Wells Fargo
And how many executives and officers do you think will go to prison for this?
Thank you, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.
I would point out that Republicans - including Trump - strongly oppose the existence of the CFPB.
Tom_Reingold said:
And how many executives and officers do you think will go to prison for this?
Very good question.
it is an amazing reflection on the industry. For that many people to think that stealing is okay there must be something seriously wrong with the whole ethical structure.
CEO makes 19 million per year. COO makes 11 million, CFO makes 9 million.
I have long thought Wells Fargo was a sleazebag operation. Years ago, I found out they allowed a joint owner of a house to take out a home equity loan without the other owner's signature. Seemed like that should be illegal. But, looks like they had even more nefarious dealings. I can't believe how little press this story is getting. I had to search for it on the New York Times website after learning about it on Facebook.
Assuming they did what is alleged, I dont understand why I should care if they were fired.
I just am amazed at the amount (5,000+) employees involved in this scheme. I never had confidence with Wells Fargo after an incident involving my mortgage. I switched automatic deduction checking accounts and in the interim I had to go in to pay the mortgage for the month until Wells Fargo set up the new checking account number. I had to sign paperwork by mail (????) and wait for it, sign it, send it back, etc. I got to the bank and the teller told me my payment couldn't be accepted because there was a freeze on my account. I go to the Manager, who couldn't figure it out and he wanted to call the 800 number to get answers. Really, I could do that myself. I went outside and called the 800 number to find out the freeze had to be lifted in order for me to make the payment. No reasonable explanation for the freeze...just that I was switching checking accounts and it was normal procedure. I had to come back the next day. This sounded like insanity to me. Ever since then I have no use for them.
The executive in charge of the unit involved in the fraud is "retiring" with a $125 million payment:
http://fortune.com/2016/09/12/wells-fargo-cfpb-carrie-tolstedt/
the money for the top executives is mind boggling. The fact that they pay their worker bees starvation wages is abhorrent.
Well it's nice to see women are getting on the action. Anyone care to do the math and tell us what that $125M would have been if the executive were a man?
i am extremely thankful we have someone in government who is willing to take these executives to task
Here's a CNN article about Wells Fargo whistleblowers who got fired. I hope this guy gets a judgment or settlement in time to save his house.
--------------
On September 19, 2013, Bado wrote an email to a Wells Fargo HR rep and copied his regional manager, where he detailed improper sales tactics.
Documents show Bado was fired -- for "excessive tardiness" -- just eight days later.
"I have been asked on several occasions to do things that I know are not ethical and would be grounds for discharge," Bado said in the email to HR.
He said a branch manager on "many occasions" asked him to send out a debit card, "pin it," and enroll customers in online banking -- "all without the customers (sic) request or knowledge." Those are precisely the same practices that regulators fined Wells Fargo for three years later and that senators grilled the bank over this week.
The firing certainly took a huge toll on Bado's life. It put a permanent stain on his securities license, scaring off other prospective bank employers. Today, the New Jersey man's house is on the verge of being foreclosed on and he's working part-time, at Shop-Rite.
What Wells Fargo and its employees did was abhorant, and there is no excuse for the actions or for creating the culture that encouraged the actions..
However, the CFPB had absolutely nothing to do with uncovering it. The fraud was uncovered by newspaper reporters back in 2013, and employees were already being fired back then. US regulators were also aware back then. It has only gained notoriety now because of news stories about the $185mm fine WF is paying.
Warren and the CFPB will get all over this to justify their existence, but their only function here is to stand around and shoot the wounded.
Red_Barchetta said:
Assuming they did what is alleged, I dont understand why I should care if they were fired.
The employees were put in a no-win position. Each branch was given a quota for how many new accounts they had to open. The employees were pressured to open more accounts. The managers taught them how to open these accounts. The employees were the only ones who probably should not have been fired. Branch managers should have been fired and fined - and same for top management. Firing the 5,300 was purely theater and does nothing to solve the problem. Wells Fargo has a history of these types of practices. They were the leader in buying up subprime mortgages and then doing illegal foreclosures.
Elizabeth Warren is right--- the CEO should be in jail. To borrow from Trump, - Lock him up.
ice said:
What Wells Fargo and its employees did was abhorant, and there is no excuse for the actions or for creating the culture that encouraged the actions..
However, the CFPB had absolutely nothing to do with uncovering it. The fraud was uncovered by newspaper reporters back in 2013, and employees were already being fired back then. US regulators were also aware back then. It has only gained notoriety now because of news stories about the $185mm fine WF is paying.
Warren and the CFPB will get all over this to justify their existence, but their only function here is to stand around and shoot the wounded.
Pretty much.
Shoot the wounded? Are you kidding? Do you mean to say the executives have paid the price properly for their misdeeds?
We have people who enriched themselves tremendously through unethical and probably illegal actions, and we should leave them alone, not fine or prosecute them? Is this what you are saying?
Or are you saying what they did was just peachy?
...And they should get their taxes lowered on that money too. Damn high rates, trampling all over that creative entrepreneurial spirit.
Tom_Reingold said:
Shoot the wounded? Are you kidding? Do you mean to say the executives have paid the price properly for their misdeeds?
We have people who enriched themselves tremendously through unethical and probably illegal actions, and we should leave them alone, not fine or prosecute them? Is this what you are saying?
Or are you saying what they did was just peachy?
Not sure about the direct enrichment (always hard to prove), but that wasn't the point. The point was about the CFPB and Warren. And he's right.
ctrzaska said:
The point was about the CFPB and Warren. And he's right.
I'm still not getting your point. And there is a thread running through corporate America which says enrichment for those at the top is fine even if it happens through deals that don't offer mutual benefits for all involved. This is a change from the old outlook where one's success is built on others' successes and therefore owes to others. The belief that if you have done well, you must have done good is deeply flawed. There is only so much good one can do for which there is financial reward.
Becoming extremely very highly unfathomably unprecedentedly rich does indeed come at the expense of others. Sure, I know about growing the economy and all that rot, but that's not what we're talking about. I believe one should, if at all possible, do well financially so that one can do good with the money. Along the way, one can live well and enjoy life. Today's ultra wealthy are helping themselves for the most part.
ctrzaska said:
Tom_Reingold said:
Shoot the wounded? Are you kidding? Do you mean to say the executives have paid the price properly for their misdeeds?
We have people who enriched themselves tremendously through unethical and probably illegal actions, and we should leave them alone, not fine or prosecute them? Is this what you are saying?
Or are you saying what they did was just peachy?
Not sure about the direct enrichment (always hard to prove), but that wasn't the point. The point was about the CFPB and Warren. And he's right.
I'd be interested in hearing more about your views on the CFPB. Is it performing a useful service? (Other than in this situation.)
Tom_Reingold said:
ctrzaska said:
The point was about the CFPB and Warren. And he's right.
I'm still not getting your point. And there is a thread running through corporate America which says enrichment for those at the top is fine even if it happens through deals that don't offer mutual benefits for all involved. This is a change from the old outlook where one's success is built on others' successes and therefore owes to others. The belief that if you have done well, you must have done good is deeply flawed. There is only so much good one can do for which there is financial reward.
Becoming extremely very highly unfathomably unprecedentedly rich does indeed come at the expense of others. Sure, I know about growing the economy and all that rot, but that's not what we're talking about. I believe one should, if at all possible, do well financially so that one can do good with the money. Along the way, one can live well and enjoy life. Today's ultra wealthy are helping themselves for the most part.
"I know about growing the economy and all that rot". Bold!
I would like to understand what Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, has done to take away from either you or your family? Those of others, other than competitors defeated? Elon Musk? Steve Jobs? Sam Walton? Be specific about the economic mechanism that is "at the expense of others" in your own life. No cut and pastes if you please. Really want to understand in your words.
If you're going to make the very broad statement that people that have more money than you think they should have, as a fact of their wealth, done society wrong, I imagine you are on firm footing. Nobody would make so bold a statement without being so buttressed.
Thanks!
Bill Gates? How soon we forget the '90s. Microsoft was taken to antitrust court for its practices in trying to monopolize the market. They put numerous startups and competitors out of business with anticompetitive practices and products like "Vaporware '97," or whatever.
Steve Jobs moved manufacturing offshore. Instead of Americans making good wages, Asians making pennies an hour.
Sam Walton broke the backs of hundreds of small town businesses, turning entire downtowns into ghosttowns. And his heirs continue to rake in billions with unfair labor practices.
PayPal, at least, seems to have been an honest business.
@Jackson_Fusion, the mechanisms are income and wealth. The economy has grown. We produce more good and provide more services than we used to. That has created more wealth. That wealth has gone mostly to the top 1% of the population, and the steepness of the curve is more shocking when you look at the gains the 0.01% have made. These are choices we made. It's not an accident. It could have been different. 50 years ago, top executives earned about 30 times as much as the average worker. Now it is over 300 times. This earning is not from meritorious contributions. We all contributed to the growth. Compared with the 1%, our wealth is declining, and this while the economy is growing. This wealth transfer might be the biggest in human history. It came from my pockets and yours. I see it. Perhaps you don't.
Tom_Reingold said:
@Jackson_Fusion, the mechanisms are income and wealth. The economy has grown. We produce more good and provide more services than we used to. That has created more wealth. That wealth has gone mostly to the top 1% of the population, and the steepness of the curve is more shocking when you look at the gains the 0.01% have made. These are choices we made. It's not an accident. It could have been different. 50 years ago, top executives earned about 30 times as much as the average worker. Now it is over 300 times. This earning is not from meritorious contributions. We all contributed to the growth. Compared with the 1%, our wealth is declining, and this while the economy is growing. This wealth transfer might be the biggest in human history. It came from my pockets and yours. I see it. Perhaps you don't.
You didn't answer the question. Maybe that's my fault for not being specific enough.
How, specifically, has Mark Zuckerberg taken money out of your pocket, and what portion of his earnings are you claiming based on your statement that "we" produce more goods and services? Zuckerberg's creation went from not existing 15 years ago to producing $18b or so a year in revenue and went from 0 to 12,692 employees as of last year, according to Googld (yeah what about those guys?). The company and its owners pay billions in taxes. So I have a pretty good idea based on that what the "Mark Zuckerberg" part of "we" has contributed.
What portion of his income shall we lay claim to based on our contributions? How much does he owe us, and by what mechanism, specifically, has he taken money out of our pockets?
I picked on him because he's probably the biggest increase in wealth over that time, so the biggest target I'd presume representing the .00000001%.
Remember, this isn't taxes in the traditional sense- we're talking about an additional hit to make sure "we" all get paid what's owed us. What's the number and why?
kthnry said:
ctrzaska said:
Tom_Reingold said:
Shoot the wounded? Are you kidding? Do you mean to say the executives have paid the price properly for their misdeeds?
We have people who enriched themselves tremendously through unethical and probably illegal actions, and we should leave them alone, not fine or prosecute them? Is this what you are saying?
Or are you saying what they did was just peachy?
Not sure about the direct enrichment (always hard to prove), but that wasn't the point. The point was about the CFPB and Warren. And he's right.
I'd be interested in hearing more about your views on the CFPB. Is it performing a useful service? (Other than in this situation.)
Theoretically, yes. In practice, not always. Several hundred million returned to consumers is nothing to sneeze at. But the criticisms leveled at the group on payday loan, auto loan and mortgage overreaches and regulatory shortsightedness can't be ignored either. You can kill a predatory rate on a payday loan and walk away victorious. Just don't look over your shoulder and see the accrued OD/late fees and declining/restricted credit for those that need the plug and now can't get it. But a press release issued, and they're off to the next challenge.
Not at all a fan of regulation in a vacuum, declaring victory only by enforcement, and forsaking the law of unintended consequences (but when one is borne out of Dodd-Frank, one shouldn't be surprised at the inherited genetic traits). Not to mention the lack of accountability and wholesale centralized control within an all-powerful director. You want big government? You can't get bigger. You want accountability? Don't bother. Consumer choice? They'll choose for you... mommy knows best. Better hope they do. To date, the results are mixed at best.
Tom_Reingold said:
ctrzaska said:
The point was about the CFPB and Warren. And he's right.
I'm still not getting your point. And there is a thread running through corporate America which says enrichment for those at the top is fine even if it happens through deals that don't offer mutual benefits for all involved. This is a change from the old outlook where one's success is built on others' successes and therefore owes to others. The belief that if you have done well, you must have done good is deeply flawed. There is only so much good one can do for which there is financial reward.
Becoming extremely very highly unfathomably unprecedentedly rich does indeed come at the expense of others. Sure, I know about growing the economy and all that rot, but that's not what we're talking about. I believe one should, if at all possible, do well financially so that one can do good with the money. Along the way, one can live well and enjoy life. Today's ultra wealthy are helping themselves for the most part.
I was talking only about Lost's commentary on the CFPB. As to what today's ultra-wealthy are doing, you might want to check out Bono's last interview on Charlie Rose. He outlines quite a bit of what Gates and the Musks, Zuckerbergs, Allens, et.al. are quietly doing in Africa (as but one example of scores of them), and what couldn't be done without them. But lest one think a rock star's vanity projects (Red, One, etc) aren't worth discussion, the interwebs are filled with projects underwritten by those you think are simply stashing cash in their mattresses if you know where to look and care to spend the time on it. Same goes for the Vatican, while I'm at it.
This is really not getting anywhere the attention I think it deserves. 5,300 employees fired for setting up various accounts not requested by customers, some with fees.
But why did all these employees do this? Apparently due to impossible quotas and unrelenting pressure to meet these quotas anyway.
So basically Wells Fargo was being run like the real estate office in Glengarry Glen Ross.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-09/wells-fargo-opened-a-couple-million-fake-accounts