.... are there many of you out there who were previous BofA customers who after all the garbage of the past 12-months, have remained BofA customers?

If so, I'm curious to know why?

We were customers for about a year, before they totally screwed me personally.

Since leaving them back in June, I just shake my head at hearing all the crap about the million dollar bonuses, etc, after taking Government bailout money.

I've been with BOA since I was 18. I have my checking and savings acct with them and nothing else. I have a few accounts with CPFCU and I've often thought about switching everything over to CPFCU. I'm just too lazy to do it.

I've been with BOA since I was 18. I have my checking and savings acct with them and nothing else. I have a few accounts with CPFCU and I've often thought about switching everything over to CPFCU. I'm just too lazy to do it.

Almost forgot - CPFCU doesn't not have atm's everywhere and I travel often. Soooo, I like the ease of there being a BOA at every corner. :lol:

I wonder how many people have a basic understanding of what actually happened with Bank of America, and most of the big banks for that matter. There's a little more to the story than most people like to acknowledge. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be upset at them, but I think most people have a mistaken impression about how the bailout fiasco happened.

Almost forgot - CPFCU doesn't not have atm's everywhere and I travel often. Soooo, I like the ease of there being a BOA at every corner. :lol:

Check with CPFCU, I know most Credit Unions (esp. NFCU and NARFE) participate in a huge ATM newwork. This includes all the ATMs you see at the 7/11s.

I had bank accounts with Bank of A, and with Cedar Point, I've been banking with Bank of A for over 20 years....through all the name changes. I opened up accounts at Cedar Point a couple of years ago, have all my loans through there, christmas club etc. When my husband no longer had direct deposit Bank of A started charging me $10 a month service fee. When I asked them to waive the fee, they said no, unless I opened up an account with the minimum $$ blah blah blah.............Cedar Point has no fees (unless the ATM fees that Chasey was talking about) Around here you just have to know where the ATM machines are that won't charge fees per ATM withdrawal. But on travel, I can understand the concern. Anyway, I went to Bank of A last weekend to close my accounts, they asked why, I said cause all my other business is with CP and I want to consolidate......she asked me what business and started quizzing me on rates and such. I just politely told her that's none of her business and proceeded with closing my accounts. But CP Members have to admit, CP has some very attractive rates for loans.

I wonder how many people have a basic understanding of what actually happened with Bank of America, and most of the big banks for that matter. There's a little more to the story than most people like to acknowledge. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be upset at them, but I think most people have a mistaken impression about how the bailout fiasco happened.

I think the "basic story" is pretty simple.

In order:

1. BofA makes lousy business decisions to purchase Country Wide mortgage and Merrill Lynch.

2. BofA shares start to plummet a few months later.

3. BofA gets a boat-load of money from the government for fear of impacting the economy [more then they already have].

4. BofA CEO purchases millions of share of BofA stock at low low price of $6/share [It's now at $17/share].

5. A few months later, BofA hands their upper management millions of dollars in bonuses.

I don't care if the bonuses were "owed" as a result of contracts or whatever. They are all snakes......

.... are there many of you out there who were previous BofA customers who after all the garbage of the past 12-months, have remained BofA customers?

If so, I'm curious to know why?

We were customers for about a year, before they totally screwed me personally.

Since leaving them back in June, I just shake my head at hearing all the crap about the million dollar bonuses, etc, after taking Government bailout money.

Fell for the spin eh??

The gov't, Obama specifically, need an enemy..

While they continually screw up, they pull the magicians parlor trick.. LOOK over there. they are BAD people.. HATE them, VILLIFY them.. grab your pitchforks, we should get those BAD people!! Pay no never mind to us behind this curtain..

With the big banks the gov't didn't GIVE them money but supposedly loaned them money.. same as a bank would loan you money. Would a bank that loaned you money for your house call your boss and tell him.."Don't give him a Bonus/Raise, he still owes US money!!"

So as unemplyment increases to almost 10%, all of their focus is on the 3% of the uninsured. As our economy tanks, Americans die overseas with no support from their government, Obama has you focused on THOSE BAD BAD banker people.. and you forget to #####, or demand anything from those REALLY in charge.

Fell for the spin eh??

The gov't, Obama specifically, need an enemy..

While they continually screw up, they pull the magicians parlor trick.. LOOK over there. they are BAD people.. HATE them, VILLIFY them.. grab your pitchforks, we should get those BAD people!! Pay no never mind to us behind this curtain..

With the big banks the gov't didn't GIVE them money but supposedly loaned them money.. same as a bank would loan you money. Would a bank that loaned you money for your house call your boss and tell him.."Don't give him a Bonus/Raise, he still owes US money!!"

So as unemplyment increases to almost 10%, all of their focus is on the 3% of the uninsured. As our economy tanks, Americans die overseas with no support from their government, Obama has you focused on THOSE BAD BAD banker people.. and you forget to #####, or demand anything from those REALLY in charge.

No I haven't fallen for any of the spin..... BofA was directly responsible for my lay-off back in January and the financial tail-spin that resulted.....

No I haven't fallen for any of the spin..... BofA was directly responsible for my lay-off back in January and the financial tail-spin that resulted.....

And how much do you know, specifically, about those that are getting these bonuses?

Do you think the gov't, having loaned them money, should have the power to negate contracts between industry and individuals JUST because they loaned them money?

Do you know if those that are getting bonuses are responsible for losing money, or are the basis for these bonii "commission" on money they made for BoA??

Personally I don't care if the gov't loaned them money, I don't think they should have, but that they did should change nothing about how contracts are written and enforced, and the government should NOT get involved in the management of a company..

Take their bonii away and they'll go to work for the United Bank of Japan, and we'll end up with the Rev Wright or Sharpton running the show.. and they'll get paid even MORE money, but that won't be shared with us as they aren't the "enemy!!"

And how much do you know, specifically, about those that are getting these bonuses?

Do you think the gov't, having loaned them money, should have the power to negate contracts between industry and individuals JUST because they loaned them money?

Do you know if those that are getting bonuses are responsible for losing money, or are the basis for these bonii "commission" on money they made for BoA??

Personally I don't care if the gov't loaned them money, I don't think they should have, but that they did should change nothing about how contracts are written and enforced, and the government should NOT get involved in the management of a company..

Take their bonii away and they'll go to work for the United Bank of Japan, and we'll end up with the Rev Wright or Sharpton running the show.. and they'll get paid even MORE money, but that won't be shared with us as they aren't the "enemy!!"

Is BofA paying back their debt, plus interest? If the answer is yes, I agree I need to shut-up.

If the answer is no, I'll continue my #####ing.

I really don't know either way. So I'll wait to hear from others....

I think the "basic story" is pretty simple.

That's exactly what I mean - it actually isn't as simple as what you think happened. Bank of America did not ask for the money from the government.

After Lehman Brothers' collapse, the government decided that it WAS NOT going to let any other major financial institutions fail - not matter what - period. Government thugs (e.g. Paulson) called a meeting with the CEOs of 9 of those institutions (e.g. Citigroup, BoA, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan) and TOLD them that they were all going to take government loans. The ripples from problems at other institutions (e.g. AIG, Lehman Borthers) were likely to cause liquidity problems with all the big financial insitutions (even if they were in good fiscal health, which many of them were not, due in part to the general economic situation), and the government was not going to allow proliferating institutional collapses. These companies were going to take money to sure up their balance sheets - whether they wanted it or not, and whether they needed it or not. Furthermore, the government didn't want some players taking money while others did not, because the perception that would leave with investors (and the populace at large) might cause increased problems and liquidity issues for those who did take money. So, Paulson handed out pieces of paper and said, right down how much money you are going to take. This was done under the threat that, if they didn't, their government regulators would force them to get the capital anyway.

So, the 'banks' took the loans. Did those loans help their balance sheets at a time when extra extra liquidity was desirable? Of course. But, they didn't ask for them and some didn't want them, because they could see the problems that were likely to attach to taking the loans. Regardless of what they might have done, or what they wanted, they didn't have a choice - the government came in and took interest in these banks, for the good of the nation's economic system overall.

Now, Bank of America had announced its intention to acquire Merrill Lynch, which had been on the verge of collapse. The government desperately wanted BoA to go ahead with that deal, and encouraged BoA to do so - promising to provide any capital needed to backstop them should liquidity problems arise as a result. But, during the normal due dilligence associated with such deals, BoA discovered even deeper financial problems with ML than were expected (as well as other issues). They figured out that it was a terrible deal. So, they decided they didn't want to acquire ML (which is what happens sometimes - they weren't legally committed to the deal). The government said, no - you need to acquire ML - we need you to acquire ML - and by the way, we own part of you now - you took our money, remember? - so do the deal. BoA says, yeah but the shareholders still have to vote on the deal, and this new information we have constitutes a Material Adverse Change (MAC) which, by law, we have to disclose to our shareholders ahead of their vote to approve the deal. The government said, well, no - you aren't going to disclose that stuff - do you understand? Ken Lewis didn't disclose the information, and BoA shareholders voted to acquire ML. Well, it was a horrible deal and wrecked havoc on BoA's balance sheet - and BoA had to get even more money from the government.

Now, Ken Lewis' actions are certainly questionable in this incident - and his day(s) in court over that is coming - but the worse player here is the government. As I've said before, Paulson, at the very least (as the jury is still out on Bernanke's culpability), should be in jail. It is unconscienable what our government did.

So:

The banks were told that they were going to take loans, regarless of whether or not they wanted them.

BoA was told to go through with a deal that it knew was bad - which did a great deal of damage to its financial situation.

Now the banks are being told whether or not they can pay back the loans, and under what conditions they can pay them back - and by the way (not that it changes the propriety of what happened), the government has made significant profits on the the loans that it has allowed to be paid back.

This was a government power play. There were lots of players behaving badly, and BoA can be rightfully criticized for its role, but the truly dispicable behavior here was on the part of the government.

Is BofA paying back their debt, plus interest? If the answer is yes, I agree I need to shut-up.

If the answer is no, I'll continue my #####ing.

I really don't know either way. So I'll wait to hear from others....

The bank took $45 billion from the government, and isn't ready to pay back the entire thing. It will start with $20 billion. That's good. As taxpayers, we're looking forward to getting the money back, and having a check sent to each one of us for our share.

And it's also a good sign that the bank is willing to pare back the government guarantees on its Merrill Lynch assets, which cratered so disastrously last December. Even without many of these losses coming to fruition, the bank still owes the taxpayer a lot for offering that protection. Government guarantees -- insurance products, essentially -- shouldn't be free, even if they're not used.

So their executives are getting bonuses, but the bank is already able to pay off 20 BILLION in loans..

Is BofA paying back their debt, plus interest? If the answer is yes, I agree I need to shut-up.

If the answer is no, I'll continue my #####ing.

I really don't know either way. So I'll wait to hear from others....

No, they haven't paid it back yet, but they've paid dividends on it. They want to start paying it back, but the government is deciding who is allowed to pay back what and when. They have put conditions on the banks (with regard to their capital levels and raising other capital) in order for the banks to be allowed to pay back the loans. Some have paid them back in full, some have not.

So, the answer is no - they have not paid back the loans yet - regardless of whether or not they can, they haven't been allowed to. Furthermore, much of their fiscal problem has been caused by what the government made them do.

So their executives are getting bonuses, but the bank is already able to pay off 20 BILLION in loans..

[BofAstillSUCKS!]:whistle:

That's exactly what I mean - it actually isn't as simple as what you think happened. Bank of America did not ask for the money from the government.

After Lehman Brothers' collapse, the government decided that it WAS NOT going to let any other major financial institutions fail - not matter what - period. Government thugs (e.g. Paulson) called a meeting with the CEOs of 9 of those institutions (e.g. Citigroup, BoA, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan) and TOLD them that they were all going to take government loans. The ripples from problems at other institutions (e.g. AIG, Lehman Borthers) were likely to cause liquidity problems with all the big financial insitutions (even if they were in good fiscal health, which many of them were not, due in part to the general economic situation), and the government was not going to allow proliferating institutional collapses. These companies were going to take money to sure up their balance sheets - whether they wanted it or not, and whether they needed it or not. Furthermore, the government didn't want some players taking money while others did not, because the perception that would leave with investors (and the populace at large) might cause increased problems and liquidity issues for those who did take money. So, Paulson handed out pieces of paper and said, right down how much money you are going to take. This was done under the threat that, if they didn't, their government regulators would force them to get the capital anyway.

So, the 'banks' took the loans. Did those loans help their balance sheets at a time when extra extra liquidity was desirable? Of course. But, they didn't ask for them and some didn't want them, because they could see the problems that were likely to attach to taking the loans. Regardless of what they might have done, or what they wanted, they didn't have a choice - the government came in and took interest in these banks, for the good of the nation's economic system overall.

Now, Bank of America had announced its intention to acquire Merrill Lynch, which had been on the verge of collapse. The government desperately wanted BoA to go ahead with that deal, and encouraged BoA to do so - promising to provide any capital needed to backstop them should liquidity problems arise as a result. But, during the normal due dilligence associated with such deals, BoA discovered even deeper financial problems with ML than were expected (as well as other issues). They figured out that it was a terrible deal. So, they decided they didn't want to acquire ML (which is what happens sometimes - they weren't legally committed to the deal). The government said, no - you need to acquire ML - we need you to acquire ML - and by the way, we own part of you now - you took our money, remember? - so do the deal. BoA says, yeah but the shareholders still have to vote on the deal, and this new information we have constitutes a Material Adverse Change (MAC) which, by law, we have to disclose to our shareholders ahead of their vote to approve the deal. The government said, well, no - you aren't going to disclose that stuff - do you understand? Ken Lewis didn't disclose the information, and BoA shareholders voted to acquire ML. Well, it was a horrible deal and wrecked havoc on BoA's balance sheet - and BoA had to get even more money from the government.

Now, Ken Lewis' actions are certainly questionable in this incident - and his day(s) in court over that is coming - but the worse player here is the government. As I've said before, Paulson, at the very least (as the jury is still out on Bernanke's culpability), should be in jail. It is unconscienable what our government did.

So:

The banks were told that they were going to take loans, regarless of whether or not they wanted them.

BoA was told to go through with a deal that it knew was bad - which did a great deal of damage to its financial situation.

Now the banks are being told whether or not they can pay back the loans, and under what conditions they can pay them back - and by the way (not that it changes the propriety of what happened), the government has made significant profits on the the loans that it has allowed to be paid back.

This was a government power play. There were lots of players behaving badly, and BoA can be rightfully criticized for its role, but the truly dispicable behavior here was on the part of the government.

That is a fantastic explanation of the events that occured during the BofA, etc. lending. My question is this. Do you work somewhere in the government at which you were able to get these facts or is this merely an opinion formed from numerous newspaper articles, online blogs, and hatred for the government as it is?

That is a fantastic explanation of the events that occured during the BofA, etc. lending. My question is this. Do you work somewhere in the government at which you were able to get these facts or is this merely an opinion formed from numerous newspaper articles, online blogs, and hatred for the government as it is?

I trade stocks, so I follow the financial world / markets on a regular basis (I don't mean as a hobby). Although I don't generally trade 'bank' stocks, and thus I don't devote a lot of time to maintaining an in-depth awareness of all of their financial transactions, I do usually have a basic knowledge of what is going on with them. I certainly don't get information from blogs or the sort, but rather from more straight forward financial info sources (CNBC, WSJ, SEC filings, various government reports, watching congressional hearings, etc.) So, it's just stuff that I generally keep up on, because I need to.

I don't think any of the substance of what I said is in dispute, though the way different people choose to characterize what happened differs. There's no question that the meeting I described took place - Paulson has acknowledged that, and acknowledged that the banks were told to take money. His characterization of how much 'pressure' was exerted doesn't exactly mirror the characterization of all the other parties involved - but that isn't surprising. Basically, his position is that he did what he had to do - yes, banks were told to take money - yes, it was 'suggested' that BoA go forward with the ML acquisition - but that's what had to be done to avoid a collapse of our economic system. His position is not denial, it is justification.

People will absolutely disagree about how much the banks needed to take the money (and make no mistake, with the financial world on the verge of collapse, many of them did need the money) - but no one disputes that they were told to take it. And, there is no dispute that the government decided whether or not they could pay it back, and under what terms they could - that's what the whole 'stress test' situation was about. Some companies were told they could go ahead and pay the money back, and some of them have (e.g. Goldman Sachs), while others were told, X, Y and Z have to happen before you can pay it back. The government released this information several months back.

So, in the financial world (just meaning, the circles that follow what is going on with these banks on a day by day, hour by hour basis) there isn't any question about how this stuff generally unfolded (details of course will be disputed). However, there are different opinions about whether or not the government's actions were 'acceptable'. More people than not are of the opinion that what was done was undesirable, but necessary - some consider Paulson a hero for saving the nation and pulling us back from the brink. Depending on what is meant by that, they are probably right - but my opinion on the matter takes into account somewhat broader horizons than what would have happened this year or the next.

That said, the truth is that we were very close to major upheaval - much worse than what we are seeing now - and I don't believe most people fully appreciate how dire the situation was, and how bad it could have been. They weren't paying attention to what was going on at the time, and in a way, they were saved from possibilities that they still don't realize were possible. I would say this - if the government hadn't done what it did, and people got to see what happened as a result - then I bet most people would want to go back and have the government do what it did do. I, however, do not feel that way. I would rather have faced the problems we created for ourselves, bad though they would have been, so that we could get to work building a new prosperity - instead of putting the day of reckoning off for a while.

This really is a fascinating and involved subject, but I've already gone on too long, so I'll shut up.

[BofAstillSUCKS!]:whistle::yay:The company I worked for a couple years ago used BOA for payroll, they would not cash my paycheck unless I gave them $5 because I didn't have an account there even though my employer did. Told the lady never mind I would just take it to my bank, she got half pissy because she had already stamped the back figuring i would give up the 5, fricken shysters!

I think the "basic story" is pretty simple.

In order:

1. BofA makes lousy business decisions to purchase Country Wide mortgage and Merrill Lynch.

2. BofA shares start to plummet a few months later.

3. BofA gets a boat-load of money from the government for fear of impacting the economy [more then they already have].

4. BofA CEO purchases millions of share of BofA stock at low low price of $6/share [It's now at $17/share].

5. A few months later, BofA hands their upper management millions of dollars in bonuses.

I don't care if the bonuses were "owed" as a result of contracts or whatever. They are all snakes......

BoA was forced to buy Merrill Lynch by the Federal Government. Get your facts straight.

U.S. Forced Bank Board To Carry Out Merrill Deal - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042302461.html)

As for the rest, BoA is one of few banks that is accessible pretty much anywhere in the country. In this area, I can't think of another bank that's as widely accessible. The reason I went with Bank of America is because they were the only bank in my area that was also here...I was previously banking with Wachovia.

Since I've been here, I have actually pulled a good portion of my money out of Bank of America since their rates aren't as good. I still use them for my main bank for accessing money and paying bills since it's the easiest, but for earning money via interest or taking loans and whatnot, I'd go with a different bank.

The issue I'm having a bit of trouble accepting is how does the gov't force BofA to accept a loan and force BofA to purchase a company [or not disclose deleterious information to members of the board as Tilted described].

What kinds of pressure can the gov't impose on a global entity such as BofA? Why can't BofA say FU?

I would just like to know what the possible outcomes might have been if BofA were to have said "no thanks" to both the loan and the purchase.

In addition, I don't hear anyone saying BofA was forced to buy Country Wide....

The issue I'm having a bit of trouble accepting is how does the gov't force BofA to accept a loan and force BofA to purchase a company [or not disclose deleterious information to members of the board as Tilted described].

What kinds of pressure can the gov't impose on a global entity such as BofA? Why can't BofA say FU?

I would just like to know what the possible outcomes might have been if BofA were to have said "no thanks" to both the loan and the purchase.

In addition, I don't hear anyone saying BofA was forced to buy Country Wide....


Our Beloved Leader runs the show now, he makes the rules.. he WON!!

If BofA didn't do as asked I'm sure they would have found grounds to break up the bank into tiny little pieces (remember Ma Bell/ AT&T) and sold them off to the first Muslim Country that wanted them..

The people that run these companies generally are VERY smart, and exceptionally very business savvy. I'm sure if there was a safe way for them to have said no, they would have. But there's a new sheriff in town. We are using Chicago rules, and Chicago politics.. Blackmail, extortion and bribery are now vogue..

I loathe BofA with a passion. Even before they started with their financial troubles we always had to go over our bank statements with fine tooth comb because they'd throw in a fee here a fee there. I had to fight with them to recover over $800 in fees that we should never have been charged.

They are as shady as they come and if you have to keep a very close eye on your accounts. At least that has been my experience.

My primary checking and savings account is now with NFCU. :yay:

The issue I'm having a bit of trouble accepting is how does the gov't force BofA to accept a loan and force BofA to purchase a company [or not disclose deleterious information to members of the board as Tilted described].

What kinds of pressure can the gov't impose on a global entity such as BofA? Why can't BofA say FU?

I would just like to know what the possible outcomes might have been if BofA were to have said "no thanks" to both the loan and the purchase.

In addition, I don't hear anyone saying BofA was forced to buy Country Wide....

As far as the Country Wide deal goes, I don't have a lot of knowledge of how that developed, but I don't believe there was any government pressure to do that deal - at least I don't remember hearing such allegations. It happened before most of the rest of this stuff and before the government got heavily involved in the banks through TARP. But, I don't think that deal was anywhere near as important to BoA's condition as the Merrill deal was. For one thing, it was a much smaller deal, and for another, it essentially created a separate mortgage servicing entity, whereby any solvency problems it had wouldn't affect BoA at large.

As for the banks taking the loans, these banks are subject to federal regulators that they have to deal with on a regular basis. They understand what kinds of problems those regulators can cause, should they choose to. There is no dispute that, the 9 banks were told that, if they didn't voluntarily take the capital injections (TARP), their regulators would require them to take capital injections. These CEOs knew that they had no choice - they had to take the government loans and give the government interest in their companies. Furthermore, if any of them had refused, then they would have been screwed the next day when the Treasury announced the program. It was made clear that all of the other banks would have been getting a Treasury endorsement as 'healthy institutions', while they would not. That would have meant a huge exodus of funds from their bank in favor of the other ones - basically, a good old fashioned run on their bank, and then an incredible liquidity crunch. These are smart people - they know how things work - and they knew that refusing the loans was not a viable option, unless they were willing to watch their companies be destroyed.

These words (http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/Treasury-CEO-TalkingPoints.pdf) might seem fairly innocuous to you and I:


We don't believe it is tenable to opt out because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed.

If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance.

But, the CEO's of the nation's largest banks knew full well what those words meant, especially coming from the Treasury Secretary of the U.S. I'm sure they felt like grade school kids being called before the principal and being told how things were gonna go.

As for BoA going ahead with the Merrill deal, BoA was told that the board of BoA would be removed if they exercised the Material Adverse Change option (and withdrew from the deal). They were also told that doing so would damage their relationship with their regulators. Could the former have happened? Probably, the Federal Reserve does have some supervisory authority over the banks, and the U.S. government now owned some interest in the banks. Regardless, given what had happened and what was going on, it was certainly reasonable for the BoA board to believe that it was possible. Should they have capitulated? No, they probably shouldn't have. I would have liked them to tell Paulson and Bernanke to stick it where the sun don't shine, as they had a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders - even in light of the inappropriate threats of the government. That said, they were in a difficult position, and it would have been very tough for them to do the 'right' thing.

As for the disclosure issue, I believe Paulson's position is that he never specifically told Ken Lewis not to disclose certain things to the shareholders. Who knows what exactly was said, but I tend to give Ken Lewis the benefit of the doubt with regard to that being the essence of the message from Bernanke and/or Paulson (and there are emails that might make one believe that the Fed and/or Treasury were telling him not to disclose information). He had tried to take the high road all along and not pass blame off from himself to the Treasury department. In interview after interview he had refused to go into what threats were made by the government with regard to the whole mess, and kept saying, essentially, that the buck stopped with him - it was BoA's decision in the end. It was only when he was questioned under oath, pursuant to subpoena, that he disclosed the true extent of the government's pressure - most of what he described having been later confirmed by Paulson himself. Again, Paulson doesn't generally deny the pressure he exerted, he just asserts that it was necessary.

Ken Lewis is now facing legal consequences for his actions - and that is probably as it should be. How culpable is he? That's a tough question to answer, and I'm certainly not qualified to answer it. It will be interesting to see how things unfold. More than likely, a lot of specifics will come out, and Paulson and Bernanke may well end up on the stand in a court of law - that could be quite intriguing.