Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf Steps Down • Hacker News Board

Re: Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf Steps Down

#171

Post by ams6110 » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 3:42 AM UTC

mahyarm wrote: post #108

nickbauman wrote: post #82

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".

What is special about WF? I use schwab as a main account (free ATM usage world wide w/ no currency exchange fees), keep a free BoA eChecking account for cash deposits that I haven't done in years and have credit cards with various banks. I also use schwab & vanguard for index funds.

I use a local credit union. I don't understand what the big national banks offer that is appealing. What "online services" do they offer that every local bank/CU in 2016 doesn't offer as well?

Re: Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf Steps Down

#172

Post by disposablezero » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 3:49 AM UTC

Smerity wrote: post #14

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…

She should make the rounds to alt media: Thom Hartmann, The Jimmy Dore Show (TJDS) and TYT Interviews.

Re: Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf Steps Down

#173

Post by trhway » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 3:49 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #168

trhway wrote: post #120

he directed and benefited from massively organized criminal activity - it looks like a RICO case, isn't it?

Do you know what RICO stands for? It doesn't fit here.

why it is so hard for people to use Google? I mean it is right there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corru... :

" Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. § 1961. As currently amended it includes:

...

Any act of ... theft, embezzlement, fraud, ...

..."

Or do you really wanna argue that there wasn't a criminal "enterprise" as defined by RICO? I hope you aren't seriously considering to argue absence of the "pattern of the racketeering activity" here - that would be laughable.

>Do you know what RICO stands for? It doesn't fit here.

So, why would you say that RICO doesn't fit here? Or may be you just didn't know what RICO stands for?

Re: Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf Steps Down

#174

Post by rsync » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 3:57 AM UTC

mixmastamyk wrote: post #142

My perception is that WF took a big turn for the worse ethics-wise when they merged with Norwest in Minneapolis. Never heard a negative word about them until that time.

nitpick: Norwest actually purchased WF outright, but then adopted their name and branding.

Re: Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf Steps Down

#175

Post by disposablezero » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 4:02 AM UTC

eric_h wrote: post #158

sliverstorm wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It makes sense if humans were perfect. When an employee objects to unethical behavior and acts accordingly, it makes less sense.

Exactly. Libertarianism and communism seem like perfect utopias but "If all men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Unfortunately, company insiders may see little difference in a "misbehaving" employee, regardless if it's in the public good and/or for personal gain, because limiting the threat of public exposure is often the paramount priority in the short-term, which may ultimately go against long-term business and customer relationships. And an "untrustworthy" bank is unlikely to survive on it's own for very long.

Re: Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf Steps Down

#176

Post by matt4077 » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 4:04 AM UTC

bratsche wrote: post #91

nickbauman wrote: post #82

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.

I wonder if you could easily force them to prove ownership of the mortgage. At least until 2008, these transactions were apparently so common and disorganized that in the mortgage meltdown many lenders had trouble finding the paperwork.

(though I have no idea how one would go about that and it's probably too risky)

Re: Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf Steps Down

#177

Post by travmatt » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 4:10 AM UTC

nattofriends wrote: post #169

pasbesoin wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A while back, credit reporting agencies hustled to adjust in the face of a few, but monetarily very successful, libel suits -- IIRC from memory. It would seem that, with the right legal representation -- one willing to go the distance -- Ashley might have grounds for a very significant libel suit. Wells Fargo management deserves to go to jail, in my opinion. However, it would also give me great joy to see them lose h…

It is enforced. See Arthur Andersen.

Funnily enough, I learned about Arthur Andersen in the context of why it is not enforced.

Subsequent firms have committed far worse offenses.

Re: Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf Steps Down

#178

Post by bogomipz » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 4:34 AM UTC

tedmiston wrote: post #138

bogomipz wrote: post #101

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...

Indeed, thats a lot of wealth that has evaporated in a short period of time.

Interesting, from your link:

"In fact, Berkshire Hathaway filed papers with the Federal Reserve this year for approval to boost its stake in Wells Fargo beyond 10%"

Re: Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf Steps Down

#179

Post by mathattack » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 5:00 AM UTC

pktgen wrote: post #115

Smerity wrote: post #14

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…

> This was by no means an accident. Thank you for pointing this out. I keep seeing comments to the effect of "Wells doesn't make any significant profit from opening bogus accounts (unused accounts are typically unprofitable to the company), so the executives couldn't have wanted this." These comments reflect a misunderstanding of modern executive compensation and the incentive structures set up for executives in larg…

Yes. He also got paid on it.

Vanity metrics aren't just for tech firms!

Re: Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf Steps Down

#180

Post by newjersey » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 5:00 AM UTC

carterehsmith wrote: post #130

newjersey wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be overly dramatic but I would imagine it depends on who the jury sympathizes with.

> it depends on who the jury sympathizes with It does, but can you really see a 'jury of peers' sympathizing with Wells Fargo in these circumstances?

I do.

I don't have a crystal ball or any insider information but I believe the stakes are higher for a corporation than for the plaintiff because defeating an assault could send a message to other potential claimants. (Think runaway juror)

I don't know how much weight you'll give to some study but for What it is worth, here's a semi related article

http://nytimes.com/2008/08/08/business/08law.html

https://archive.fo/rTQIF

Of course, the defense knows this and this unwillingness to go to trial factors in when talking about exact dollars and cents of a settlement.

At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter because I imagine most of the share holders of Wells Fargo are not in on any deal like this and arguably are the victim here more than the customers or the employees of Wells Fargo.

I feel the same way when some city pays to settle a case brought up against a city employee's actions. Cases like this are a net loss to the society because likely nothing will change for the better. The cost of getting caught just gets factored into the cost of doing business.

Sorry if I sound ambivalent or worse cynical. It is because I'm trying to tell myself that I'm wrong and things will change for the better if this woman wins her lawsuit against Wells Fargo. However, I know that this John Stumpf fellow will be back as either a consultant or a board member within a year. He didn't lose anything. Others have little incentive not to follow his lead.