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

Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 465 posts

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#441

Post by esoterica »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #423
esoterica wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think your life won't start until you buy a house? It's psychotic how much psychological weight people put on homeownership.

No, it's psychotic that you think one should learn to live with the fact that half of their wage vanishes into a black hole at the end of the month, without any value to show for it.

If renting is strictly financially worse than buying, why do so many fabulously wealthy corporations rent instead of own their offices and stores? When you buy a home you have to pay mortgage interest, property taxes, maintenance costs, HOA dues, and you have the opportunity cost of not being able to invest your mortgage principal instead of locking it up in your house. There are pluses and minuses on both sides which people rarely rationally evaluate because they are brainwashed by society into thinking that only losers don’t own their homes.

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#442

Post by esoterica »

jliptzin wrote: post #410
esoterica wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think being the #1 powerwashing company is going to be any easier than making an equivalent amount of money in the corporate world? Do you have any reason to believe you are better at powerwashing than the other 99 guys in your town?

The point is to pick a boring business where it’s easy to become #1 in a market based on current competition, clientele, skills, etc. In the corporate world you are still trading your time for money. When you own a business you decide what and how much you want to do, up to and including nothing at all while still making an income. Boring businesses make it easy to hire people to do the stuff you don’t want to.

There’s no such thing as a business that’s both lucrative and trivial. To the extent that you need finesse, hard work and luck to build a successful business, the same combination of finesse, hard work and luck could land you an equally or more lucrative corporate job.

You can also make passive income by investing your large corporate salary and earn extra income without working. There’s no such thing truly passive, zero labor income when running a business, there’s always some managerial overhead even if you delegate as much as possible. Index funds are truly 100% passive.

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#443

Post by yellowapple »

esoterica wrote: post #440
yellowapple wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's psychotic how much psychological weight people put on homeownership. When the options are "pay hundreds to a couple thousands of dollars per month for 30 years or less" v. "pay hundreds more than that per month in perpetuity", it should be entirely unsurprising that the former is vastly preferable.

Renting is not in general more cash flow negative than having a mortgage.

It takes all of five minutes clicking around on Zillow to prove without a shred of doubt that yes, it is more cash flow negative than having a mortgage, by a margin on the scale of hundreds of dollars at minimum.

This really should not be surprising, considering the number of SFHs owned by landlords using their tenants' rent payments to pay for the mortgage and property taxes and profit on top of that (that being the situation of my now-deceased father and still-living stepmother, whose landlord has on multiple occasions jacked up the rent to cover the new mortgage payments from refinances).

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#444

Post by snake_doc »

runako wrote: post #437
snake_doc wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

De novo banks open all the time. 13 new de novo started business in 2022 [1] New management is important, and in this case Wells Fargo has had 4 CEOs since the scandal, and multiple board chairpersons. There has been significant turnover on its board and executive team. [2] [1] https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights... [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/wells-fargos-long-r...

> De novo banks open all the time. 13 new de novo started business in 2022 In a $25T economy, 13 new banks (roughly 1 for every 4 states) effectively rounds down to zero. There is a trivial amount of new bank creation relative to the size and dynamism of our country and economy. In a more liberal banking regime, one could easily imagine 2022 having seen 13 new banks chartered in the northern half of California alone.

>In a $25T economy, 13 new banks (roughly 1 for every 4 states) effectively rounds down to zero.

Using this logic, in an infinitely large universe, your comment’s importance effectively rounds down to zero. Arbitrary picking economy output to measure regulatory regime efficiency is ludicrous.

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#445

Post by rsj_hn »

esoterica wrote: post #440
yellowapple wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's psychotic how much psychological weight people put on homeownership. When the options are "pay hundreds to a couple thousands of dollars per month for 30 years or less" v. "pay hundreds more than that per month in perpetuity", it should be entirely unsurprising that the former is vastly preferable.

Renting is not in general more cash flow negative than having a mortgage.

Both owning and renting will cost you money (on average).

Generally if you are living in a place where you can't afford to buy, you also shouldn't rent in the same neighborhood.

But that's not what happens -- e.g. people move to San Francisco and then see the high house prices and convince themselves they can afford to rent there but not own. It's not cheaper to rent, on average [there is a lot of variability and opportunity for trading gains in real estate due to leverage] -- but overall, the price of these two is comparable, however renting is a more accessible way to overspend than owning.

As a result of this increased accessibility, rental property prices are higher than they should be, due to increased demand, and what actually happens is that people who rent tend to lose more, on average, than those who own, because they are more likely to overspend on rent, given their income and financial situation.

If prospective renters had to go through the same third party vetting processes as those who take out a mortgage - everything from an independent assessment of the value of the property, an inspection, third party vetting of your financial history -- you would also see a reduction in foolish renting choices and then renters would not, on average, experience greater losses than owners.

But right now they do.

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#446

Post by scarface74 »

aetherane wrote: post #436
scarface74 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that much yet people making the median household income are not living on the street going hungry.

That's a pretty low bar, though. There are many different levels of struggling but I don't think it is productive to deny challenges of someone just because they are better off than some others.

Do you mean “struggling” as in “I can’t provide myself with food and shelter” or do you mean “I can’t put little Johny in private school and buy the 3500 square foot house in the burbs and go on nice vacations twice a year”?

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#447

Post by reducesuffering »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #415
reducesuffering wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital One has no-charge partner ATM's everywhere (7/11, CVS, gas stations, there's like 100 in a 10-mile radius of me), some of the best interest rates (currently 3.3%), some of the best credit cards (3% cash back food/entertainment w/ 0$ annual), and best software tech / mobile app (#1 bank app on iOS, 4.9/5 rating). I'm not affiliated in anyway, I just am pleased with all their products for the last 10 years.

Sounds good. I see a location in SF called "Capital One Café", with Peet's coffee. Are there bankers there? Or just baristas?

I haven't been to it, but I'm pretty sure those have Capital One representatives to help with things.

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#448

Post by thrower_away »

oneoff786 wrote: post #102
cool_dude85 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, the police (and people not involved in the protests) will happily beat you up, run you over, or shoot and kill you for disruptive protests.

While police violence is a problem, this comment is wildly off base.

I don't think it's wildly off base: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS-RWsl7l5c

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#450

Post by LastTrain »

klyrs wrote: post #123
LastTrain wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad told me not to steal.

Quoted post unavailable.

You can't really compare sex and criminal behavior. Well, maybe YOU can. Why are these things similar to you? My dad taught me to read as well, what dumb-shittery do you have to say about that?
Post reply on HN