Talk:Fifth Third Bank/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why the name "Third-Fifth?"

On the "Third-Fifth" versus "Fifth-Third" issue, I wonder if they considered the fact that slaves were considered "three-fifths" of a person. May be worth seeing if someone considered that. --EazieCheeze 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible, but I've never seen anything written to back it up. Fifth Third's official line has been it was for prohibitionist reasons.Kevyn 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Or not. See below.Kevyn 07:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I went back through this article today and referenced all of the facts I cited from the 5/3 website a couple of years ago when I wrote the original article. The one fact that I can't find on their website any more is that the name was chosen for prohibitionist reasons. That strikes me as odd that they would remove that piece of information. The June 1, 1908 bank merger, and the March 24, 1969 final name change, are both citeable on 5/3's website... but the reason for choosing 5/3 over 3/5 is not. Kevyn 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well isn't that interesting. I just went through the history of this article to look at the original article I wrote in 2004, and it makes no mention of the prohibitionist issue. I could have SWORN that I had read that piece of info on the 5/3 website, and that I had incorporated it into the article, but it isn't there. (It doesn't appear until YHoshua added it 20 January 2005). What's more, the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive doesn't show the information being present on the 5/3 website back then, either. I guess was wrong - I stand corrected. An object lesson in how reliable my memory is. And how important it is to document sources. Kevyn 07:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have been satisfied with a simple explanation like "Fifth Third" will appear earlier in an alphabetical listing than "Third Fifth". The prohibition story is a nice one but sounds like an idea that came about after the choice was already made. Mfields1 23:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wachovia Merger?

I've been hearing rumors that 5/3 is being bought by Wachovia. I'm not going to edit it based on a rumor, but thought someone who knows something that maybe I didn't could change the article.JoeZierer 05:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard anything about that, and I find it unlikely. --wpktsfs 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, new name is "5/3 Wacko".  ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.105.218.18 (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fifth Third??

I got an e-mail from Fifth Third bank asking me to verify my account information (interesting mostly because I have never even heard of this bank prior to receiving this email, and I live well outside its region of business) and the Wikipedia entry directs anyone with a spoof email to forward the email on to whoever@security.53.com. The part after the @ sign is the EXACT SAME as the reply-to in the email, which makes me think whoever put that email on Wikipedia might be scamming people?? Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.255.207.211 (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

If your NOT a customer of 5/3 bank and got the phishing email, just delete the email. Fifth Third bank has stopped asking for emails to be forwarded to them unless you are specifically their customer (my guess is that they got flooded). I don't think the person who posted the email in Wikipedia was a scammer as the email is listed on the REAL 5/3 website. Those phishing emails get everywhere! I got several and I live in Malaysia! - about a gajillion miles from where 5/3 operates. --Eqdoktor 07:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It is very easy to fake the headers in an email. That address is legit.Strunke 08:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox and TJX

I updated the financial numbers and the recent edits about the TJ maxx compromise and shining more light on that. Also edited the infobox to be more aesthetically pleasing and contain more accurate info. Strunke 08:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Axe To Grind...

I removed this POV whining from the article:

While 5/3 Bank is a convenient source for online banking as well as being equipped with several ATMs for members, they have a tendency to ride upon the backs of the poor. One overdraft will cost the member $33. WHile overdrawing is completely the fault of the member and not the institution, there are unfair rules that will cost the member a lot of money due to the bank's greed. For instance, if a person uses their account and unknowing goes over the amount they have available, regardless of whether or not they deposit money to cover it in time, the bank will withdraw the pending items BEFORE making the deposit. An example would be: if a member has four pending items on 04/01/05 and does not have the money to cover it, regardless of making a deposit on 04/02/05 before those items actually come out of the account (and the account shows in the positive), they will still be charged $132 in fees when they do come out. This is "Because it's the principle. The fact that the person WOULD have went over, though they actually did not, is still bad banking and the member will be assessed fees".

It was obviously written as retaliation for a fee the writer received. Please do not re-add this unencyclopedic editorialization. KyuzoGator (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

another axe to grind......... Depositing "local" checks into your account is bull. Because the checks might be "processed" in another state, that "local" check is considered out of state and gets an automatic hold on it, causing checks to bounce so they get excess dollars from someone whos account might be stretched thin. Thinking I could stay one step ahead of them, I decided to cash my paychecks at the issuing bank and depositing the cash into my own account. I just received a letter from the IRS...I am now a suspected drug dealer and they are looking for their cut!!!!!0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.155.236 (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The portion of this article, "Community Outreach" sounds a lot more like an advertisement than encyclopedic information. The first paragraph of this section in particular sounds like it was written by 5/3 PR department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.240.47 (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The list of the Board of Directors and "Leadership" seems a bit excessive. A few of they key people should be listed under "Key People" on the right, and that's about it. FantajiFan (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

List of BOD's, Upper Managment, Committee's and composition. Why?

What is the purpose in listing all the upper management, BOD members, committee's and members et cet?

I would remove it but wonder if anyone has an objections. I see no way this is pertinent to this article and seems either fluff or vanity without substance. If these people are notable a link to them somewhere may be worthwhile in "other links" or whatever or in the article, but other than the CEO (already mentioned in the box upper right corner) and maybe the chairman et cet I see no reason for a list of these folks.

If you can tie it in to something relevant to the company other than their existance fine, but why should this list stand?

Any objections to deletion until someone makes these people relevant and not trivia?--Δζ (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Phishing

While the information given in this section may be accurate, the link provided in the footnote shows up-to-date McAfee reports. It is my belief that some mention should be made that is no longer true. As it happens, as of today NatWest takes top "honors" with 97%. Fifth Third now gets so few it's been clumped into the category "Others" which accounts for a total of 0% (after they rounded it). Either that, or remove this whole paragraph as being POV since there is no longer any neutral reason for mentioning it. JH443 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Is someone at Fifth Third writing this article?

There is absolutely NOTHING in the noted citation that supports this piece of corporate PR:

"...The Charlotte Market has responded well to the merger and the new brand in the area.[11]"

````Pirmin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.10.62.253 (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethical issues

I removed the following from that section:

A large number of former First National Bank executives of Florida left the bank quite unhappily after Fifth Third Bank offered a contract buyout, which First National executive, Jody Hudgins excepted.(Hielscher) “Among the other First National execs who have recently left: Chief Financial Officer Bob Reichert, Chief Operating Officer Jim Goehler, South Florida commercial lending head Tom Hebble, senior lender Ron Rucker and in-house attorneys Tracy Coghill and Bill Focht.”(Hielscher) Fifth Third Knew that after the buyout they would need to hold on to the executives temporarily.(Hielscher) Even though, the Florida execs were not happy with the changes Fifth Third brought some felt as Hudgins states, “obligated to the customers, shareholders and other employees they had long worked with.”(Hielscher) According to Hudgins, First National has been known for its homey feeling it brought to long time employees and the community.(Hielscher) Among many of the drastic changes, Fifth Third brought in a tight-budget, efficiency first model. This sabotaged the hometown bank feeling that First National felt it gave to the community.(Hielscher) While undergoing changes some of the Florida execs began chatting on the Yahoo!(Hielscher) Finance message board for Fifth Third.(Hielscher) According to one former employee Fifth Third became so angry that they banned the use of Yahoo! At the work place.(Hielscher) Jama Dock, spokeswoman for the bank, claims that she was never aware of the ban. The bank has proved successful in the take over of First National, and is now undergoing the construction of their 16-story building in Sarasota.(Hielscher)

Its unsourced, irrelevant, un-encyclopedic (gossipy) and its really just office politics by the looks of it. I also suspect (based on sentence construction) its taken from a blog. I'm moving it here in case someone can make it into a proper encyclopedia entry (unlikely). --Eqdoktor 09:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I also put in a POV neutrality tag in the ethics section. Allegations of toxic waste contamination and dumping are very serious. I'm not removing the entire section since there are external source references but I have serious doubts over the neutrality. --Eqdoktor 09:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see a second source for the toxic waste contamination. The source listed appears to be a blog that has targeted Fifth Third Bancorp. If thee were two or three sources for this same information then it would seem credible. Mfields1 00:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I could find no corroborating stories about this and have aksed that these facts be sourced by placing a tag on the article. Mfields1 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of the references for the above:

--Rcragun 14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC) _________________________________

I am the executive director of the Local Area Watch. The dumping information came from our website. Every statement about it is supported by documentation:

[1] The existence of the contamination is publicly recorded in a pair of Baseline Environmental Assessments filed with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

[2] Its hazard has been attested in the Due Care Plan drafted by the Boardwalk project's environmental consultant, letters from the MDEQ, and a third-party scientific anaylsis by a forensic geologist (on file with the Kent County Circuit Court).

[3] The unreported removal of the waste from the Boardwalk project site was recorded on hundreds of hours of surveillance videotape, photographs, eyewitness testimony, and admissions by the contractors for the Boardwalk project.

[4] Fifth Third admitted to its failure to obtain determinations from the MDEQ in court documents, while the lead contractor for the Boardwalk project and the manager of 940 Monroe L.L.C. stated under oath that he was following the directions of the bank in removing the waste from the project site.

[5] Finally, Fifth Third's environmental consultant disavowed in a written statement to the court that the report it filed with the MDEQ stating that all of the waste had been left at the project site.

[6] Consequently, the Michigan Department of Attorney General directed the MDEQ to test the soil of the primary off-site location where the Boardwalk contractors dumped the project's waste. The test results revealed that the waste had been dumped there.

That said, I would change the last sentence to read that Fifth Third did not take advantage of Michigan law to limit its liability for the presence of contamination at the Boardwalk project site. While it was at least imprudent of the bank to not get the determinations, it is not illegal to not do so.

Bill Tingley, Executive Director L.A.W.

Why not register with Wikipedia, and correct the error? You seem to have inside information. Why are there not other, verifiable resources, especially web links, which you can provide light on this matter. It tagline on the L.A.W. website says "Reporting the news the news won't report in Grand Rapids". Why will they not report it? Don't claim a cover up, unless you have personally tried to get the mainstream news media and the local authorities to become involved. If you have, publish the letter you wrote and the responses you got. Mfields1 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

removed this section as well due to limited references:

Fifth third promised Wagner a huge check for more thank 30 million to bag Old Kent, meanwhile looking of Old Kent by insiders began, and several executives that are tied to other seriously questionable activities not cited in this summary come into play and try to use this situation to profit or to cover up their own blunders.(Tingley 2005) These situations have to potential to tie fifth third to nearly 40 billion dollars in liability in environmental penalties and clean-up costs, again from blunders not mentioned in this summary. (Tingley 2005) In ’02 an investigation was launched which found that the banks financial controls during its devouring of Old Kent were scandalously loose and allowed a lot of illicit Old Kent deals to be buried. (Tingley 2005) The feds offered fifth third a modest write off of 82 million for impaired assets. (Tingley 2005) The real dagger to fifth third, were the regulations imposed which stop its buy it and bury it merger strategy. (Tingley 2005) With continuing inflation fifth thirds stock price depended upon the bank eating other banks faster than the problems of loose financial controls could catch up. (Tingley 2005) As a result fifth thirds stock has tumbled by a third destroying billions in shareholders value. (Tingley 2005) Bottom line is that fifth third is operating on screw-the-shareholders mentality that sunk the likes of Enron, Adelphia, Tyco and other crooked enterprises in recent years. (Tingley 2005)--Rcragun 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Autobiographical wiki page

Somebody who works for the bank (or just really likes it) is writing the wiki page. I deleted some blatant press release copy-pasting, but there's more to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.84.208 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fifth_Third_Bank/Archives/2013&oldid=1159836793"