151–160 of 211 posts
Meta: Looks like WSJ is smart enough now to detect the `web` links. I went directly to the site, hit paywall, backed out. Then went via the `web` link, same paywall. Went to `web` link in incognito, was able to read the (fairly anemic) article.
I highly recommend listening to a recent episode[1] of Planet Money. This was by no means an accident. As a short summary of one employee's plight: Ashley, working for them and making only $35k per year in San Francisco, was continually harassed to sign people up for accounts they didn't want. An old man comes in, pensioner, $200 in overdraft fees due to being duped into excess accounts. She dips into her own savings…
It was an incredibly high pressure environment that led to unethical behavior and a situation in which customer service or doing what's right for the customer was not valued, I quit after a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am limiting the amount of money I keep in Wells Fago (for their online services, etc.) and am instead using two locally owned and run credit unions. As convenient? No, but it feels more secure.
I abandoned the big banks long ago, choosing to exclusively use credit unions. I use online banking, bill pay etc... The only thing I can think of that I can't get from my credit union is depositing a check via phone/photo. For me that's not a big deal, a local ATM machine works fine for those infrequent occasions. What other online services am I missing out on, that only the big banks have?
Minor caveat: don't open your account or apply for loans online. They both "offer" it, in the sense it's theoretically possible to do, but a giant pita. Just go to a branch. Provident took 3 weeks to replace a stolen credit card.
Other than that, they're great. I've been in branches for the two probably 5 or fewer times total in 8 years of being a customer.
Also, a human answers the phone when you call! One that's empowered to help you!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember WF was one of the banks that failed the stress tests after the 2008 financial crisis. I've been trying to get away from WF for a while now, but no other bank can fill its shoes in terms of online services and ubiquity. Yet it has a culture of predatory capitalism where "your loss is our gain".
I never wanted to do business with WF in the first place, but I bought a house a few years ago and the mortgage company sold my mortgage to WF. Being forced to be someone's customer against your will sucks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was WF one the banks he took a stake in after the 2008 crisis?
From an article last month [1]: > Berkshire Hathaway (BRKB) owns nearly 470 million shares of Wells Fargo (WFC), a 9.5% stake. Buffett also personally owns a little more than 2 million shares in the bank. The combined value of that investment has dropped by nearly $1.5 billion since Friday. I could see why he might be upset. [1]: http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/14/investing/warren-buffett-ber...
We can't be perfect but we can try to be. As I've said in these memos for
more than 25 years: "We can afford to lose money — even a lot of money. But
we can't afford to lose reputation — even a shred of reputation."
We must continue to measure every act against not only what is legal but
also what we would be happy to have written about on the front page of a
national newspaper in an article written by an unfriendly but intelligent
reporter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Punishments need to be out of proportion to the financial damages they do when they erode public trust, which is a good held in common (and the key to prosperity in the west). This is why someone who runs a charity scam should be punished more than someone who simply mugs people.
Punishments should always be greater than the financial damages, because otherwise the expected value of fraud will always be positive.
Also, at the levels we are talking about here, is money anything more than a proxy for ego/reputation? Would you rather have $10 million and be well regarded or $40 million and infamous?
I highly recommend listening to a recent episode[1] of Planet Money. This was by no means an accident. As a short summary of one employee's plight: Ashley, working for them and making only $35k per year in San Francisco, was continually harassed to sign people up for accounts they didn't want. An old man comes in, pensioner, $200 in overdraft fees due to being duped into excess accounts. She dips into her own savings…
> Wells Fargo put her onto a permanent blacklist that others in the industry pay attention to - she can't get a job anywhere else. I just listened to this episode last night, by chance. She speculates that she is on a blacklist, because she's having trouble finding work. But there's a more charitable (to the other banks) explanaton: she was a very low level employee who, true or not, just got fired for a massive frau…
Her story is actually rather common for honest employees working at Wells Fargo, which is why they are going to get sued by many for wrongful termination.
Management mismanaged employees and created a culture of fraud. They profited heavily from it. If anything, they are the most responsible for creating the shitty culture. Why let them off the hook? They get larger salaries, while deflecting the responsibilities that come with the decisions they made to pressure employees into fraudulent activity while firing those that reported it? That's quite insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://i.imgur.com/KM2fzuS.png Every time she tries to get a job anywhere, that form will be checked by her potential employer?
I mean, it makes sense, there's a certain amount of trust involved in finance so you'd like to know if a prospective employee had been fired in the past on suspicion of fraud/salami slicing/whatever
Go Elizabeth Warren! Without her prodding, I am sure this would never have happened. He was very happy with firing the 5k employees and not taking any blame on himself for what was essentially his push.
I suspect Warren Buffet may have pushed for Stumpf's resignation/termination, as well as other damage control measures. This is a similar situation to the Solomon scandal, although Buffet has a smaller stake in WFC.
First of all, Warren Buffett has recently petitioned the SEC to allow him to own more than 10% of WFC. If the SEC were to allow that, BRK's holding in WFC would have to be (basically) silent. No control over WFC management could be exerted.
WRT to Solomon, as a percentage, yes BRK owned more, but in absolute terms, WFC is much larger. It's like 20:1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never wanted to do business with WF in the first place, but I bought a house a few years ago and the mortgage company sold my mortgage to WF. Being forced to be someone's customer against your will sucks.
Try a credit union. I would think it unlikely that they would sell your mortgage.