Slashdot Mirror
Chase Bank May Drop Support of Chrome, Opera
mwandaw writes "Banking giant JPMorgan Chase may drop support of some popular browsers because they do not 'all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site.' After July 18 you may not be able to access the website with a browser that they do not support. The list of browsers they currently support seems outdated: Internet Explorer 6.0 and higher, Firefox 2.0 and higher, and Safari 3.0 and higher (for Macs only). With usage of IE6 plummeting and concerns about its security well known, the inclusion of that browser seems suspect. On the other extreme, rising star Chrome appears to be left out, too. What does Google think of that?"
Too bad!
I may not be a smart man, but I know what an inode is.
Having their claws in your banking info is a primary directive
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
"Traditional" businesses don't understand technology at all, especially "consumer" technology trends. Usually software backed up by a large businesses is considered to be a bonus for the "traditional" business drone, however, as any tech-literate person will tell you, those programs usually are outdated, slow and bloated.
Its quite silly how they don't understand it. In their mind IE = Microsoft = stable. In everyone elses mind IE = Microsoft = Slow/Bloated/Insecure. In their mind Chrome = New = Unstable, in everyone elses mind Chrome = New = Fast.
Businesses need to realize people don't, and shouldn't, choose software like they choose a car.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
... does the same thing. I got this message (today) trying to order service using the latest version of Chrome.
That sucking sound you hear is my bandwidth.
You can tell how outdated their thinking is by their inclusion of Web TV. How long has it been since that was even sold?
not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site
- but they'll still be supporting IE6. Where the hell are they getting their security information from? I can see still supporting it purely because of the sheer numbers of nutbars still using it, but to mention security when talking about any other browser?
User Agent Switcher.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59/
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Why are some browsers not supported? There are two primary reasons--security and popularity. There are dozens of browsers in use today, but not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site. The security of your accounts and private information is one of our highest priorities and some browsers, especially older versions, are simply higher security risks to use with our site. As for popularity, we continually monitor the types of browsers that customers use to access our site. Based on that information, we know that supported browsers are used by more than 95% of our customers. If a new browser begins to grow in popularity, we will assess and test its security and performance with our site to determine whether or not we should support its use.
Right... Because its sooooo hard to use standards and make a secure site? Lets face it, if you code things right you can support every single browser except for perhaps IE (though they have gotten better). It is pure stupidity not to support various other browsers because they "aren't secure" when you can't give a reason other than they aren't used as much.
The vast majority of security for banking comes from 3 main places. Encryption (controlled by the site owners), Physical/Software security of the servers (controlled by the sites owners) and elimination of flaws in the browser (judging by their inclusion of IE 6... they aren't worried about this).
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
A few years ago, before Firefox and Safari had any market share I used to find from time to time websites requiring me to use IE. Since it was not possible at the time (IE had not been updated for Apple in a few years) you know what happened? I did not use their service and I did not miss it, I just used a competitor who allowed me to use my browser. Didn't matter if it was a back of a brokerage account, or a Japanese tee shirt shop (whatever). Now I never encounter that kind of message anymore. Is this a positive example of free market? I am not sure, but it might be!
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
I can understand the "popularity" argument, though it certainly does tend to coddle poor design practices, the fewer browsers they have to check for correct rendering on the cheaper their web development will be.
I find the "security" one much harder to understand(unless, as is quite likely, it is just being used cynically to make a purely cost-based decision sound more urgent). From a security perspective, things like IE6 and FF2.0 are seriously retro; but supported, which makes it seem quite unlikely that they are making the "security" decision based on the presence/absence of some specific feature(e.g. specific SSL/TLS ciphers, "anti-phishing filters", XSS countermeasures, etc.). Further, the "Safari 3.0 or higher (Mac Only)" thing seems downright inscrutable from a security perspective, and not much clearer from a web-design perspective. Is Safari version X on Windows really that drastically different? And is Chrome all that different, in terms of the rendering features that you would need to present a bunch of numbers, some fine print about fees, and clip-art of smiling families?
Considering the Windows malware that is emptying bank accounts, you have to ban Windows if serious about security. If not banning Windows, they should create a Chase-branded native Windows software client for their customers to use so they don't use a browser at all.
Safari support is important because many Windows users do their online banking with their iPod or iPhone because it's exponentially safer than Windows, and because Mac users are extremely trouble-free clients. But they should simply support WebKit to also get Chrome and the other smartphones.
The key takeaway from the IE9 preview is that the Internet Explorer platform is dead. If you support WebKit plus IE6-IE8 then you'll very likely be including IE9 as if it is a WebKit browser since they are making a WebKit-alike so they can reboot their mobile platform.
Overall I think the best strategy is to be aggressive with HTML5, including fallbacks so that you have one site you're focusing on, that can run in any HTML5 browser and fallback gracefully to the old browsers, then be aggressive about getting your clients to upgrade and about communicating whatever problems you have to W3C and the browser vendors. The way out is through.
... I can say it's pretty short sighted of them. What do they plan to tell the people who buy Chrome OS Netbooks in the near future? Sorry, you can't use our bank? I'm sure both Google and various hardware vendors who offer such devices will have a few words to say to Chase Bank.
'...not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site.'
Yeah, if you've made a site and it doesn't look in both Chrome and Opera, there must be a problem with those browsers. I'm sure they paid a lot of money to get their site developed, so there can't be anything wrong with that.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
This isn't a positive example of the free market because it is a net negative for the net as a whole. Yes, the free market working on perhaps its last stronghold that keeps on getting eroded is a good thing, but why was IE not being used? Because it was filled with more holes than swiss cheese, that it didn't support hardly any technology, it was a pain to code for, etc.
The only reason why this has happened is because IE for a time was complete crap. Yes, it has resulted in benefits for some of us, but it means that many people have been and are using browsers that can be easily exploited into spewing DDoS attacks and spam (Does anyone still get spam anymore? I think I've had a grand total of like 4 messages since I started using Gmail) and all kinds of malware.
So, while it is nice that it opened up competition in the browser market, it was a net loss for the internet as a whole.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
"We paid Vice President McNepotista's retarded cousin Benny six hojillion greenbacks to lash up a flaky site in Front Page, and if we had to acknowledge that our crappy site doesn't render in most standards compliant browsers, we might not feel like such virile corporate stallions tonight while we're snorting coke out of a hooker's ass crack."
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
What is all the "outdated" commentary in the article, and the bemoaning of IE6. The text, typed or pasted by the very poster, lists IE6, Safari 30. and Firefox 2.0, each decorated with the words "or higher".
Those two words largely eliminate fully half the posed and inferred questions about IE6 being out of date and the whole list being backwards or whatever.
My unleaded gas is for use with a 1975 automobile or later. This doesn't make it unfit for my 2006 prius.
Someone in the editorial department needs to go listen to Monty Python's Logician sketch. It's called the _partial_ conversion of a logical statement.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I use Chrome and sometimes Opera for security. I will not do internet banking with anything else other than Chrome or the browser on my Android phone. Firefox, as much as I love it, has become outdated slow and bloated. It's also very popular, meaning it's under attack (indeed have witnessed more and more malware getting through firefox - it's no longer the automatic cure for malware magnet users) although flaws are fixed so fast it makes your head spin, in reality it's always been unpatched browsers that have been the risk.
I uh, was also under the impression Chrome has some pretty heavy duty security features and built in anti-phishing support. To the point that it embarasses the competition who are playing catch up. If anything banks should be strongly encouraging people install these browsers.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
They promote the use of IE6 instead of Chrome or Opera to decrease security... probably they will kick people usiing updated flash players and recent firefox.
If well Hanlon's always take precedence, by now a variation of Clarke's law should be applied: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"
The banks should issue a write protected USB stick with it's own connection manager and browser on it. An "almost live" OS.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Nothing in the linked page says that they're going to lock out "unsupported" browsers.
If you are using a browser that we don't support, you may not be able to access our site or you may not have the same level of performance as if you were using a supported browser.
Essentially they're saying that the site may not perform per specification in browsers that they do not test with because they're only used by less than 5% of their users. This is nothing other than a "we didn't test, so don't expect it to work" disclaimer. Nobody is getting locked out and nobody is discriminated against. The site's developers are simply cutting some corners to save costs. Business as usual.
Y'all are posting in a troll thread.
Fuck Chase...I had Wamu before they were swallowed by Chase, and Wamu's website was FAR superior to the ancient web banking that Chase offers. I have to click through 5 screens just to transfer money across accounts with chase, and I doubt they're not using anything more sophisticated than plain https, so any BS reason they offer for not supporting certain modern browsers is just that...BS.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
LOL
Funnyhacks - Wierd, unusual, and fun hacks
The reason that IE6 is included is because it's currently installed as the only browser on 140,000 Chase employee workstations, laptops, etc. If IE6 was blocked then Chase employees would be unable to bank with Chase from the office.
The scripting engine in Chrome is at least twice as fast as the one in IE, and it's stable. The first thing I noticed was that Facebook didn't work well in IE. I got sick of Facebook, and stopped using Chrome for a while. Then I noticed that a couple sites I use a lot both work reliably in Chrome. I had been blaming those sites for having bad scripts. Nope. It's IE.
Now, perhaps this is because I went through my IE settings and turned off anything that I thought might make me vulnerable. I don't run AV, so I tend to go through all the security tweaks for IE.
Maybe, just maybe, if I set IE back to defaults it would work OK with the aforementioned sites. I won't do that. So many MS problems are due to insecure default settings, almost as much as the software itself.
So. There's Chrome, it works on these sites, so I use it. Many people sitting behind PCs won't try alternative browsers. They'll just think the site is slow or unreliable.
I don't know what MS is doing with IE. Maybe they're too distracted with smartphones and Bing. Maybe Google's brain power, revenue, and "momentum" is just crushing MS in the browser space. Whatever it is, the failure of IE is now painfully obvious, not just from a security standpoint; but useability. To reiterate, I suspect the scripting engine, since the sites where I've observed problems tend seem to be fairly script intensive. Anything that processes AJAX requests is twice as fast, or faster in Chrome. IE sometimes "forgets" drop-down settings or refuses to take input. Chrome just works.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
... for a Fortune 50 company that received flack for something similar, I can assure it's not a safety thing so much as it is a laziness thing. The internal standard is IE6, therefore most developers have it on their machine and develop/test against it. To officially add support for other browsers would require QA to have all of the browser/machine combo's and likewise for development.
Use standards and you won't have that problem? Wrong, because MS doesn't follow the standards. Which means that we end up writing two versions (minimum) - one for standards compliant and one for IE.
Use a javascript package to make IE compliant? Can't. Corporate architecture doesn't allow us to use open source or third party libraries.
End of the day... it's laziness, not security.
As I once wrote to my bank: "I'll switch banks before I switch browsers".
and where to find them.
JP Morgan IT staff: "These outdated browsers aren't secure!"
JP Morgan Financial Guru: "We're going to make a fortune on securitizing these browsers! Start the rumor, tell 'em we're dropping everything we've got!"
having your money in a large US bank that is only propped up by the Fed, who let them borrow taxpayer money to make their balance sheets is asking for trouble. Now that I am becoming a fan of Chrome, I have another reason not to bother with Chase Bank, even if they continue to chop down forests to get my business.
"The scripting engine in Chrome is at least twice as fast as the one in IE" - by istartedi (132515) on Sunday June 27, @06:02PM (#32711456)
See the results there for what's stated in my subject-line above, it's VERY CURRENT (this week in fact):
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/06/23/html5-native-third-ie9-platform-preview-available-for-developers.aspx
("Read 'em & weep"... & that's ONLY OPERA's BETA CODE FOR THEIR NEXT RELEASE mind you - it's only going to be faster once it's OUT OF BETA (once excessive err traps &/or debug stuff is outta it's codebase))
So - For SPEED?
Opera leads there, & for the LONGEST TIME also, plus on most ALL FRONTS for things "web" (scripting AND std. HTML work)... here are some evidences of that, over time:
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
and
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/cnetuk/crave/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm
AND
http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/
(Opera "rocked the planet" in those cases... bigtime (& ESPECIALLY ON THE MOST USED PLATFORM THERE IS, BAR-NONE, FOR PC-COMPUTING: Windows!))
APK
P.S.=> On the note of security as well, in favor of Opera? It's usually always listed with ZERO known security vulnerabilities over @ SECUNIA.COM also (here are today's results on that note in fact):
INTERNET EXPLORER 8.x VULNERABILITIES STATS:(06/27/2010)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/?task=advisories
Unpatched 31% (4 of 13 Secunia advisories)
---
FIREFOX 3.x VULNERABILITIES STATS:(06/27/2010)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/?task=statistics
Unpatched 9% (1 of 11 Secunia advisories)
----
GOOGLE CHROME 5.x VULNERABILITIES STATS:(06/27/2010)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/30134/
Unpatched 0% (0 of 2 Secunia advisories)
---
OPERA 10.x VULNERABILITIES STATS:(06/27/2010)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/26745/?task=statistics
Unpatched 0% (0 of 7 Secunia advisories)
---
(Once more/again, albeit on the note of security vs. speed above: "Read 'em & weep"...)
Opera ROCKS, period (or, do the stats above make me a liar? I think not...)! Opera shows less security vulnerabilities in current builds than FF does (& less than IE, & IE still has known security issues).
Plus, Opera's been able to pass the "ACID TESTS" (ACID2 specfically) for compliance to web-based standards since version 6.x iirc, & it was (iirc) actually the FIRST BROWSER (not development kit) to do so, but when counting dev kits, it was 2nd... correct me if I am "off" here on this last point though, guys, & thanks.
APK
P.S.-> Opera has a BIG "share-of-market" on MOBILE DEVICES as well, & is big in EUROPE (though stats don't tend to show it, because like many others, I tend to "IDENTIFY AS IE" in Opera, so I get somewhat better "IE based" page renderings on SOME sites (this happens, too bad) & that's something others seem to overlook QUITE A BIT too)...
Once more, imo @ least? Well - Opera's great!
I.E.-> It took me away from being a FireFox user primarily in fact, because of it (& FF + IE have copied Opera's features RAMPANTLY over time (e.g.-> Tabbed Browsing anyone? As far as ADDONS also?? Heh, a LOT of w
Well, that's one anecdote. I have the opposite experience. My primary credit card is also the first credit card I ever got. Mine did have a low interest rate. Over the years the card changed hands to two different banks through mergers, and now it's with Chase. Each time the brand logo on my card changed, I was been grandfathered in with the same APR as before. I've been with Chase for a while now, and though it wasn't even by choice, I'm perfectly happy with them as they have never given me anything but good service. They even recently upgraded my card to one of their "premium" products -- while keeping me at the same interest rate, which currently stands at 4.65% (yes, you read that right). And no, I am not anything close to "rich," by any stretch of the imagination.
My guess is that your experience is due to the nature of the product you received from Chase. By "product," I mean card -- not all credit cards are the same, even when issued by the same bank. Different product lines tolerate different terms. For example, I once had a card that had a very poor interest rate, like they were giving you. I called up my bank and said I really couldn't see using this card ever again, given that my other cards offered so much better terms. The lady on the phone looked at my records and said yes, indeed I should qualify for a better rate -- but that unfortunately she couldn't give it to me with this particular card. She recommended I apply for a new card from the same bank, and she could take my application over the phone. I did so and they mailed me out my new card in a week or two, with the interest rate cut in half. I threw the old card away. Of course, which products you qualify for largely depend on your credit score.
Breakfast served all day!
Basically, when there's a fairly significant liability there, years of experience and large corporate backing do matter. They maybe shouldn't, but they do.
Sure, but if they can't provide concrete data for choosing one browser over another, then how can you be sure they are making the right choice. I understand their argument, but I have no evidence that they proved these browsers to be unreliable.
What we need is a security acid test, akin to the CSS3 acid test, that is recognized by security and financial institutions, that can be run by browser developers to see whether they meet the mark. If there is one already, was it used and where are the results? If there isn't one, then how can we be sure browsers are being audited in an equal manner? For me the test should be something that any capable security expert could feel comfortable with and include minimum requirements for passing and also "nice to have features" that can give the browser bonus marks.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I've noticed recently that the "Verified by VISA" thing[1] no longer works in Opera. I've tried to use at play.com, eastcoast.co.uk and flybe.com this weekend, and each time had to go back to Firefox.
[1] The thing where an iframe from Visa within a shopping site asks for digits from your password. I.e. exactly what your bank tells you not to do (put your banking password into any other website) must be done. Stupid system.
Considering Chase was one of the few that played recklessly with our money, I guess I wouldn't have to worry about their insecure system anyway because I wouldn't give them my money if they were the last bank in America. Instead it will be the First National Bank of My Mattress.
They want IE6 back, who knows why? There is a serious point though *lazy IT departments who push us towards IE6 because they haven't updated in a damn decade make the internet less secure, and less free. :(
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
"With usage of IE6 plummeting and concerns about its security well known, the inclusion of that browser seems suspect."
Well, gs.statcounter has IE6 listed 4th, and only beaten by newer versions of IE and one version of Firefox. My company (not Chase) tracks browsers by type/version, and more than 80% of clients identify themselves as IE6. It would be silly for us not to support IE6, just as I'm sure Chase is basing their decision on similar experience with client data. If alternative browser users want to tinker with their browser identity, they should make sure they're not identifying as IE6, or they're just contributing to the problem of IE6's continued support.
If I was a bank I would just completely avoid recommending any particular browser. Once you do that you are complicit / partially liable when a user is compromised by following your advice. As a case in point, as far as I know, FireFox 2.0 is no longer receiving security updates and there are known vulnerabilities in the last released version. Chase recommending this browser could easily be taken as an argument in a court case if a user is compromised while using their web site.
It would be far more sensible for the bank to impose no limitations and simply recommend that all users acquire a secure and standards compliant browser for using their web site.
And if you do care, why are you asking us instead of Google.
Sheesh!
I used their on-line service feed-back page to say I would do on-line banking with them unless they supported Chrome. I bet if enough people do that they will change their minds. Chase feedback link: https://www.chase.com/ccp/index.jsp?pg_name=ccpmapp/shared/assets/page/email#
Er, sorry to state the obvious, but can't these browsers simply spoof as IE if they wanted to?
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
I think it's just they're way of saying that if you've got the competence to install Chrome, then perhaps you shouldn't be buying from us.
Are you implying that someone who has the competence to install Chrome but isn't within the phone company's DSL service area should get dial-up?
...at least with Chrome. It's more popular than Safari. It's more secure than IE, meaning it's surely secure enough. Their announcement is titled "UPGRADE YOUR BROWSER BY JULY 18". Their IT dept. is assuming a person only using their browser for online banking.
I'd guess a lot of people do their online banking on break room PCs at work. These run the same browser that every other PC at work runs, namely IE 6. It's the newest IE available for Windows 2000, and it's the one against which all the company's intranet software was tested. Blocking IE 6 would lead to people switching to Wells Fargo or PNC or Fifth Third or (worse yet) one of those hippie credit unions.
I don't know about the "health" of the banks mentioned, all I know is they are huge but as we have seen in couple of years, being "huge" doesn't change a thing if you are doing bad. The bigger you are, media/govt/stats tries to hide your bad situation.
I wouldn't want to alert anyone but, if a bank in 2010 can't support pretty standard (and easy) to support browsers like Google giant's Chrome or Opera, the hidden mobile giant browser... I would be really worried about their resources and what kind of management they have.
For example, if my bank didn't let me in with Opera (or Mobile) tomorrow, I would switch the bank for above reasons, not the browser I (can) use. There is "can" factor too. This is not IE 6 situation here, I don't tell your site has to pass w3c validator either. If you don't code your site like 6 year old, both Chrome and Opera can function very well even with Quirks mode. It is not like Amaya we use here.
I've heard though that they classify customers like me as "dead beats" because we don't carry a balance for them to charge interest on.
Not really. If paying the credit card bill in full each month made a cardholder a deadbeat, then how would American Express be making beaucoup bucks off such "deadbeats"? Banks that issue credit cards make money on merchant fees, and when a cardholder pays in full, the bank has the money to lend to another customer.
If you don't carry a balance, what do you care WHAT the interest rate is
Once the bank has raised a charge account's APR to the maximum allowed by law, the next step is to add an annual fee.
If these guys are _that_ pathetic, better switch the bank rather than using something like user agent hacks.
I mean, what if they manage to code really messy, enough to say "we don't support them" (they just did) which will do some real World money harm to you?
If I heard something like that from my bank, I would carefully RTFA, check again with a support request and if they really mean it, I would transfer everything to another bank which has a sane management. I really mean it. It is a BANK, not some junk web 2.0 thing. It is your own money involved and there are very serious consequences if they mess up which isn't really fast to recover.
Now I'd never really actually used it, and only had $50 or so in it
So you were providing them basically no money whatsoever to invest. Do you know how a bank works? They take in deposits and then invest the money deposited. In return they provide you security and safe access to your money and perhaps a bit of interest. The amount of interest that can be earned on $50.00 is less than the cost to send you your statements. Your $50 costs them money. Not a lot and probably not $2.00 but more than zero. Why would the bank want to do business with a customer that costs them money each month? They institute the fee specifically to drive away unprofitable customers.
You'd think things like this would be so destructive to your customer base that they'd have to think twice about it, yet they just do it without batting an eyelash
I'm sure you're a nice guy but think about it for a minute. You were a small fry customer with little capital who cost more to serve than the bank could make off your investments. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but that's what happened. You did the right thing by going to a credit union that wanted your business. But expecting a large bank to care greatly about an unprofitable small customer is naive.
Funny, I forgot to take the money out of savings.
"Funny"? That's not funny, that's dumb. You basically gave the bank $50 and got nothing in return.
Guess I wont use Chase then. Not a hard choice.
I had an Amazon VISA, which I believe was also Chase. We had set up our bank account to automatically send payments on time, and all we had to do was respond to the reminder and put the amount in. Well, then Chase started changing the due date on us, every couple of months. We'd find out the next billing cycle that we'd been late (because they shifted the date and charged us a late fee), and we had to call them to complain, get them to take off the late fee, and shift back the due date. Then one time, I told them that if they did it again, I would cancel. Well, of course, it happened again. It took me about an hour on the phone to get them to finally cancel the card. I told them that they would have to promise in writing that they would never again change the due date, but of course they were not able to do it. They kept going on and on about all the benefits I'd racked up since I had been a loyal customer and had joined in like 1999 or something, and I responded that they were not treating me well for having been a loyal customer. Some of their arguments, IIRC, were rather inane. All I wanted was a certain kind of consistent treatment, and instead they were making the due date a moving target so they could rack up late fees. We now have a Barnes and Noble credit card. Heh.
Nowhere in the notice does it say that you MUST use one of the supported browsers. It says, "If you are using a browser that we don't support, you may not be able to access our site or you may not have the same level of performance as if you were using a supported browser." I'd be willing to bet that the site will work fine in Chrome. Why don't they list Chrome? Because they don't test with Chrome ("Supported browsers are browsers that we consistently use and test with our site"). Why don't they test with Chrome? Because every additional browser that must be tested with adds time to development and QA. You could argue that Chrome has enough users for them to invest the time to test with it, but if they are testing with Safari, they are probably fine with Chrome anyway. It's a simple matter of resources and I, frankly, don't see much wrong with it. I'm speaking both as a web developer and a Chase customer.
I just did.
Studies have shown that 100% of web browsers support HTTP/HTML. Develop for standards, and let non-standards compliant browsers fall down.
Seeing as mwandaw wants to feed the outrage machine by spinning and taking things out of context, let's take a look at the actual facts.
From the Chase FAQ:
Now, lets look at the spun summary:
Because many people do not upgrade to the latest and greatest.
Which is why they mention older browsers being a security risk. Oh, and as the summary says, usage of IE6 is plummeting, but as support is existing and use is still high, it is best to support it.
Who the fuck cares what Google thinks? Chrome is not the do-all, end-all of the internet. Chrome is not even that popular.
Would you want to bet that Chase checked their server logs to figure out what their customers use?
And the effects not using a supported browser?
And, about those older browsers?
Ok, now that the truth is out there, are you going to stop being an asshole, mwandaw?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
That's ok.... Chase has been cooking the books since they bought Wamu, and I assume it's not long before the SEC finds out.
Browser compatibility will be the least of their concerns.
I find it Ironic they are supporting some of those browsers due to security and yet they dont support one of the most secure browsers (Chrome). This is laziness. They are doing this because of laziness and company beaurocracy. They built their site to be IE specific and are getting complaints about it. A lot of these companies are completely out of touch with trends in internet technology. IE6 will be defunt soon. What are they going to tell people when IE9 comes out which will supposedly be far more standards compliant and support html 5 etc? Dont use IE9 its not secure and doesnt work with our site? lol.
Given that their website looks approximately as professional as your average spam site, they should probably re-think their IT strategy.
there must have been something off on my search. But Chase's policy is insane in any case. As I said before, if you are with Chase or any other TARP baby, consider moving your money.
of 'we' all
namely, 'resist to changes'.......
That frightens me due to the implications it has for poor internal security at Chase. They might as well paint a bullseye on themselves for spear phishing attacks...
Doesn't Chase have an IT budget for upgrades, or did they get tied to some proprietary Microsoft platform that's holding them back?
You can easily change your user-agent in Opera and I would assume Chrome would be the same.
But you shouldn't, because then they'll never support Opera or Chrome "because none of their customers use it". Firefox didn't start getting support from big websites because of people changing its user-agent to IE.
If possible, an option is to tweak your existing UA to include whatever string they're looking for. I remember back in the day I'd change my Firefox UA from "Firefox" to "Firefox, not IE". Having "IE" in the string would be enough to get it past the dumb UA checks, but any sort of log analysis should indicate that I was using Firefox. Yes, you are "giving in" and telling them what they want to hear. However, if it's something that you can't reasonably boycott, this is a way to be able to use it, while at the same time indicating to them that you're using a different browser.
If all the Chrome and Opera users simply stop using the site, then their logs will show that 0% of their users actually use those browsers (even if it's because the site is blocking them), therefore it's completely unnecessary to support them. For a browser-related boycott to be successful, you need to let them know that you've stopped using the site because of that, otherwise the lack of use can actually reinforce the idea that you don't need to support those browsers.
"In other words: Mozilla isn't that poorly managed as a successful business after all." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, @08:00PM (#32712180)
They must be good @ business & marketing, because they're NOT as FAST or SECURE as Opera is (nor are any of Opera's competition, per the points in my 1st post here -> to which you have replied) - & yet? On PC's, FF has more users. I won't deny that much.
That's simply just judging by the # of folks that use FF vs. other browsers on PC's @ least though, as far as "business success", albeit, on PC's...
Now, as to FF/Mozilla's caring about their business in webbrowsers?
Well - I've actually helped point out & fix errors in FireFox before, years ago, circa 2002 or thereabouts @ NTCompatible.com (which I have to hand it to the FF folks - they literally came over to our forums, the very day after I wrote them, & fixed their browser IN PERSON with us there (that forums board uses a "homegrown" template engine, created by the site's owner Philipp, & that was the source of the hassle... I wrote them the day before, they answered THAT DAY, & fixed it the day after! That WAS "fast & personable" service, I must admit!))
Still - Opera far outstrips the other webbrowsers in the "big 4" (IE, FF, Chrome as that competition) on mobile platforms though, afaik @ least, so Opera's "strength in business" appears to be superior to FF's (on mobile platforms @ least).
APK
P.S.=> Still, there's LITTLE DENYING that Opera "rocks the world" of its competitors on PC's too, for BOTH SPEED & SECURITY, + they have CONSISTENTLY done so, over time also... all, per the proofs of that much in my 1st reply here -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1700050&cid=32711618 ... apk
they recommend IE6? wait what?, isnt that a swiss cheese? its like they WANT their customers to get bad security ooh well, i love my bank, they support the most secure browser aka chrome! if you are at work and has to use IE6, and you cant install firefox, chrome to teh rescue!, you can install chrome without admin access :D
no chrome, no security :P
It is still the browser which is deployed on all the desktops at JPMorganChase. It's the corporate standard. They're doing testing on a newer version of IE, and they have a migration plan, but they currently still HAVE to support IE 6 b/c it's the only browser most of their employees are allowed to use while at work.
I canceled my Chase card when I got a letter from them telling me that they were going to charge me a fee because I was not using my card enough.
Well, I was planning on closing my Chase credit card anyway.
Chrome & Opera users have announced they may drop use of Citibank.
Citing Citibank's reliance on closed source, non-standards supporting, less stable, and insecure browsers, Chrome and Opera users felt that their money was much too important to trust to a bank that's clearly uninformed when it comes to Internet technology. "Luckily", said one Chrome user, "When it comes to banks, we have a choice. And I chose to take my business to a bank that's a bit more up to date in it's Internet technology."
According to one malicious hacker, "Will this affect me? Absolutely. My ability to compromise Citibank accounts will probably double, overnight. Now I'll have to re-write all my trojans and worms to handle the extra traffic from those Citibank users too stupid or lazy to just change banks to something better. Looks like I'll have to find a bigger bot-net."
Citibank executives could not be reached for comment at their annual "head up the ass" retreat, in Aspen.
It's a scumbag operation, little more than a criminal enterprise. So screwed up an operation should be clueless on the tech level. This is just another sign of the breadth of their dysfunctionalism.
So much for venom. Just to add this: It, like many large banks, is making money solely by hitting custormers with obscene fees (and crappy customer service) and investing bailout funds in speculation on their own behalf.
tl;dr for off topic and trolling.
I think you missed the part where he said he switched over to electronic statements. How does that cost the bank anything, exactly?
Statements aren't the only cost to the bank to maintain an account. While it's highly automated there are still labor and other costs as well. Account reconciliation, interest payments (it is a savings account), tax records, and more. Granted the costs are high but they aren't zero either. A small account even with little activity can cost as much to service as a big one. Hence banks tend to actively drive away business from smaller, less profitable customers.
The amount of interest that can be earned on $50.00 is less than the cost to send you your statements.
That's not the customer's fault.
True but irrelevant. A bank is a business and it exists to make a profit. If you expect them to conduct business in a way that is unprofitable to them you are being naive.
Deny my credit card application, will you??!!!
GRRRR!!! [SMASH]
With no branches and no ATMs, how does one deposit cash?
You deposit money at ATMs? You realize that [it's unsafe]?
I said "branches" too.
There is no place that a debit card works that a credit card doesnt
Yes there are. Say you have $5,000 in a checking account and a $1,500 limit credit card, and you want to buy something costing $1,995. Which card do you use?
I would switch to Ally
I have a couple CDs at Ally Bank, but last time I checked, Ally didn't offer checking accounts. Instead, it offered only savings accounts, which by federal Regulation D can be withdrawn from only six times a month without substantial penalties. Has this changed? And how would one deposit cash?
You speak as though the savings account was this guys only account with the bank. It wasn't.
Doesn't necessarily matter. THAT account was unprofitable for the bank. Furthermore he wasn't using it. If he had large accounts elsewhere he might have been in their private banking service but it sounds like he wasn't and so the bank didn't much care if he left.
You also need to consider future potential. Maybe this guy was small-fry, but tomorrow he might want a big loan to start a business or buy a house.
When that happens I'm sure the bank will be happy to consider working with him. In the meantime the bank has no evidence that this will ever be the case.
Because they nickel-and-dimed him on the savings account he closed his checking account with an undisclosed amount in it.
Do you have any idea how expensive it is for a large bank to have policies that are inconsistent? It's unbelievably complicated and expensive. If a large bank is going to change the rules for you they'll need some sort of reason to believe you are worth the hassle and extra cost.
No doubt he'll show this bank the same amount of loyalty that they've shown him.
No doubt. Look, I've worked very closely with bankers for years. It is a relationship business. After all, the banker is selling an undifferentiated product - one money market fund is pretty much the same as any other money market fund. However folks with a $50 savings account don't normally have a personal relationship with an actual banker. They simply don't. As a result the bank has to institute policies that make sense for the sort of business the bank desires. A large bank is not going to spend a lot of effort trying to woo the business of an account holder with a tiny, unprofitable, inactive account. Expecting otherwise is naive.
If my bank tried to take $2 a month from me on my $100 savings account they'd lose all my business - including the mortgage that earns them tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Your mortgage doesn't earn them "tens of thousands of dollars a year" unless you have an absolutely gigantic mortgage. The interest they receive is 5-7% annually. For a typical mortgage of $200K (close to the average in the US) that works out to $7000-15000 in revenue which steadily decreases over time. You also are not considering the cost side of the equation. Chances are good those future interest payments have been securitized and sold already anyway so the bank may already be effectively out of your mortgage anyway.
Sure, most people are too lazy to change but it still generates a lot of ill will and for what? $50 a year in fees?
Yep. Banks are too important to the financial system to be especially concerned about the ill will and they know it. So yes, they can shape the sort of business they want by instituting fees. Don't like it? Take your business elsewhere and you'll both be happier.
Banks get away with this shit because they're about the most profitable industry there is.
Not really. You're confusing investment banking with retail banking. The two have little similarity. Retail banking is actually a pretty low margin business where economies of scale matter hugely. Don't confuse what investment banks Goldman Sachs does with what retail banks like Wells Fargo do. They are incredibly different businesses.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA is the _main_ Opera Software's shareholder : http://www.opera.com/company/investors/stock/holders/ :-D
My God, in those post-fall-2008 days, how foolish can a bank be to chase customers away in this manner? Let Darwin take over, and let's hope they won't get a "too big to fail" bailout. They don't deserve it.
If you hold stock in Chase, now is the time to sell. And if you don't, but want to make a quick buck, now is the time to short it.
If your bank is adjusting your balance downward without explanation, there are several places you can report it and get action. The local police are not one of them.
It could be a case of someone inside the bank committing fraud, in which case the management of the bank would LOVE to know about it and have the chance to act (I know... I work for a bank). It is even possible (although unlikely) that the bank officers are in on it and are attempting to defraud consumers. In the first case, reporting it to management will resolve the problem, and probably VERY quickly and politely. Search your bank's website or other documents for the name of the bank's COO or CEO and send a letter to that person. If you truly believe that the bank's management is "in on it" then you can report them to the banking regulators (http://www.sec.gov/answers/bankreg.htm gives contact info in the USA). They will certainly follow up (and afterward I can assure you that your bank will hate you... but they'll also treat you fairly since they know the regulators are watching).
Of course, it is also possible that the bank was right and your own records were wrong. Be prepared to discover that you were wrong and apologize if that turned out to be the case. Don't let fear of this prevent you from following up if you feel cheated, just keep an open mind.
I agree with most of what you've written, but this is dubious:
Actually, all else being equal small banks have a stability disadvantage. A concentrated customer base means you're less diversified, more exposed to local economic shocks, and more vulnerable to any economic shock because you have less of a capital buffer.
FDIC unfairly advantages small banks by removing stability from the set of criteria customers care about. There are significant stability advantages to being a big organization, but no bank customer will care about those if all of their deposits are insured anyway.
I have to say that this decision sucks. I have had a lot of trouble using Opera with other banks. Maybe it's a trend.
While I wish Chase would keep supporting Opera, I have to say I have been shocked at the last couple of releases from Opera, including the 10.5 series. There has been one huge gaping hole after another in recent months. What the heck is going on at Opera?
I write a check.
Which, just like a basic debit card, lacks a credit card's "protections and guarantees" that you mentioned.
Why do you have such a crappy credit limit?
I have what analysts call a "thin file".
Translation: Our web site is a huge mess of non-standard technologies and our web developers are incompetent.
Seriously, nobody has to "support" browsers like Chrome or Opera. You just adhere to web standards and your site will work on all browsers. This excuse of theirs is ridiculous and is a transparent way of saying that they don't have a clue.
I was with Great Western. I chose them deliberately because they were CA-based and I foolishly thought they were too be to get absorbed by some megabank (I had very bad experiences with B of A)
Got bought by WAMU
WAMU got bought by Chase
BTW, there were some horrifying cert errors with the E-banking website during the transition - first an expired cert, then a cert that didn't match the URL. *nobody* at WAMU/Chase cared in the least
E-Trade bank also refunds all ATM fees, even those outside of their network.
Chase isn't really "my bank". It's just the provider for ONE credit card. It wouldn't really be that hard to cancel them in favor of a bank that supports my browser. The bar would be higher for me to switch from my main bank.
Also, if I'm a Mac user, it could be a major hassle and expense to switch to IE. If a bank site is IE only, it might be as easy to change banks than to switch to IE.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
> On the other extreme, rising star Chrome appears to be left out, too. What does Google think of that?"
Who are JPMorgan Chase? I did a Google search for them and I didn't find anything?
return 0; }
"Also, perhaps BETTER capitalization PRACTICES would have made it EASIER to READ." - by TangoMargarine (1617195) on Monday June 28, @01:15AM (#32713626)
See my subject-line above, & answer my question...
CLUE/Newsflash-New NEWS: There is no such section here, and you are in fact, off topic, & trolling!
(Also, since you seem to see fit to dispense such 'critiques' on 'writing style' etc./et al, care to show us proof of your mastery of English via that PHD in English of yours? Oh, that's right - YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, do you??)
Others appear to be agreeing with me also, as to your off topic crap... so, there you are!
APK
P.S.=> So much for off topic trolls - Ah, as per usual? just "too, Too, TOO EASY" (too easy)... apk
If you are talking about the USA, we have lots of competition. People are just lazy or want convenience of retail locations, and the government has supported reckless consolidation (way too big to fail), but there is still competition.
I bank with Etrade and a small credit union tied to my employer. Etrade has the cool techy/webby features, and the credit union provides convenience and customer service. My mortgage is from a medium sized regional loan underwriter that keeps over 90% of its mortgages until they are paid back. There are good alternatives to megabanks.
Well excuse the hell out of me for trying to improve your readability, mister.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
"Well excuse the hell out of me for trying to improve your readability, mister." - by TangoMargarine (1617195) on Monday June 28, @11:40AM (#32717154)
See my subject-line above, because it's THAT, or "hooked on phonics" 4U!
APK
P.S.=> As far as your "opinion" well... here are 120++ or so "upward mods" to my credit, that quite obviously show that others disagree with YOUR opinion:
====
+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (4):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139485&cid=26975021
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139485&cid=26974507
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170545&cid=14210206
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175774&cid=14610147
----
+4 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (4):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161862&cid=13531817
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167071&cid=13931198
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28571315
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&cid=30273506
----
+3 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (5):
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155172&cid=13007974
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166850&cid=13914137
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175857&cid=14615222
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273931&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20291847
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1021873&cid=25681261
----
+2 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (25):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158231&cid=13257227
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1361585&cid=29360367
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158310&cid=13263898
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1361585&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=29358507
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158231&cid=13257227
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=290711&cid=20506147
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=245971&cid=19760473
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=416702&cid=22026982
"Sorry, we're not cool enough to support your browser. Please keep it real with one of the following browsers:"
At least Facebook admits they aren't cool.
you may think you have lots of competition, but you really have no real competition between private entities. What you have is government backed gigantic banks and then you have some small banks that don't have access to the Fed discount window (free money).
Just now you are going to have another example how government kills competition and creates monopolies.
In the new Obama's 'financial reform' bill, part of it will be talking about ability of shareholders to say who they want to see as top management (board of directors, CEOs etc.) well, Chris Dodd's new proposal (backed by Geithner and the rest of the White House) is that in order for a shareholder to be able to do so, this shareholder must own 5% of the stock of the company at minimum.
Think about that freaking number, it's rare for the most giant mutual funds to 'own' more than 3% of any particular stock. 5%? That shows yet another promotion of monopolies, of conglomeration, of consolidation of power and it's pushed forward by the white house and the senate.
There is no competition, it's all smoke and mirrors, you have no real choice, only appearance of choice.
You can't handle the truth.
Does anyone know if Mozilla's SeaMonkey v2 web browser with this bank? I have never used this bank before.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
tell them how few people use Safari!
What's next, you're gonna tell me you guys still use cheques as well? Or go to the bank in person to handle business?
Without cash or cheques, how do you handle person-to-person payments in your part of Europe? How do you do so if one of the parties is a minor child, such as giving someone birthday money?
"1. Wow, who's ever going to take the time to read more than a handful of those? Thorough but superfluous." - by TangoMargarine (1617195) on Monday June 28, @12:34PM (#32717858)
Who reads them's not the part that's important - what is, is that others obviously can read my posts and liked what I wrote in them (vs. your opinion that states I cannot write well apparently, though you lack any proofs of your OWN mastery of English via a PHD in English (or even a M.S.) to your credit certifying you in fact, as an expert in English yourself! Otherwise? Your statements here initially are only opinion (and I have 120+ posts that tend to disagree with yours, per my list of upward mods)).
Thorough, but NOT "superfluous" - they're actual proofs that others obviously disagree with you.
---
"Congrats on the mods but why the heck haven't you registered an account? Then you could actually do something with all the karma." - by TangoMargarine (1617195) on Monday June 28, @12:34PM (#32717858)
Thank you, it's harder for us AC's to get up upmod because our posts get buried as "hidden posts" by default for say, IE users usually for example, & many folks ignore our AC posts because of it.
On "karma"? I could honestly care less about it, I am here to learn things more than anything else is all... & registering?? That to me, only makes one FAR MORE TRACKABLE FOR TROLLING PURPOSES is all (via your posting history which is easily viewed by clicking on your username). I have NO DESIRE to be an 'easily tracked sheep' by joining the ranks of the "wannabe almighty registered user club" here...
---
"2. If you're implying that my opinion is "your opinion is irrelevant because of funky shouting"...it isn't." - by TangoMargarine (1617195) on Monday June 28, @12:34PM (#32717858)
You must really have problems reading (I was only ribbing on you earlier on that much, being sarcastic, but it really does appear you have trouble reading so... sorry about that - I didn't really think you had ADD/ADHD or Dyslexia, but it appears you do have one of those... how? Well... my point was to show you that others did indeed mod many of my posts here over time up, regardless of your off topic opinion on my writing style!)
I had proofs to that effect, via the list of my upward modded posts (only partial though, sorry)...
APK
... have you ever coded a web site... like, omg, like, ever?
Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
I have. I find avoiding flash graphics and incredible amounts of javascript and doing as much as possible server side to render good HTML standard code works with a majority of browsers OTHER than IE. IE simply didn't adhere to the standard before version 7- they've gotten much better recently.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Umm... no.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed18.html
"All depository institutions that maintain transaction accounts or nonpersonal time deposits subject to reserve requirements are entitled to borrow at the discount window. These include commercial banks, thrift institutions, and United States branches and agencies of foreign banks."
I don't argue that financial regulation preferences larger banks. But fortunately it isn't so bad that the smaller banks are priced out of offering attractive consumer products. In fact, smaller banks somehow frequently offer more customer friendly services. The only place I see a real disadvantage in practice is their technology offerings to customers, like immediate check deposit at the ATM, and slick Web features.
Care to provide a citation of this proposal and that it is supported by the White House? There might be some odd claimed justification for it if you are correct. I won't dismiss it out of hand without hearing the sponsor out. It does sound bad. But a quick Google search didn't come up with anything about your alleged proposal.
What do you mean? Here is a discussion of this, but it is common knowledge where Dodd gets 'his ideas' from - Geithner and Summers.
---
You are right that small banks can take seasonal loans from the fed's discount window but look at the amounts. After the crash of 2008 Bear Sterns for example couldn't have access because they are an investment bank, so the Fed changed the rules for them and allowed them to have access through JP Morgan
These were the banks allowed to 'borrow' from the Fed's discount window, see anybody small there?:
BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
Banc of America Securities LLC
Barclays Capital Inc.
Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Countrywide Securities Corporation
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
Daiwa Securities America Inc.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Securities LLC.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
J. P. Morgan Securities Inc.
Lehman Brothers Inc.
Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc.
Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
UBS Securities LLC.
The lending went up from about 46 billion before 2007 to over 400 billion after 2007 but most of that money went to the large banks.
Big banks are getting discounts and bailouts, small banks are getting nothing of the kind. Of-course the discount window is almost nothing compared to the secret bailouts authorized by Geithner and Bernanke within the past 2 years to the tune of a couple of trillion dollars and they don't want to say who the money went to, so there wouldn't be much reference on the issue anywhere until the Fed is audited (an unlikely possibility).
You can't handle the truth.
Your sig... oh, man, it just screams "illiteracy". I hope you're just making fun of illiterates; if not, it's not "for all intensive purposes" it's "for all intents and purposes". As for "whom", I think that word has pretty much become fairly quaint. I've never heard it in any modern speech, nor seen it written in anything contemporary.
My "no bonus" buttons don't seem to work, mods, so I'm counting on you to bury this comment.
Free Martian Whores!
Because you were able to setup a Proboards account and apply some ripped off, IE-only JavaScript to it doesn't give you the knowledge or experience to be able to speak on this topic.
Now why don't you go back to your Pokiemon or whatever endless Japanese toy/cartoon collection crap you kids are conditioned to buy into this week.
LOL!!! They let people browse with IE6 but not Chrome? What next? Only Office '97 documents?
I havent used a bank for years. I use a Credit Union. I get access to my money with no withdrawal fees at 1000s of ATMs across Australia, almost zero monthly fees (I pay a 75c a month internet banking fee and a $1.50 per month Visa Debit card fee plus a fee if I use an ATM not in the "RediATM network" and that's about it) and an internet banking service that mentions Linux by name in the "supported browsers and operating systems" list. And because its a mutualized institution, there are no shareholders to answer to (the "shareholders" are the account holders of the institution)
I have no idea if such things exist in the USA but if they do, maybe they should be considered as an option for people annoyed with the "lets take all these bad loans, package them with 1 or 2 good loans and use some slight of hand to get the credit ratings people to give these securities an AAA rating so we can sell them to suckers who dont know what they are buying" big banks.
UGG Boots outlet&UGG Boots&Cheap UGG Boots On sale UGG 30th Anniversary Boots,Women's UGG 30th Anniversary Boots UGG Bailey Button Boots,Bailey Button Boots UGG Classic Argyle Knit 5806 Boots,UGG Classic Tall Stripe Cable Knit 5822 Boots