Real life Club Level dilemma. Take the tickets?

[Ring 6]

I propose, as far as taxes go, that we consider entertainment to be entertainment, once again. If a company decides that a sporting event is an attractive way to get or continue business, or impress clients, they pay for it and budget it.

Ray, that is exactly what they do now. Just as they pay for TV advertising, direct mail, billboards, management conferences, employee benefits, and all of the other EXPENSES in running a business.

then we can keep these deductions to a minimum,

They are not deductions. They are expenses. A business earns income, and deducts the expenses incurred in running the business to determine profit, and they pay tax on profit. You are suggesting that if a business takes in 1,000,000 in revenue and earns $200,000 in profit, some other number than $200,000 is what they should pay taxes on. That is crazy.

lower everyone's tax rates and business expenditures are built around business, not around which activities will lower your tax burden.

In the above example, your argument is that it is better for the company to go out and spend $50,000 on a frivilous expense so it can avoid paying tax on the $50,000.
That company now ends up with $150,000 profit that is taxed, lets say at 20%, and they have a net profit of $120,000.
If they didn't spend the $50,000 they would have had a gross profit of $200,000 and an after tax profit of $160,000.
Please explain how you think there was some wonderful benefit to the company in SPENDING THE MONEY to avoid the tax they would have to pay on it if they kept it.

Operating corporate business in such a way that your accountants and lawyers can avoid paying taxes is the single biggest problem we have today IMO.

I'm sure you feel that way, but you just illustrated that you don't understand the concept.

Some large corporations pay no taxes despite us having a high corporate tax rate.

That is true. Do you know why?
1) If they made no profit, they pay no tax.
2) And much more common, if they DISTRIBUTE the profit to their shareholders, that creates no profit for the corp, but the shareholders must pay taxes on the dividends. Whether the money is retained by the corp and taxed at a corporate rate, or distributed to the shareholders and taxed as income to them, in the big picture is simply irrelevant.

If having exorbitantly expensive football tickets so available that people are handing them out to anyone they meet on the street doesn't indicate a problem, I don't know what does. Do people think these are really "free"? Someone pays the taxes that companies don't pay.

Yes, in this example, the Patriots do.
Rather than retain the money as profit, that corporation chooses to use it for advertising. "Perks" to clients is a long accepted practice in American business to attract, retain or reward valuable customers to ensure repeat business in excess of the cost of the perk.
That is an expense, one that we can label under marketing.
Corp X takes $100,000 and buys Patriot tickets, under the plan to raise more than 100,000 in future revenues. The Patriots must now declare this as income and it is taxable to them.
The corporation chose to 'invest' in marketing by purchasing a product to give to their clients as an incentive or thank you. Of course they don't pay taxes on the money they spend to operate thier business, but the recipient of that moeny will.
You are chasing windmills with the idea that corporate expense is some grandiose way for a corporation to end up getting free money by spending it.

 

[Ring 6]

The one thing I find ironic about this entire exercise, is that the Bank is well within its rights to restrict an employee for taking these tickets as a gift because it might imply the possibility of getting a business favor in return; yet at the same time this same Bank might own many tickets and/or boxes, that they use to curry favor from potential business clients of their own.

.

It is honorable for any company to install measures to prevent fraud, abuse of power and dishonest behavior. I think everyone would agree with that.
And I also agree that accepting employment means you agree to follow the rules of the company or suffer the consequences, which again, I think everyone would agree with.
My disagreement is that a policy that prohibits accepting a well intentioned gift by someone who has no real means to fraudulent return the favor, is not only barking up the wrong tree, its in the wrong forest.
Perhaps I am incorrect about the OPs job responsibilities, and that may alter my by opinion, but as far as I know other than outright stealing there isn't really a lot you can gain by having a bank branch manager owe you a favor. And if its outright stealing that is the issue, its a far bigger problem than can be addressed by not allowing him to get a free ticket from the guy with a connection or a nice knitted scarf from Grandma Smith.

 

[RayClay]

Ray, that is exactly what they do now. Just as they pay for TV advertising, direct mail, billboards, management conferences, employee benefits, and all of the other EXPENSES in running a business.


They are not deductions. They are expenses. A business earns income, and deducts the expenses incurred in running the business to determine profit, and they pay tax on profit. You are suggesting that if a business takes in 1,000,000 in revenue and earns $200,000 in profit, some other number than $200,000 is what they should pay taxes on. That is crazy.


In the above example, your argument is that it is better for the company to go out and spend $50,000 on a frivilous expense so it can avoid paying tax on the $50,000.
That company now ends up with $150,000 profit that is taxed, lets say at 20%, and they have a net profit of $120,000.
If they didn't spend the $50,000 they would have had a gross profit of $200,000 and an after tax profit of $160,000.
Please explain how you think there was some wonderful benefit to the company in SPENDING THE MONEY to avoid the tax they would have to pay on it if they kept it.


I'm sure you feel that way, but you just illustrated that you don't understand the concept.


That is true. Do you know why?
1) If they made no profit, they pay no tax.
2) And much more common, if they DISTRIBUTE the profit to their shareholders, that creates no profit for the corp, but the shareholders must pay taxes on the dividends. Whether the money is retained by the corp and taxed at a corporate rate, or distributed to the shareholders and taxed as income to them, in the big picture is simply irrelevant.


Yes, in this example, the Patriots do.
Rather than retain the money as profit, that corporation chooses to use it for advertising. "Perks" to clients is a long accepted practice in American business to attract, retain or reward valuable customers to ensure repeat business in excess of the cost of the perk.
That is an expense, one that we can label under marketing.
Corp X takes $100,000 and buys Patriot tickets, under the plan to raise more than 100,000 in future revenues. The Patriots must now declare this as income and it is taxable to them.
The corporation chose to 'invest' in marketing by purchasing a product to give to their clients as an incentive or thank you. Of course they don't pay taxes on the money they spend to operate thier business, but the recipient of that moeny will.
You are chasing windmills with the idea that corporate expense is some grandiose way for a corporation to end up getting free money by spending it.

Going to a football game is an expense if you are a scout.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm not going to get into specifics, because you could neither verify nor refute them, so it'd be a waste of time. However, my issue wasn't about the policy. My issue was about your claim regarding the



That's stupidity on a scale that's dangerous.

This is far, far OT, but here goes.

No, it is neither "stupidity" nor "dangerous." Companies with fiduciary responsibilities are continually evaluating the judgment of senior employees. In this case, thinking that one might take a four figure+ gift from a client when the limit is $25 suggests questionable judgment, barring extraordinary circumstances, which did not exist based on the information we were given.

I wouldn't try to refute a counter example. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I just don't think that happens in the post-Dodd Frank era and was looking for evidence that I was mistaken.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It is honorable for any company to install measures to prevent fraud, abuse of power and dishonest behavior. I think everyone would agree with that.
And I also agree that accepting employment means you agree to follow the rules of the company or suffer the consequences, which again, I think everyone would agree with.
My disagreement is that a policy that prohibits accepting a well intentioned gift by someone who has no real means to fraudulent return the favor, is not only barking up the wrong tree, its in the wrong forest.
Perhaps I am incorrect about the OPs job responsibilities, and that may alter my by opinion, but as far as I know other than outright stealing there isn't really a lot you can gain by having a bank branch manager owe you a favor. And if its outright stealing that is the issue, its a far bigger problem than can be addressed by not allowing him to get a free ticket from the guy with a connection or a nice knitted scarf from Grandma Smith.

"It is honorable for any company to install measures to prevent fraud, abuse of power and dishonest behavior. I think everyone would agree with that."

No. If you're a bank with fiduciary responsibility for customer deposits and are insured to the tune of $250,000 per client by the taxpayers, it is not "honorable," it is required by law and carefully monitored by the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the SEC and a few other alphabet soup agencies. And beyond financial institutions, the shareholders of most industrial companies don't think it's a matter of "honor" to protect their investments, they think it's a matter of responsibility.

"And I also agree that accepting employment means you agree to follow the rules of the company or suffer the consequences, which again, I think everyone would agree with."

A big "yep" on that one.

"Perhaps I am incorrect about the OPs job responsibilities, and that may alter my by opinion, but as far as I know other than outright stealing there isn't really a lot you can gain by having a bank branch manager owe you a favor."

That's just wrong, Andy. Branch Managers, while not in the boardroom, are not just window dressing. There's a lot you can gain by having a branch manager "owe you a favor." The gentleman who started this thread didn't detail his specific responsibilities, but Bank Branch Managers, especially at "large" branches, typically can do the following:

They have a credit initial to approve loans beyond the level of the personal bankers in their office, without going outside the branch.

They can have final authority in approving the opening of accounts. In an era of KYC sensitivities, this is very important.

They can waive fees for clients, which can amount to reasonable sums over time.

They have a say in hiring, firing and disciplining employees.

Not trivially, they can direct bank funds to local charities or organizations.

Each of those, among others, offers opportunities for good as well as for abuse and each can put the resources of the bank's depositors and shareholders at risk.

"My disagreement is that a policy that prohibits accepting a well intentioned gift by someone who has no real means to fraudulent return the favor, is not only barking up the wrong tree, its in the wrong forest."

Unfortunately, policies like this have to "anticipate the worst." Institutions don't have the resources or the time to evaluate hundreds of cases monthly to determine what is a "well intentioned gift" by an honest person and what is a gift by a "good guy" who is planning to walk in and ask for a loan that he knows you can approve in a couple of months or who has a relative who is going to be applying to the bank for a job in a few weeks.

 

[Ring 6]

Going to a football game is an expense if you are a scout.

And entertaining a client at a football game is an expense to the company who does so in order to gain business.
You don't really think that 'going to a football game' is what makes it an expense, do you?

 

[Ring 6]

"It is honorable for any company to install measures to prevent fraud, abuse of power and dishonest behavior. I think everyone would agree with that."

No.

Its not honorable?

If you're a bank with fiduciary responsibility for customer deposits and are insured to the tune of $250,000 per client by the taxpayers, it is not "honorable," it is required by law and carefully monitored by the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the SEC and a few other alphabet soup agencies. And beyond financial institutions, the shareholders of most industrial companies don't think it's a matter of "honor" to protect their investments, they think it's a matter of responsibility.

It is absolutely not required by the law to have a policy disallowing a bank manager to accept a gift.
Your strawman of taking 'honorable' and pretending that means I think fraud prevention is unimportant is silly.

"And I also agree that accepting employment means you agree to follow the rules of the company or suffer the consequences, which again, I think everyone would agree with."

A big "yep" on that one.

"Perhaps I am incorrect about the OPs job responsibilities, and that may alter my by opinion, but as far as I know other than outright stealing there isn't really a lot you can gain by having a bank branch manager owe you a favor."

That's just wrong, Andy. Branch Managers, while not in the boardroom, are not just window dressing. There's a lot you can gain by having a branch manager "owe you a favor." The gentleman who started this thread didn't detail his specific responsibilities, but Bank Branch Managers, especially at "large" branches, typically can do the following:

They have a credit initial to approve loans beyond the level of the personal bankers in their office, without going outside the branch.

You do not know that is the case. Every bank has different policies. Many do not approve loans at the branch level. In the ones they do, there are stingent guidelines that must be followed. This isn't 1953.

They can have final authority in approving the opening of accounts. In an era of KYC sensitivities, this is very important.

Wait, You are trying to tell me that allowing someone to open a checking account is the risk here? Really?

They can waive fees for clients, which can amount to reasonable sums over time.

Waiving fees? Really? I'm going to give tickets to the banl manager so when I bounce a check he won't charge me? Call the SEC and get them in there, they are wasting their time on much less important stuff.
They have a say in hiring, firing and disciplining employees.

Not trivially, they can direct bank funds to local charities or organizations.

No they can't. They do not have the authority to give away the banks money. That is ridiculous.

Each of those, among others, offers opportunities for good as well as for abuse and each can put the resources of the bank's depositors and shareholders at risk.

And the inability to accept a gift will do nothing from stopping or even curbing the dishonest person from doing so. You basically just said that there is the risk of a deleterious plot to bribe a bank manager with thousands of dollars in order to not have to pay an NSF fee.
Your post trivializes the topic more than mine did.

"My disagreement is that a policy that prohibits accepting a well intentioned gift by someone who has no real means to fraudulent return the favor, is not only barking up the wrong tree, its in the wrong forest."

Unfortunately, policies like this have to "anticipate the worst."

No they do not. That is defeatist thinking, and is the basis for much of the horrendous regulation in effect in this country today.

Institutions don't have the resources or the time to evaluate hundreds of cases monthly to determine what is a "well intentioned gift" by an honest person and what is a gift by a "good guy" who is planning to walk in and ask for a loan that he knows you can approve in a couple of months or who has a relative who is going to be applying to the bank for a job in a few weeks.

Once again, he isn't getting a loan he doesn't qualify for by giving a gift. It simply does not happen.
The hiring example is BS too, because they have hiring policies. Banks are not banning people from accepting gifts becuase it will improve hiring practices.
You are dancing around coming up with hypothetical, untrue and innocuous occurances that all amount to a poor justification for a policy that was ridiculous for the situation we are discussing.
I wholeheartedly agree that where influence is available, and said influence could be contrary to the best interest of the company (bank) it is a serious matter that should be regulated heavily. But the examples you gave here just further my argument that in this case it is unneccesary.

 

[treeclimber]

i would sell my grandma for pats tix :rocker::bricks:

sorry grandma :bricks:

 

[sc293]

I dont think the Titans single game tickets have been put on sale yet so maybe you can get them at face when they do.

I'm in Ohio and am planning on going to the Titians game too. I've never bought tickets to an NFL game (only game I've ever been to was when I got free tickets to a Bengals game years ago during one of their 2 - 14 seasons). Is it better to buy the tickets on StubHub or wait for the Titans to put the single game tix on sale on Ticketmaster?

 

[naF staP]

Under the policies of his company, he could buy them for Face Value minus $25.

This is the correct answer right here. While the bank will somehow try to disagree with this, OP would be staying within the guidelines of the agreement he signed. Then the other party would do the right thing and return the cash used to purchase the tickets in a envelop to OP at a later date with nobody knowing except the OP and the other party involved.

LOL at banks making their employees turn down things like this when the execs have been doing this for years and continue to give away and accept the same type of gifts to increase business goodwill.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is far, far OT, but here goes.

No, it is neither "stupidity" nor "dangerous." Companies with fiduciary responsibilities are continually evaluating the judgment of senior employees. In this case, thinking that one might take a four figure+ gift from a client when the limit is $25 suggests questionable judgment, barring extraordinary circumstances, which did not exist based on the information we were given.

I wouldn't try to refute a counter example. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I just don't think that happens in the post-Dodd Frank era and was looking for evidence that I was mistaken.

Andy seems to have jumped into it, which is good. He can take over for me, because I love you as a poster but find your take on this to be way past ridiculous.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

And much more common, if they DISTRIBUTE the profit to their shareholders, that creates no profit for the corp, but the shareholders must pay taxes on the dividends. Whether the money is retained by the corp and taxed at a corporate rate, or distributed to the shareholders and taxed as income to them, in the big picture is simply irrelevant.

Andy, you're wrong on this bit.

Dividends distributed to shareholders are NOT deductible to the corporation and do NOT reduce the corporation's taxable income.

And if you say "well, that means dividends must be getting double-taxed", then you are indeed correct. That's the rationale all for the 15% max tax rate on so-called "qualified dividends" for individual taxpayers.

At the risk of moving this thread even further off topic, I think it would have made far, far more sense to let corporations take a deduction for distributed dividends (and so reduce their taxable income by the amount of the dividends paid out) and have individuals treat their dividends received as plain old ordinary income like wages and interest.

 

[RayClay]

And entertaining a client at a football game is an expense to the company who does so in order to gain business.
You don't really think that 'going to a football game' is what makes it an expense, do you?

A scout needs to go to the game to do his job. There are many ways companies gain business. they are not required to buy blocks of season tickets to conduct their business. if they absolutely need to do so, they will continue to regardless of the tax consequences.

I understand why they do it and why it is tax deductible. If you can't understand why tax deductibility could cause companies to do more of something that is ego boosting, and a valuable item they otherwise couldn't afford, i can't help you.

Tax deductibility, for companies with large tax burdens, needs to be evaluated occasionally, to see if it is 100% necessary, or partly necessary and partly a fun thing they can get away with and impress people.

Look at it this way. If every tax deductible sports ticket was absolutely necessary for the conduct of business, people wouldn't be giving them to casual acquaintances and we wouldn't be talking about it in this thread.

 

[Zeus]

"It is honorable for any company to install measures to prevent fraud, abuse of power and dishonest behavior. I think everyone would agree with that."

No. If you're a bank with fiduciary responsibility for customer deposits and are insured to the tune of $250,000 per client by the taxpayers, it is not "honorable," it is required by law and carefully monitored by the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the SEC and a few other alphabet soup agencies. And beyond financial institutions, the shareholders of most industrial companies don't think it's a matter of "honor" to protect their investments, they think it's a matter of responsibility.

"And I also agree that accepting employment means you agree to follow the rules of the company or suffer the consequences, which again, I think everyone would agree with."

A big "yep" on that one.

"Perhaps I am incorrect about the OPs job responsibilities, and that may alter my by opinion, but as far as I know other than outright stealing there isn't really a lot you can gain by having a bank branch manager owe you a favor."

That's just wrong, Andy. Branch Managers, while not in the boardroom, are not just window dressing. There's a lot you can gain by having a branch manager "owe you a favor." The gentleman who started this thread didn't detail his specific responsibilities, but Bank Branch Managers, especially at "large" branches, typically can do the following:

They have a credit initial to approve loans beyond the level of the personal bankers in their office, without going outside the branch.

They can have final authority in approving the opening of accounts. In an era of KYC sensitivities, this is very important.

They can waive fees for clients, which can amount to reasonable sums over time.

They have a say in hiring, firing and disciplining employees.

Not trivially, they can direct bank funds to local charities or organizations.

Each of those, among others, offers opportunities for good as well as for abuse and each can put the resources of the bank's depositors and shareholders at risk.

"My disagreement is that a policy that prohibits accepting a well intentioned gift by someone who has no real means to fraudulent return the favor, is not only barking up the wrong tree, its in the wrong forest."

Unfortunately, policies like this have to "anticipate the worst." Institutions don't have the resources or the time to evaluate hundreds of cases monthly to determine what is a "well intentioned gift" by an honest person and what is a gift by a "good guy" who is planning to walk in and ask for a loan that he knows you can approve in a couple of months or who has a relative who is going to be applying to the bank for a job in a few weeks.

I have no interest in getting into an argument with other posters here. I've worked in professional services (not banking but many of the concepts are the same) for nearly 20 years now. Let me just say that your take on this is entirely consistent with my experience - this is absolutely the way the real world functions. To suggest otherwise is either naive or misinformed.

 

[Deus Irae]

I have no interest in getting into an argument with other posters here. I've worked in professional services (not banking but many of the concepts are the same) for nearly 20 years now. Let me just say that your take on this is entirely consistent with my experience - this is absolutely the way the real world functions. To suggest otherwise is either naive or misinformed.

Of course, other people having worked in, or with, such areas and having different experiences don't count.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

"It is honorable for any company to install measures to prevent fraud, abuse of power and dishonest behavior. I think everyone would agree with that."

No. If you're a bank with fiduciary responsibility for customer deposits and are insured to the tune of $250,000 per client by the taxpayers, it is not "honorable," it is required by law and carefully monitored by the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the SEC and a few other alphabet soup agencies. And beyond financial institutions, the shareholders of most industrial companies don't think it's a matter of "honor" to protect their investments, they think it's a matter of responsibility.

"And I also agree that accepting employment means you agree to follow the rules of the company or suffer the consequences, which again, I think everyone would agree with."

A big "yep" on that one.

"Perhaps I am incorrect about the OPs job responsibilities, and that may alter my by opinion, but as far as I know other than outright stealing there isn't really a lot you can gain by having a bank branch manager owe you a favor."

That's just wrong, Andy. Branch Managers, while not in the boardroom, are not just window dressing. There's a lot you can gain by having a branch manager "owe you a favor." The gentleman who started this thread didn't detail his specific responsibilities, but Bank Branch Managers, especially at "large" branches, typically can do the following:

They have a credit initial to approve loans beyond the level of the personal bankers in their office, without going outside the branch.

They can have final authority in approving the opening of accounts. In an era of KYC sensitivities, this is very important.

They can waive fees for clients, which can amount to reasonable sums over time.

They have a say in hiring, firing and disciplining employees.

Not trivially, they can direct bank funds to local charities or organizations.

Each of those, among others, offers opportunities for good as well as for abuse and each can put the resources of the bank's depositors and shareholders at risk.

"My disagreement is that a policy that prohibits accepting a well intentioned gift by someone who has no real means to fraudulent return the favor, is not only barking up the wrong tree, its in the wrong forest."

Unfortunately, policies like this have to "anticipate the worst." Institutions don't have the resources or the time to evaluate hundreds of cases monthly to determine what is a "well intentioned gift" by an honest person and what is a gift by a "good guy" who is planning to walk in and ask for a loan that he knows you can approve in a couple of months or who has a relative who is going to be applying to the bank for a job in a few weeks.

It is pretty amazing that people are trying to argue against this perspective. Such a well thought out and presented argument should have dispelled even the most hard core of delusions.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, you're wrong on this bit.

Dividends distributed to shareholders are NOT deductible to the corporation and do NOT reduce the corporation's taxable income.

And if you say "well, that means dividends must be getting double-taxed", then you are indeed correct. That's the rationale all for the 15% max tax rate on so-called "qualified dividends" for individual taxpayers.

At the risk of moving this thread even further off topic, I think it would have made far, far more sense to let corporations take a deduction for distributed dividends (and so reduce their taxable income by the amount of the dividends paid out) and have individuals treat their dividends received as plain old ordinary income like wages and interest.

Thread has gone way far off topic to add this debate to it, but my point was that an expense to the corporation is an expense to the corporation and there is not some devious plot that buying football tickets reduces tax burden.

 

[Ring 6]

A scout needs to go to the game to do his job. There are many ways companies gain business. they are not required to buy blocks of season tickets to conduct their business. if they absolutely need to do so, they will continue to regardless of the tax consequences.

It is a method of marketing expense. No, they don't need to buy football tickets, they could rent a billboard, run a TV or radio ad, or take the execs to dinner and a strip club, among many other things.
It still adds up to a legtimate business expense, spent in order to generate revenue, and taxable profit.

I understand why they do it and why it is tax deductible. If you can't understand why tax deductibility could cause companies to do more of something that is ego boosting, and a valuable item they otherwise couldn't afford, i can't help you.

Of course they can afford it. It is a CHOICE of how to spend marketing dollars. You seem hellbent on dictating that entertainment should be abolishing as a means to generate business. That is beyond naive.

Tax deductibility, for companies with large tax burdens, needs to be evaluated occasionally, to see if it is 100% necessary, or partly necessary and partly a fun thing they can get away with and impress people.

It really is not 'tax dedutibility' it is legitmate business expense. Why is it bad for a company to spend money to allow their clients to have fun and be impressed, in order to generate more business. Clearly they feel it is worthwhile. Apparently you feel they should instead spend the money on telemarketers to interupt my dinner to increase their business as there is no fun involved in that method of marketing.

Look at it this way. If every tax deductible sports ticket was absolutely necessary for the conduct of business, people wouldn't be giving them to casual acquaintances and we wouldn't be talking about it in this thread.

No one ever said it was absolutely necessary. That is, by no means, the standard here. The standard is that some companies feel spending money in that way is the best use of their budget to generate more business.
Actually the fact that they have excess tickets to give to causal acquaintances implies that it is a tremendous marketing plan and even with tickets to spare it was a good investment.
Are you seriously implying that corporate America spends money that will not help the bottom line in order to look cool?

 

[Ring 6]

This is far, far OT, but here goes.

No, it is neither "stupidity" nor "dangerous." Companies with fiduciary responsibilities are continually evaluating the judgment of senior employees. In this case, thinking that one might take a four figure+ gift from a client when the limit is $25 suggests questionable judgment, barring extraordinary circumstances, which did not exist based on the information we were given.

I wouldn't try to refute a counter example. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I just don't think that happens in the post-Dodd Frank era and was looking for evidence that I was mistaken.

The stupidity is that you think that an employee who has the honesty and integrity to report an offer and ask whether it is acceptable is someone who should now have a target on his back as a dishonest person who must be watched over. That person followed the rules and did the right thing. Your plan would discourage honesty.

Deus, I assume that is where you were going as well?

 

[Ring 6]

I have no interest in getting into an argument with other posters here. I've worked in professional services (not banking but many of the concepts are the same) for nearly 20 years now. Let me just say that your take on this is entirely consistent with my experience - this is absolutely the way the real world functions. To suggest otherwise is either naive or misinformed.

Given that his understanding of the influence available to a bank branch manager is off the mark, I'm not sure where your experience could be consistent.