Talk:BB&T/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about BB&T. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Criticism of BB&T
I'm not really sure that this section is Wiki-friendly, but it sure seems like a love letter/press release without it. BB&T's online banking service has been really slow for the past 3 or 4 weeks and this week it is down all together. No client can pay bills or transfer money. They say they are hiring 125 people to correct the problem and it should be up in 2 weeks. How can this management team run a growing bank if they can’t see a problem like this coming several months before? Have they grown past their ability to manage the bank they are creating? Is this the tip of the iceberg for BB&T’s customer service? If they begin to lose assets a buyout might be coming.
Copyright Violation
Nearly all of the text was cut & pasted from the company's website. There's some very good historical info there, but it's a very lengthy quote and not NPOV.Son of Somebody 23:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"No lending" section
While I appreciate the fine work you've put into this section, it seems to amount to a report about a BB&T press release which was designed to exploit sentiment surrounding the contentious Supreme Court ruling. Whether any bank actually follows a similar stated policy is unlikely to be reported by the bank or by independent journalists. Future "victims" of eminent domain will likely be unaware of the bank's policy, and extremely unlikely to follow any subsequent money trails. Presumably, banks will loan money to "beneficiary/ies" of eminent domain after the domain action, and these bodies are likely not to be the same legal or financial entities which benefitted from the original action.
In short, why should a report about a press release be part of an encyclopedic entry? The press release was designed to advance a non-NPOV image of the bank, and as a result, its inclusion here does the same. --Son of Somebody 23:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Tax Evasion
(someone please insert this) In 1997, BB&T entered into a tax shelter transaction commonly known as Lease-in, Lease-Out (LILO) Transaction, in which it leased property from a foreign entity and then immediately leased the same property back to the entity. http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/BB&T_Order.pdf, see BB&T Corp. v. United States, 233 F.R.D. 447 (M.D.N.C., 2006) (editing help?) The transaction has since been ruled illegitimate by the IRS and is now listed on the IRS website as an abusive tax shelter. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/rev_rul_1999-14.pdf, http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/article/0,,id=120633,00.html.
After a tax deficiency was assessed against BB&T, BB&T sued for a tax refund in the United States Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. BB&T lost. Judge Tilley, writing for the Court, called the transaction "circular" and "tax driven." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FitzColinGerald (talk • contribs) 08:09, 18 May 2009
- IMO, including that one item would violate WP:UNDUEWEIGHT unless there are references that show multiple instances of bad practices. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's reasonable to characterize CEI as "right-wing libertarian." Please see, for examples [[1]]