Since Saturday the idea that I would be going to my Citibank branch today to close my account there as an act of solidarity has made me almost unreasonably happy. Citibank can't get away with seizing customers off the sidewalk and having them arrested by the NYPD. I could show my rage, hurt them in a small way and take part in this historic movement.
Then I came across an LA Times article from September that says banks don't want our money.
It says that because of market volatility there's been a surge in new deposits as people just seek a safe place to park their dough. The article argues that the amount of money banks and credit unions have now so far exceeds the loans they're making, that having all this money on hand is expensive for them. They have to insure it. The article doesn't say this, but if they can get money for free from the Fed, it occurs to me then why should they bother with deposits, either from consumers or big institutions? The Fed is just giving it away.
The article goes on to suggest that if the new fees that consumers hate drive away customers, they won't care. And presumably if bad fallout from Saturday's outrage drives away customers from Citibank, they might just yawn.
http://articles.latimes.com/...
Of course even Citibank can't tolerate having its brand trashed. (And as Mitt tells us, corporations are people, so Citibank might be feeling sad after all the mean things protesters have said about it.) And all this rage directed at the banks could actually lead to something Citibank doesn't want, like legislation or even indictments. They don't want that. But as for mass withdrawals, it could be a don't-throw-me-in-the-briar-patch moment.
I'm wondering if I want to piss off Citibank if I shouldn't just let my money sit there. I really don't know. I invite suggestions.