From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Mon Mar 15 14:48:16 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:48:16 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] Stop financing Wall Street's gambling addiction Message-ID: <62926A1C-D7EC-4BA9-9B94-2C3B6BCC3241@countercorp.org> You're Still Keeping Your Money in a Big Bank? What's Wrong with You? By Stephen Pizzo (Alternet, March 10) -- Excuse me, but can I have a word with the 70% of Americans who continuing keeping their money in big banks like Bank of America, CitiBank, Wells Fargo and such? Come closer. A little closer. I want to be able to give you a well-earned dope-slap while I ask: WHAT THE HELL's THE MATTER WITH YOU? ARE YOU STUPID!? Jesus H. Christ, what's it going to take before you people stop doing business with the enemy? You're like abused spouses who are slapped around and slapped around again and again by your big bank and keep crawling back for more. If this behavior didn't hurt the rest of us, I'd be delighted to just let you get the shit beat out of you until your big bank bleeds you dry. That would be Darwinism at it's most effective. But the fact that 90% of America's household savings are deposited in these big banks means that your self-destructive banking habits are fueling the very financial services juggernauts that have repeatedly devastating the lives, homes, families, and savings of average working Americans. And not just once, but time and time and time again. Are you listening, goddamnit?! And why do you do it? "Ah, well,? because, ... well, you know,... ah, there's a Wells Fargo Branch on Main Street,? and,... well, it would be such a hassle moving my account to our hometown community bank. You know, new checks and creditcards and such. I don't like my bank at all, but it's just easier to leave it with Wells." Is that how you make all your financial decisions? I hope not. I assume when you're about to make a big-ticket purchase, like furniture or a new car, you shop around for the best price and quality and service, right? But when it comes to where you bank, all you care about is that the big bank is a quarter of a mile closer to your home or office, or that you parents banked there, or that they give you a (usurious interest) creditcard? That's it? That's the reason you bank with Tumor Bank of America? Suckers. No wonder nearly 70% of Americans nearing retirement age have less than $55,000 in savings to retire on. My god, people, don't you realize that putting your hard-earned money with a big bank is like Mr. & Mrs. Chicken entrusting their chicks to the Col. Sanders Prep School. As it becomes increasingly clear that Congress is not about to pass anything that even resembles comprehensive financial reform, big banks -- freshly rejuvenated by $700 billion pints of taxpayer plasma -- are positioning themselves for the next round of looting and pillaging. And why not? They made hundreds of billions of dollars off the last round, and all they had to endure was a tongue lashing from members of Congress -- after which they salved their wounds with hundreds of million of dollars in "performance bonuses." So, you ask, what's the alternative? And what will it cost you to switch? Well, you drive and walk by that solution every day: your local community bank or your local credit union. And it's not going to "cost" you anything. In fact you're likely to come out ahead. Not only do small banks provide exactly the same services as the big banks, but they do so at a lower cost, pay higher returns to depositors, and (are you sitting down?) they are still making loans to local homebuyers and local small businesses -- even as the big guys you just saved claim they just can't do either right now. You want proof? (Can you handle the proof?) If so, the Internet is lousy with proof that small banks beat large banks on virtually every single measure. Just do a Google search under "Big banks vs. Small Banks," and you'll have a month's worth of reading on your hands. A.M. Best's business analysts compared the two, and take a look for yourself: > Community Bank Advantages Challenge Historical Assumptions > > A bank's size alone can have less to do with its performance, safety and soundness than would be expected, based on A.M. Best's analysis of data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and other, qualitative factors. Various operating models carry key advantages and disadvantages, as Best delineated by a threshold of $5 billion in assets between small and large banks. > > ? Despite common industry perceptions that large commercial banks have greater safety and earnings power than community banks, a bank's assets don't necessarily equate to economies of scale, diversification of risk, and market power. > > ? Small community banks generally have smaller scale and less diversification, but their local owner-managers provide stability, and they draw strength from focusing on their local communities and limiting risk. > > ? Larger institutions historically have tended to take on more leverage and complex risk exposures, and they also may forego diversification to assume concentrated risk in certain regions or in certain products, such as sub-prime mortgages. > > ? Relative risk aside, community banks are better capitalized according to certain regulatory capital ratios, including Tier 1 risk-based capital and tangible common equity. > > ? Community banks are less susceptible to down-swings in banking cycles, as shown by more gradual declines in median return on assets and return on equity compared with larger banks. [Full report with graphs: www3.ambest.com/DisplayBinary/DisplayBinary.aspx?TY=P&record_code=167306&URatingId=240312] Why is this not more widely understood? Well, ask the New York Times or most other large media outlets. They are always way behind the curve when it comes to reporting emerging financial news. Mostly they come along after each crash to explain to us everything they failed to warn of when it would have done some good. But if you look hard enough, you can find some media reports that support the A.M. Best study: > As Big Banks Falter, Community Banks Do Fine > > (Christian Science Monitor) -- Unlike banks on Wall Street, these smaller banks didn't invest in risky mortgage-backed securities or complex derivatives....While they account for less than 10 percent of America's total banking assets, their traditional, values-based approach contains plenty of lessons for their larger Wall Street counterparts, some analysts say. > > But there's another component as well, says William Attridge, president of the Wethersfield, Conn.-based bank: Most community bankers know their customers. "We're lending to small businesses, and in small businesses the individual is a significant part of that," he says. "There's a character component: That means we might make loans that possibly someone else wouldn't if they just looked at the financials, because we know the individual well and what their resources and talents are. On the other hand, there are probably some [loans] that look good on paper that we wouldn't make." > > During the Great Depression, there were more than 30,000 banks in the US, and most of them were small. The majority of banks that failed were small, while the few bigger banks that existed weathered the economic turmoil better. Today, the flip side is happening. Four large banks were responsible for half of the $26 billion in losses reported by the banking industry during the fourth quarter of 2008, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC). [Full story: www.csmonitor.com/Money/2009/0308/as-big-banks-falter-community-banks-do-fine] Okay, that's enough from me. Get your damn money out of those cancerous, leviathan banks and into a local bank or credit union. (If you choose a credit union, by the way, your new creditcard will be limited by law to 18% interest.) And you're tired of those B of A checks anyway. Here's a chance to get a new look to your checks. Oh, and by doing this, you'll be doing your part in returning banking to its roots, keeping local savings working locally, rather than fueling multi-million dollar bonuses and fueling the next financial bullshit-bubble. We have met the enemy and it is YOU. Now watch this and be ashamed of yourself: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icqrx0OimSs --------------------- Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans", which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. From corporation-watch at countercorp.org Thu Mar 18 14:38:01 2010 From: corporation-watch at countercorp.org (Corporation Watch) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:38:01 -0700 Subject: [Corp. Watch] Nestle tries to kill messenger instead of addressing message Message-ID: Kit Kat Spat Goes Viral Despite Nestl?'s Efforts Greenpeace Internet video might have fallen flat if company had ignored it By Simon Houpt (Toronto Globe and Mail, March 17) -- Now you see it, now you don't. Wait: Now you do. A global game of Whack-a-Mole broke out Wednesday on the Internet when YouTube removed a gruesome anti-Nestl? commercial by Greenpeace after the multinational food giant complained, only to have viewers flock to the video-sharing site Vimeo.com, where the spot became an instant cause c?l?bre because of the reputed censorship. The 60-second video (http://vimeo.com/10236827) depicts a bored office worker enjoying a Kit Kat, which rather than being the popular chocolate-hazelnut ladyfinger-style confection, appears to be a chocolate-covered ape finger. As he munches on the treat, it oozes blood over his chin and across his keyboard, shocking his co-workers. "Have a break?" reads the on-screen text. "Give the orangutan a break." The call refers to allegations that Nestl? buys palm oil from companies that are destroying the Indonesian rainforests in order to create oil palms plantations. Nestl? uses palm oil to make Kit Kat, Rolo, Butterfinger and Coffee Crisp candy bars. The video was posted to the web at the same time a handful of protesters paraded in front of the headquarters of Nestl? UK, wearing orangutan costumes and carrying signs that had the word "Killer" executed in the familiar red-on-white Kit Kat font. Other protesters unfurled large signs that mimicked a Kit Kat ad and read "Give me a break." The protest might have fallen flat if Nestl? had ignored it. Instead, after the video had been seen by fewer than 1,000 viewers worldwide, it was forced from YouTube and replaced with the statement: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Soci?t? des Produits Nestl? S.A." Greenpeace quickly re-posted it to the Vimeo website and sent out word about the video's suppression via Twitter and other social media, where users attacked Nestl? both for its heavy-handedness and lagging environmental practices. Many mockingly noted they wouldn't have heard of the issue if Nestl? had not had the video pulled, while others pledged to boycott the company. The protest action highlighted the release of a Greenpeace report alleging that Nestl? and the Indonesian industrial giant Sinar Mas (which supplies the food company with palm oil and is also a major pulp-and-paper supplier) are "partners in crime" whose actions may lead to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of hectares of rainforest. "Not only are these areas key habitat for orangutans, but also crucial carbon stores; the destruction of these areas is a major cause of Indonesia's rocketing carbon emissions," Greenpeace stated. The organization added that Sinar Mas has already been dropped as a supplier by Unilever, Kraft, Sainsbury, and Shell. A few hours after the video was re-posted to the web, Nestl? said in a statement issued from its Swiss headquarters that it had "replaced the Indonesian company Sinar Mas as a supplier of palm oil with another supplier for further shipments," and insisted that no palm oil from Sinar Mas had been used outside Indonesia. Still, it acknowledged that it could not guarantee that Sinar Mas palm oil wasn't finding its way into the shipments of other suppliers Nestl? uses. "We share the deep concern about the serious environmental threat to rainforests and peat fields in South East Asia caused by the planting of palm oil plantations," the company said. Nestl? recently announced its commitment to using only "Certified Sustainable Palm Oil" by 2015, when it said sufficient quantities should be available.