciated you giving me permission to post my thoughts on the subject but, as I said in my email to you, a frank analysis of *just* "Kelly's initial statement" would be inflammatory. It was a textbook case of "How Not To Write A Press Release." However, since then he's filled in the blanks in interviews and I'm now satisfied that the initial statement should simply be taken at face value as a true account. It no longer merits any analysis beyond that.

But the question shouldn't be dropped there. Banks fire customers all the time, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad and sometimes just as a colossal screw-up that's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The fact that one particular company in our world got fired and that "Guns are involved..." may be meaningless or may be incredibly important. We can't reasonably understand how to decide where along that spectrum this decision lies if we fail to analyze "this event beyond Kelly's initial statement..."

Nevertheless, even though I don't understand where you're coming from, I'll respect your wishes.

To summarize my analysis of Kelly's initial statement: it was a deeply flawed construct that led to unnecessary distractions in conversation by people who don't know him well enough to trust what he says at face value. I hope he'll do a better job writing such statements in the future. However, following events have shown that it should be taken at face value. From there, people are free to seek as deep or as shallow an understanding of the statement and its importance as they wish but, as per Wilbur, this is apparently not an appropriate place to do so.

Thus, I thank you for letting the conversation run thus far and will do my best to abstain from further contributions. I truly appreciate the latitude you've granted me in all this.
 
Bebenglish
You have demonstrated your abililty to put togther a bunch of meaningless statements and I am empressed - now get off my FOOT
 
I didn't come across well as usual. Your comments are welcome and somewhat spot on if not altogether. I was simply stating my position as you have stated yours. Neither am I one to pick up a torch and join a lynch mob but in this specific instance I felt it appropriate. I suppose the bottom line in my case is that Kelly doesn't need to have a reason. He could just call me on the phone and say "quit doing business with BOA" - and I would. Should have said that in the beginning.

And...I read my previous post this morning and it made me look like the crackpot I probably am.
 
Leave us not forget the recent open mic screw up.
More latitude in one place will certainly mean more latitude in other places.
In the event that you cant determine why someone did something that seems threatening to you and/or your rights, the best course of action is defensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top