Franklin Graham is pulling bank accounts from Wells Fargo for featuring same-sex couple in ad Read

[martybegan]

Banks would usually line up for those kinds of deposits. But Ken Thomas, a Miami-based independent bank consultant and economist, said the bank that receives Graham’s bank accounts will have to answer some tough questions.

“The bank that takes this account will be in a higher visibility position because you’re going to ask them, ‘What do you think of that ad?’ … And they will face some potential reputation risk.”

Banks, Thomas said, “don’t like controversy, and they don’t like reputation risk.”

Whichever bank receives these accounts will have to combat the perception that they stand counter to the ideals of Wells Fargo.

“To take your money out of one of the best-run banks in America, and for another bank to accept an account that came out of Wells Fargo, some people might ask questions like, ‘Does your bank not agree with Wells Fargo?’” Thomas said.


Read more here: Franklin Graham is pulling bank accounts from Wells Fargo for featuring same-sex couple in ad The Charlotte Observer The Charlotte Observer

He is going to have a hard time finding a major national bank willing to assume the reputational risk that he brings with that account.

None of them will want to be associated with anti-LBGT bigotry.
He is probably going to have to put the funds in some mom&pop bank somewhere and they won't have the resources to handle that kind of deposit.

What a fool!

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

You keep hiding your bigotry behind numbers, its kind of quaint actually.

 

[Derideo_Te]

He is going to have a hard time finding a major national bank willing to assume the reputational risk that he brings with that account.

None of them will want to be associated with anti-LBGT bigotry.
He is probably going to have to put the funds in some mom&pop bank somewhere and they won't have the resources to handle that kind of deposit.

What a fool!

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

Chick fil a is a chain and it's worked for them from the outset.

They are not a bank and you obviously don't have a clue how banks operate.

A bank is a business and a restaurant is a business.

Thank you for admitting to your ignorance as to how banks run their business.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Banks would usually line up for those kinds of deposits. But Ken Thomas, a Miami-based independent bank consultant and economist, said the bank that receives Graham’s bank accounts will have to answer some tough questions.

“The bank that takes this account will be in a higher visibility position because you’re going to ask them, ‘What do you think of that ad?’ … And they will face some potential reputation risk.”

Banks, Thomas said, “don’t like controversy, and they don’t like reputation risk.”

Whichever bank receives these accounts will have to combat the perception that they stand counter to the ideals of Wells Fargo.

“To take your money out of one of the best-run banks in America, and for another bank to accept an account that came out of Wells Fargo, some people might ask questions like, ‘Does your bank not agree with Wells Fargo?’” Thomas said.


Read more here: Franklin Graham is pulling bank accounts from Wells Fargo for featuring same-sex couple in ad The Charlotte Observer The Charlotte Observer

He is going to have a hard time finding a major national bank willing to assume the reputational risk that he brings with that account.

None of them will want to be associated with anti-LBGT bigotry.
He is probably going to have to put the funds in some mom&pop bank somewhere and they won't have the resources to handle that kind of deposit.

What a fool!

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

Like I just said, the wisest banks will remain silent on the issue. If pressed, they will weigh the liabilities and more often than not go the way of maintaining reticence or Hobby Lobby.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But he isn't calling for people who keep their money in said banks to be shunned.

Obviously you never bothered to read the OP or if you did your short attention span prevented you from remembering any of it.

Franklin Graham is calling on Christians to boycott corporations that feature same-sex relationships in their commercials. And he says he’ll do his part by moving all the bank accounts for his two ministries out of Wells Fargo because of its ad featuring a lesbian couple.

“This is one way we as Christians can speak out – we have the power of choice,” Graham wrote on Facebook over the weekend. “Let’s just stop doing business with those who promote sin and stand against Almighty God’s laws and His standards. Maybe if enough of us do this, it will get their attention.”


Read more here: http://Franklin Graham is pulling bank accounts from Wells Fargo for featuring same-sex couple in ad The Charlotte Observer The Charlotte Observer​

 

[Derideo_Te]

He is going to have a hard time finding a major national bank willing to assume the reputational risk that he brings with that account.

None of them will want to be associated with anti-LBGT bigotry.
He is probably going to have to put the funds in some mom&pop bank somewhere and they won't have the resources to handle that kind of deposit.

What a fool!

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

You keep hiding your bigotry behind numbers, its kind of quaint actually.

The math doesn't lie but it does expose your lies!

 

[Derideo_Te]

He is going to have a hard time finding a major national bank willing to assume the reputational risk that he brings with that account.

None of them will want to be associated with anti-LBGT bigotry.
He is probably going to have to put the funds in some mom&pop bank somewhere and they won't have the resources to handle that kind of deposit.

What a fool!

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

Like I just said, the wisest banks will remain silent on the issue. If pressed, they will weigh the liabilities and more often than not go the way of maintaining reticence or Hobby Lobby.

Your ignorance is profound!

 

[Derideo_Te]

He is going to have a hard time finding a major national bank willing to assume the reputational risk that he brings with that account.

None of them will want to be associated with anti-LBGT bigotry.
He is probably going to have to put the funds in some mom&pop bank somewhere and they won't have the resources to handle that kind of deposit.

What a fool!

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

Like I just said, the wisest banks will remain silent on the issue. If pressed, they will weigh the liabilities and more often than not go the way of maintaining reticence or Hobby Lobby.

Except that banks are openly embracing the LBGT community and will continue to do so because they know that is good for business.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

Chick fil a is a chain and it's worked for them from the outset.

They are not a bank and you obviously don't have a clue how banks operate.

A bank is a business and a restaurant is a business.

Thank you for admitting to your ignorance as to how banks run their business.

I said they're both businesses and you say that's ignorant as you refer to a bank's business. Think about how stupid that is.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

Like I just said, the wisest banks will remain silent on the issue. If pressed, they will weigh the liabilities and more often than not go the way of maintaining reticence or Hobby Lobby.

Except that banks are openly embracing the LBGT community and will continue to do so because they know that is good for business.

So far it's not working.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

Like I just said, the wisest banks will remain silent on the issue. If pressed, they will weigh the liabilities and more often than not go the way of maintaining reticence or Hobby Lobby.

Your ignorance is profound!

My ignorance is up 1 - 0.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Banks would usually line up for those kinds of deposits. But Ken Thomas, a Miami-based independent bank consultant and economist, said the bank that receives Graham’s bank accounts will have to answer some tough questions.

“The bank that takes this account will be in a higher visibility position because you’re going to ask them, ‘What do you think of that ad?’ … And they will face some potential reputation risk.”

Banks, Thomas said, “don’t like controversy, and they don’t like reputation risk.”

Whichever bank receives these accounts will have to combat the perception that they stand counter to the ideals of Wells Fargo.

“To take your money out of one of the best-run banks in America, and for another bank to accept an account that came out of Wells Fargo, some people might ask questions like, ‘Does your bank not agree with Wells Fargo?’” Thomas said.


Read more here: Franklin Graham is pulling bank accounts from Wells Fargo for featuring same-sex couple in ad The Charlotte Observer The Charlotte Observer

He is going to have a hard time finding a major national bank willing to assume the reputational risk that he brings with that account.

None of them will want to be associated with anti-LBGT bigotry.
He is probably going to have to put the funds in some mom&pop bank somewhere and they won't have the resources to handle that kind of deposit.

What a fool!

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

You are promoting shakedown fascism.

 

[Blackrook]

Most businesses are run by cowards. So don't view Wells Fargo's recent surrender to gays as any sign that Wells Fargo advocates the gay lifestyle. It's surrender, and that's all it is. Like France while occupied by the Nazis did what the Nazis wanted them to do, like rounding up Jews for extermination.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

Chick fil a is a chain and it's worked for them from the outset.

They are not a bank and you obviously don't have a clue how banks operate.

A bank is a business and a restaurant is a business.

Thank you for admitting to your ignorance as to how banks run their business.

I said they're both businesses and you say that's ignorant as you refer to a bank's business. Think about how stupid that is.

Obviously you still dwell in your mother's basement.

Different business sectors have different business models. Car dealers don't have the same business model as Insurance companies or Food manufacturers or Wall Street Casino Investment houses.

Banking operates on it's own business model which confuses you because it is based upon managing risk.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

Like I just said, the wisest banks will remain silent on the issue. If pressed, they will weigh the liabilities and more often than not go the way of maintaining reticence or Hobby Lobby.

Except that banks are openly embracing the LBGT community and will continue to do so because they know that is good for business.

So far it's not working.

You have zero credible evidence to prove your fallacy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

He is going to have a hard time finding a major national bank willing to assume the reputational risk that he brings with that account.

None of them will want to be associated with anti-LBGT bigotry.
He is probably going to have to put the funds in some mom&pop bank somewhere and they won't have the resources to handle that kind of deposit.

What a fool!

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

You are promoting shakedown fascism.

Yet another strike for your profound ignorance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Most businesses are run by cowards. So don't view Wells Fargo's recent surrender to gays as any sign that Wells Fargo advocates the gay lifestyle. It's surrender, and that's all it is. Like France while occupied by the Nazis did what the Nazis wanted them to do, like rounding up Jews for extermination.

Seek professional psychiatric help, stat!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Chick fil a is a chain and it's worked for them from the outset.

They are not a bank and you obviously don't have a clue how banks operate.

A bank is a business and a restaurant is a business.

Thank you for admitting to your ignorance as to how banks run their business.

I said they're both businesses and you say that's ignorant as you refer to a bank's business. Think about how stupid that is.

Obviously you still dwell in your mother's basement.

Different business sectors have different business models. Car dealers don't have the same business model as Insurance companies or Food manufacturers or Wall Street Casino Investment houses.

Banking operates on it's own business model which confuses you because it is based upon managing risk.

Business is business. I run one.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

On the contrary. He may expose a bank with the values of a Chick-Fil-a and that would enhance their business.

That mom&pop bank will probably only have assets equal to a Chik-Fil-A too. It is highly unlikely that any well known national bank will take the reputational risk.

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

You are promoting shakedown fascism.

Yet another strike for your profound ignorance.

Animus was your word.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There is one one chik-fil-a, they are not franchises. I doubt a bank with a net worth of $5.5 billion can be considered "mom and pop"

Deposits are liabilities to banks. Loans are assets. Only 28 banks, out of 5,570, in the nation have assets in excess of $5 billion.

None of those 28 banks will be willing to take on the reputational risk associated with the LBGT animus that is associated with the Graham deposits. That just leaves the 5,542 mom&pop banks who will struggle with the FDIC insurance involved with a deposit of that magnitude.

Like I just said, the wisest banks will remain silent on the issue. If pressed, they will weigh the liabilities and more often than not go the way of maintaining reticence or Hobby Lobby.

Except that banks are openly embracing the LBGT community and will continue to do so because they know that is good for business.

So far it's not working.

You have zero credible evidence to prove your fallacy.

Franklin Graham.

 

[Flopper]

Franklin Graham is pulling bank accounts from Wells Fargo for featuring same-sex couple in ad The Charlotte Observer The Charlotte Observer

He wants you evangelicals to boycott such corporations who support LGBT. The far right social con Christian reactionaries are going to find out just how irrelevant they are truly.

You cannot be the Morality Police anymore.

Run along.

It's his choice where he wants to bank but he's fighting a losing battle. Most Christians today support gay and lesbian's right to marry. .

Religiously unaffiliated Americans (73%), white mainline Protestants (62%), white Catholics (58%), and Hispanic Catholics (56%) all favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. A majority (83%) of Jewish Americans also favor legalizing same-sex marriage.

A Shifting Landscape A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues