Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

asktrim.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 159 posts

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#111

Post by cbdfghh »

enraged_camel wrote: post #40
bsder wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the idea that he should go to prison for something like this is ludicrous. Fine. Then the company should get the "death penalty" and be liquidated. Especially for something like the banking sector where the federal government could replace a bank almost instantaneously, the "death penalty" should get dropped on companies that engage in malfeasance.

>>Fine. Then the company should get the "death penalty" and be liquidated. Exactly. After all, corporations are people right? So let's actually treat them like we treat people.

>After all, corporations are people right

Except they're not, and no one says they are.

All the court said was that groups of people don't lose rights they have as individuals.

So if A has right X B has right X C has right X

then A+B+C have right X

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#112

Post by phs318u »

beachy wrote: post #109
phs318u wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe a variation of that argument was used at Nuremberg.

Godwin!

Does calling "Godwin" mean we can't take any lessons from WWII or the Nazi era and apply them anywhere else at all?

The poster I was responding to was effectively making the argument that superiors responsibility for the actions of their subordinates varies inversely as a function of organisation size. Clearly that's ludicrous. The executive are responsible for control structure, management methods, reporting lines, KPI setting, and verification processes to ensure that the above are working properly. Further, and more importantly they set the tone for the ethics of the organisation both by what they focus on and by what they ignore.

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#114

Post by rhizome »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #44
bsder wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the idea that he should go to prison for something like this is ludicrous. Fine. Then the company should get the "death penalty" and be liquidated. Especially for something like the banking sector where the federal government could replace a bank almost instantaneously, the "death penalty" should get dropped on companies that engage in malfeasance.

> Especially for something like the banking sector where the federal government could replace a bank almost instantaneously... Say what? It takes months to years for the FDIC to wind up a small bank. What is your basis for saying that the government can replace a huge bank almost instantly? (Or perhaps the correct question is: What is your definition of "replace"?)

It takes months to years for the FDIC to wind up a small bank.

I'm sure it's something that could be streamlined with enough practice.

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#115

Post by rhizome »

forgetsusername wrote: post #19
tswartz wrote: post #9

I appreciate that Warren didn't let Stumpf talk his way out of taking any responsibility for the actions of his employees and made a clear argument as to why he should be held accountable. Unfortunately, it seems the primary reason he resigned was because the public outrage was loud enough. It seems that until CEOs are personally held accountable via fines or prison (as Warren suggests) we won't see a very big change…

Anyone who has worked in a company of any size knows it'd be down near impossible to know the inner working at all levels of the organization. So, yes, the guy is accountable and needs to lose his job. But the idea that he should go to prison for something like this is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous, and stating it without justification doesn't make it so. Prison is a penalty built into the law, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It's not just a bunch of jealous rabble clamoring for it.

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#116

Post by orsenthil »

user837387 wrote: post #90
guelo wrote: post #39

I doubt the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will survive the upcoming Trump/Republican attack on federal regulatory agencies.

Isn't it awesome? And in a couple of more years when we have another meltdown we can again say that nobody saw it happen and blame everybody but ourselves. F*ck us.

It has around 600 Million dollar budget and employs 1000s of people. The upcoming crazy administration putting their foot on anything of that scale could be suicidal.

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#117

Post by stanfordkid »

pmorici wrote: post #102
stanfordkid wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the central point I am making: there is little evidence that: 1) The stock price was inflated. This can be seen by the fact that the valuation of WF is relatively stable both prior to and after this debacle. (outside of the short term volatility due to the scandal). If what you are saying is true then we would have expected the market to dump WF shares at the "inflated" price. This did not happen 2) That the…

The problem with this argument is that they were aware of the fraud as early as 2007 and did nothing to correct it. They were complicit in it. http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/investing/wells-fargo-warned...

You are right. I am wrong. Thank you for teaching me!

Was not aware of this letter:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3143757-Wells-Fargo-...

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#118

Post by Trundle »

grzm wrote: post #110
Trundle wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly I'm implying that your argument doesn't hold weight. You don't throw someone in prison because if you don't there's a double standard with some other offence. You throw them in there because the crime they committed warranted it. I'll play anyway for funzies though. First offence? All 3 should be a non-bankruptable fine with a floor that also scales with historical earnings and wealth. I can't give specific nu…

Thank you for a much more thoughtful comment. I think you make a lot of good points. Do you think that the fines should be proportionate with respect to the status of the person convicted? I think one issue is the perception that some very rich people can afford to pay those large fines, which acts as less of a deterrent.

Absolutely, that's what I meant by "scales with historical earnings and wealth."

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#119

Post by rhizome »

Meekro wrote: post #64
adekok wrote: post #37

What do the libertarians say about this theft? While I understand the idea of the free market, I don't see how that would have protected the consumer in this case. The CEO has millions of times the power of the average consumer, and can harness thousands of people to his agenda. The consumer is left to either (a) pay the "idiot" tax of being stupid enough to sign up for a thieving bank, or (b) rely on the government…

I can't speak for all libertarians, but I consider myself a libertarian and I can make some observations about this whole situation.. 1. Those customers who were stolen from will get to participate in the mother of all class-action lawsuits. The settlement will be outlandish. Juries hate huge corporations that screw the little guy, and the lawyers on both sides know it. If you don't trust the class action to provide…

no one has produced evidence that the CEO knew about this or allowed it to happen.

He signed his name to the financial reports.

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#120

Post by grzm »

Trundle wrote: post #118
grzm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for a much more thoughtful comment. I think you make a lot of good points. Do you think that the fines should be proportionate with respect to the status of the person convicted? I think one issue is the perception that some very rich people can afford to pay those large fines, which acts as less of a deterrent.

Absolutely, that's what I meant by "scales with historical earnings and wealth."

So you did. Sorry I missed that. Cheers!
Post reply on HN