Slashdot Mirror


Online Critics Decry Even More Wells Fargo Fraud Scandals (boingboing.net)

On Saturday author/blogger Cory Doctorow launched a new barrage of criticism towards Wells Fargo: It's been a whole day since we learned about another example of systematic, widespread fraud by America's largest bank Wells Fargo (ripping off small merchants with credit card fees), so it's definitely time to learn about another one: scamming mortgage borrowers out of $43/month for an unrequested and pointless "home warranty service" from American Home Shield, a billion-dollar scam-factory that considers you a customer if you throw away its junk-mail instead of ticking the "no" box and sending it back.

$43/month gets you pretty much nothing: people who tried to actually use their AHS insurance found it impossible to get them to actually do anything in exchange for this money. Here's a quick Wells Fargo fraud scorecard: stealing thousand of cars with fraudulent repos; defrauding mortgage borrowers; blackballing whistelblowers; creating 2,000,000+ fraudulent accounts, and stealing millions with fraudulent fees and penalties.

Life Pro Tip: if you don't like banks, join a credit union.

213 comments

  1. Negative agreements aren't legal in some places. by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Informative

    The habit of having a "negative agreement" where you have to check a box and send back if you don't want a service is not legal in some areas.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  2. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm surprised that they're legal *anywhere*.

  3. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by skovnymfe · · Score: 4, Funny

    There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.

    I'm not entirely sure how this quote applies to the situation described in the article, but if we make the effort I'm sure we can find a way.

  4. Re:if you don't like banks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or perhaps you're just one of the millions of people who've been screwed.

  5. Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Seems Wells Fargo has helped out both Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.......that money has to come from somewhere, doesn't it?

    "Those giving between $100,000 and $250,000, according to the Clinton Foundation list, included Washington University, the Wells Fargo Foundation (Wells Fargo Advisers is headquartered in St. Louis); and Joyce A. Aboussie, a longtime Democratic operative and adviser to former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-St. Louis."

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/l...

    "Wells Fargo, both the bank and its foundation, have given generously to the Clinton Foundation over the years. The bank has given between $10,001 and $25,000, and the foundation has given between $100,001 To $250,000. In 2011, former President Bill Clinton gave a speech to Wells Fargo for $200,000."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they gave much more to Trump, so this is his fault.

    2. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but but... Benghazi! Emails! Um... She's a woman! (The real reason people hate Hillary)

      Hope you're happy with your choice of president :)

    3. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by easyTree · · Score: 0

      She's a woman! (The real reason people hate Hillary)

      Sure, the fact that she's a warmonger looks worse *because* she's a woman but it's the warmongering not the sex that's the problem.

    4. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to our current president? Fire and Fury?
      What about Clinton's corruption? As opposed to not divesting of businesses that directly profit from his official duties?
      What about Clinton's lying? As opposed to oh crap, too much to say.

    5. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      As an interested spectator of this pie fight (if we're unlucky some of the pie might land here in Europe, or there may be some other collateral damage), may I ask where this 'warmonger' label comes from? I've heard it a few times before, but I don't know of anything about senator Clinton that can even be spun to justify that label.

    6. Re:Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation please? Else you just made it up.

    7. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not because she is a woman. It is because she called half the country deplorable, laughed over the deaths of U.S. citizens, and then tried to cover everything up. Additionally, she flaunted the fact that rich and powerful people are above the law. Gender had nothing to do with it.

    8. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      may I ask where this 'warmonger' label comes from?

      Officially started when she voted for the Iraq war in the senate. She has always been pro war in every theater (including Syria) before and since. She is a big time arms dealer (smuggler actually, that's what they're trying to hide about Benghazi, the weapons shipments to terrorists in Syria).

      And she's a regular machine politician, of the same kind as Richard Daley (both) in Chicago.

    9. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by easyTree · · Score: 1

      may I ask where this 'warmonger' label comes from?

      Of course....

    10. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Winner winner chicken dinner

    11. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      She is a big time arms dealer (smuggler actually, that's what they're trying to hide about Benghazi, the weapons shipments to terrorists in Syria).

      That was a CIA operation, more accurately. Maybe Clinton knew, maybe she didn't. It's always hard to tell with the CIA. But don't make it sound like it was her own personal operation.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    12. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course she knew! She made the sale. That's what the state department does. The CIA made the delivery. Anything, anywhere, anytime... The screw up in Benghazi was during the transfer, those 'diplomats' weren't supposed to be there. "Leave no witnesses"

    13. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are times and places where ignorance should not be used as an excuse. She was Secretary of State at the time. The third highest position in the US government and the third highest position in the chain of command involving the CIA.

    14. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by dasgoober · · Score: 1

      No, it's because she represented the same business as usual that's been giving non-urban areas of the country the shaft for the last couple decades.

    15. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      may I ask where this 'warmonger' label comes from?

      Officially started when she voted for the Iraq war in the senate. She has always been pro war in every theater (including Syria) before and since. She is a big time arms dealer (smuggler actually, that's what they're trying to hide about Benghazi, the weapons shipments to terrorists in Syria).

      And she's a regular machine politician, of the same kind as Richard Daley (both) in Chicago.

      Thank you for the reply, but based on the facts in your motivation the label 'warmonger' could be applied to a large majority of US politicians.

      The 'machine politician' label seems to be off topic, and is again something that I have never seen any rational substantiation for.

    16. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      based on the facts in your motivation the label 'warmonger' could be applied to a large majority of US politicians.

      I singled her out because she was the subject of the discussion, but yes, almost all of them are indeed war mongers (See Syria). I was under the impression that goes without mentioning. The fact that Clinton is the same as the rest just means she's not worth voting for, even against Trump.

      The 'machine politician' label seems to be off topic, and is again something that I have never seen any rational substantiation for.

      Maybe because you don't follow the money. A basic search through opensecrets.com will help to clue you in. And it helps to explain why Clinton et al are warmongers. Machine politics is a big factor, and so is very relevant.

    17. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by spun · · Score: 1

      Of course the majority of US politicians are warmongers. Have you seen our military budget? Let me ask you a question: when was the last year the US was not involved in a war? But Hillary is especially war like. She considers Henry Kissinger to be a close, personal friend and mentor. I assume you've heard of war criminal Henry Kissinger.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    18. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non urban areas of the country get more in federal grants and payments than they pay in taxes. Red states are parasites on the functional, productive and profitable blue states. It's not the federal government or big business that is screwing red states, it is red states that are screwing themselves. The rest of us keep trying to help, but other than throwing money at you, y'all don't want our help. You seem to just want to drown in your own crapulence.

    19. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Officially started when she voted for the Iraq war in the senate.

      Most Senators voted for that, as I recall. That was based on misleading information provided by the Bush administration that made the war appear urgent and necessary. (By the "administration", I mean the White House staff, not the Cabinet, which was kept out of it.)

      She is a big time arms dealer (smuggler actually, that's what they're trying to hide about Benghazi,

      Benghazi was about the Republicans voting insufficient money for security and blaming Clinton for it. If the Republicans wanted to bring up arms dealing, why didn't they investigate it? If they wanted to keep it quiet, why keep investigating Benghazi? As far as I can tell, you aren't making sense.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    20. Re: Bill and Hillary need more money!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Republicans wanted to bring up arms dealing, why didn't they investigate it?

      Quid pro quo. Too many of them would get caught in the net. The arms dealing to terrorists crosses party lines, and you know that you can't have *the assassin accusing the assassin*.

      Republicans and democrats are not opposition parties to each other. All this bickering between them is pure theatrics to distract you from the real death and destruction they cause.

  6. It is the Job of local district attorney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To go after these scams but then they would have to actually work for a living..

  7. I do not understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why these recidivist fuckers aren't in jail ? Is that because they're WASP ? Is that because white collar crimes actually pay well ? Where the God damn fuck is justice in all of this ?

    1. Re: I do not understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not because they're WASP, but because they're RICH.

    2. Re:I do not understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why these recidivist fuckers aren't in jail ?

      Because they're "too big to fail".

      Where the God damn fuck is justice in all of this ?

      If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

    3. Re:I do not understand... by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Many reasons.

      * WF is huge, which means they have vast legal resources.
      * Much of what they do is at the margins of legal
      * The people losing money don't have many resources and their losses are relatively small
      * Investigating and prosecuting them is a massive effort that strains the budgets of State AGs
      * Finding culpable individuals in the organization and proving fraudulent intent is really difficult

      I was actually surprised that the "account scandal" got sorted out like it did (CEO resigned, clawbacks of executive bonuses, etc). It probably had something to do with the actions being closer to actual criminal fraud.

      Unfortunately I think we have two problems. One, we're a huckster culture, where we generally allow for fraudulent behavior as "good salesmanship".

      The other is an economy with marginal broad growth which forces large companies to pursue more and more dubious income to make up for the lack of growth in their sector's organic income. In theory, banks should be natural profit centers -- if the economy is growing, they basically make a percentage off that growth through loans and money handling. But they face an economy with marginal growth and increased growth expectations, so they have to grind out these increases on the margins of their business.

    4. Re:I do not understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shareholders need their profits.

    5. Re:I do not understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They aren't in jail for about the same reason they are the largest consumer bank in America. Because nobody cares. If their own customers aren't willing to punish them, why should we waste public dollars prosecuting them? If the millions of people they have defrauded won't fold up their accounts and leave, have they really done anything that bad?

      WF is not the reason we can't have nice things. WF customers are the reason we can't have nice things. There are literally 10s of millions of people in America who are too stupid or lazy or ambivalent to be helped. Some of them wonder why the government doesn't act when they won't lift a finger to help themselves.

    6. Re:I do not understand... by hwstar · · Score: 1

      In other words, Wells Fargo is a parasitic corporate entity who have perfected the art of living off their customers without providing any significant value for money.

    7. Re:I do not understand... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Investigating and prosecuting them is a massive effort that strains the budgets of State AGs.

      Arrest them under state law. Deny bail, delay any action after the bail hearing to keep them in jail as long as possible. As soon as some other level of government springs them from jail, rinse and repeat on new charges.

      A sufficiently aggressive AG and a few good judges are about all that's really required. Nobody, even a CEO, likes being in jail, and hammering home the message that your money can't keep you safe from justice would soon be widely understood.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:I do not understand... by swb · · Score: 1

      Problem 1 is that the action would have to be taken by the state where the CEO or whoever you're arresting has their home office. Minnesota can issue an arrest warrant for the head of Wells Fargo, but that doesn't mean they can guarantee some other state will actually execute the warrant for them, especially if its the their home office state.

      Even if that wasn't an obstacle, about the second time you try that I'm sure there would be a Federal civil rights lawsuit filed naming specific state officials as defendants and seeking vast monetary damages and an injunction against State action.

  8. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it is America no longer exist.

  9. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smelly obnoxious H1B hindu-chimps have replaced all decent Americans long time ago.

    Do you represent the non-obnoxious natives? I think I see your problem.

  10. Contract Crapware by mentil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sign a contract for service X, get unwanted service Y in addition slipped into the hundreds of pages of legalese. Who's going to refuse to sign mortgage papers over a $43/month bullshit charge? Especially if it's a contract of adhesion and you can't just cross it out? It's like crapware that comes preinstalled on a name-brand computer, they get a kickback for each install. Remember: it's not fraudulent fees and penalties, it's "innovative financial services."

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Contract Crapware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign a contract for service X, get unwanted service Y in addition slipped into the hundreds of pages of legalese. Who's going to refuse to sign mortgage papers over a $43/month bullshit charge? Especially if it's a contract of adhesion and you can't just cross it out? It's like crapware that comes preinstalled on a name-brand computer, they get a kickback for each install. Remember: it's not fraudulent fees and penalties, it's "innovative financial services."

      That's not necessary something they must buy into in order to get the mortgage. I also doubt that it is legal to negotiated for a service, but then at the signing, there was "optional" services included and you have to accept the term as negotiated. I believe it is more like they added the "optional" services and either not telling you or simply said something to indicate you that "you need this because blah blah, and it should stay there so sign here and here." There must be incentives for those who get people to sign, so they all (corporation + people who get you to agree) cooperate this kind of scam.

    2. Re: Contract Crapware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is also likely that this is an affiliate program where your info is shared by Wells with the insurance company through a joint venture agreement. The insurance company reached out and you threw the crappy insurance offer away. The insurance company informs Wells you accepted their offer and then takes the premium out of your escrow account.

      Everything seems fine until the insurance company screws the customer and Wells gets blamed because "big bank bad".

      Wells more than likely found this in their own internal audits and self disclosed it. They know they screwed up, seriously. They do seem to be trying to root out the crap like this and disclose it before it gets blown out of proportion by the press.

      Not sending Wells fit what they've done but they're getting blamed for other companies screw up right now too.

    3. Re:Contract Crapware by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Frankly not many. I knew a woman who was positive she signed a fixed rate mortgage when in fact she discovered after 2 years was variable. But, there are people like me. I was signing for a house and they slipped in the house inspection showed the roof needed to have some work. Wasn't much, like 400 or 500. I was like WTF, where did this come from, why was I not informed earlier? I said I was not going to proceed, cancel. Suddenly both realtors went into panic mode and said they would pay for the work out of their commission. We proceeded.

    4. Re:Contract Crapware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Realtors are parasitical scum. Also your story illustrates that a house is not an investment, it's a liability.

    5. Re: Contract Crapware by boneglorious · · Score: 1

      wow, gets "blown out of proportion" by the press? Do you mean "reported on"?

      --
      Can I mod something +1 Scary if it's true but I wish it weren't?
    6. Re:Contract Crapware by Sparowl · · Score: 1

      You aren't alone. I thought the realtors were going to stroke out when I started reading the contract instead of just signing it. They were quick to offer to explain it to me, then seemed a little more nervous when I told them that it wasn't a problem, I used to work for the state bar, I can read legalese just fine.

      I found a few things that seemed strange, got some language changed and a full repair to the AC done by them before anything was signed.

      More people should read their contracts over before signing. But most people don't have the reading comprehension.

    7. Re: Contract Crapware by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If they don't validate the charges that they negotiated you into, then they deserve the blame and criminal penalties. At least they're getting a bit of the blame, but not as much as they deserve. And that's assuming your whitewash story is true. (It *could* be, but that doesn't exculpate Wells Fargo. And I'd give the odds at less than 25%.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re: Contract Crapware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. A Wells Fargo apologist. That's a pretty low life form. Profiting by using a third party to defraud your customers doesn't seem like a better spin to me. Try again?

    9. Re:Contract Crapware by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It wasn't hundreds of pages of legalese in any of my mortgages, and I did read through the agreements. Moreover, Wells Fargo almost certainly acquires mortgages from other companies, and can't change the contract retroactively.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:Contract Crapware by Agripa · · Score: 1

      More people should read their contracts over before signing. But most people don't have the reading comprehension.

      Reading comprehension is not sufficient when you do not know the language which in this case you already admitted is legalese which includes statutes, executive decisions, and court precedence for context. The lawyers who wrote and approved that document know this and take advantage of it. So now multiply the number of lawyer hours used to draft the document with a constant to represent the number of hours every non-lawyer reader will need to understand it, and multiply that by the number of non-lawyer readers.

      Is that productive? It is for the lawyers and nobody else. Lawyers are not payed to be clear, concise, and unambiguous.

    11. Re:Contract Crapware by Agripa · · Score: 1

      It wasn't hundreds of pages of legalese in any of my mortgages, and I did read through the agreements.

      I wonder if you could get away with reading the legalese in detail with the loan officer. If they are going to waste your time, at least you can have company and waste theirs as well.

  11. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Kafka was an optimist. Things are worse than what's depicted in a Kafka novel. Douglas Adams came closer to reality combined with a huge dose of absurdity and irony.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  12. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    It has gone downhill since the 70's.

    And it started with the end of the Apollo program.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  13. Re:Life Pro Tip by ls671 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Desjardins, the biggest credit union in North America has actually become worse than a bank.

    Maybe you can be fine with a small credit union somewhere but the GP is pretty much right nowadays.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  14. Re:if you don't like banks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the same thing, isn't it?

  15. Online banks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Online banks are pretty good. Everbank, my bank, has good rates on accounts (checking, CD, etc.), no fees whwre most banks charge them and automatically refunds ATM fees from other banks, and the customer service is amazing.

    My credit union (for the few times I need to or prefer to do something in person at a branch) is pretty good too, but switching to Everbank is seriously one of the best decisions I ever made (I'm not affiliated with them, just a very happy customer)

  16. Why mention Wells Fargo? by Entrope · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's neither legal not ethical for a company to"offer" services on an opt-out basis, but why does this rant focus on Wells Fargo (scummy though they also be)?

    American Home Shield is not owned it operated by WF. It is owned by the same company that owns Terminix, Merry Maids, and some other brands. When you buy a house, the transfer is a public record in most places, and you absolutely will get a lot of junk offers from companies who have no relationship to any of the ones you used.

    1. Re:Why mention Wells Fargo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wells fargo is doing the billing here.. AND they used to push the shit hard and played the "sign 'em up" game with it too. that's why

    2. Re:Why mention Wells Fargo? by geekmux · · Score: 2

      It's neither legal not ethical for a company to"offer" services on an opt-out basis, but why does this rant focus on Wells Fargo (scummy though they also be)?

      American Home Shield is not owned it operated by WF. It is owned by the same company that owns Terminix, Merry Maids, and some other brands. When you buy a house, the transfer is a public record in most places, and you absolutely will get a lot of junk offers from companies who have no relationship to any of the ones you used.

      Wells Fargo is mentioned here because they chose to continue to do business with a company that does not operate a service legally or ethically, as you pointed out.

      And let's call "junk" offers what they should be called; illegal. There's a reason scam is a legal term, and not just a word found in the urban dictionary.

    3. Re:Why mention Wells Fargo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's neither legal not [sic] ethical for a company to"offer" services on an opt-out basis, but why does this rant focus on Wells Fargo (scummy though they also be)?

      American Home Shield is not owned it operated by WF. It is owned by the same company that owns Terminix, Merry Maids, and some other brands. When you buy a house, the transfer is a public record in most places, and you absolutely will get a lot of junk offers from companies who have no relationship to any of the ones you used.

      Go to the link (talks about $43/month scam) in the summary and you WILL UNDERSTAND why the scam involves Wells Fargo.

    4. Re:Why mention Wells Fargo? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's neither legal not ethical for a company to"offer" services on an opt-out basis, but why does this rant focus on Wells Fargo (scummy though they also be)?

      I see you just outed yourself as not reading the link, because had you done so, your question would have already been answered. So since you were too lazy to look, I'll do you a favor and summarize. Various Wells Fargo mortgage customers went over their monthly statements and found a mysterious charge (about $43 a month) for a service they never agree to or asked for, namely the home warranty from AHS. And when customers tried to get Wells Fargo to take it off their bills, they failed. So Wells Fargo fully participated in billing customers for a service they never chose to receive and that's why the rant focuses on them.

    5. Re:Why mention Wells Fargo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds a lot like the PPI scandal in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_protection_insurance). That had multiple banks mis-selling it for years. People were being sold it for a monthly fee without having asked for it or often even knowing it was there. And they didn't explain properly what it was for, meaning most people trying to use it found it didn't cover what they were trying to claim for. The courts have forced the banks to refund people's payments and it's costing them billions.

    6. Re: Why mention Wells Fargo? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Not all junk offers are illegal. I already said that if the company did what the summary described, it was illegal. What more do you want?

    7. Re: Why mention Wells Fargo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, just like you enforced your own authodoxy by not reading, OR EVEN THINKING, and instead whined about some other venue whose politics you don't like.

      Well done, retard.

      PS, go ahead, see if you can work out from first principles how some company you never even signed up to could access your bank account and bill you if Wells Fargo were uninvolved.

    8. Re: Why mention Wells Fargo? by geekmux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not all junk offers are illegal.

      My point is perhaps they should be. And until you can clearly define the difference between a scam and a "junk offer", perhaps we should get rid of the latter bullshit term and call it what it is.

      I already said that if the company did what the summary described, it was illegal. What more do you want?

      From TFS:

      "Here's a quick Wells Fargo fraud scorecard: stealing thousand of cars with fraudulent repos; defrauding mortgage borrowers; blackballing whistelblowers; creating 2,000,000+ fraudulent accounts, and stealing millions with fraudulent fees and penalties."

      There's certainly more than one reason Wells Fargo was called out here. Commonly referred to calling a spade a spade. What more do I want? Shutting down unethical and corrupt businesses would be a refreshing start. Either that, or get rid of laws that define ethics in business; we obviously ignore the shit out of them anyway.

    9. Re:Why mention Wells Fargo? by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 2

      When you buy a house, the transfer is a public record in most places, and you absolutely will get a lot of junk offers from companies who have no relationship to any of the ones you used.

      Mailboxes are getting useless. Currently almost all of my important mail goes to a post office box because I have had problems with identity theft from stolen mail. When I got involved in elder care with my parents and my Dad kept misplacing important mail, I filed a forwarding with the post office; the ONLY mail that got forwarded was the junk mail. Statements and bills do not get forwarded, I had to call each office and arrange the mail forwarding.

      I have used PO boxes for the last 20 years and they are superior to the mailbox in front of the dwelling. It is much more secure - the staff there will not give your mail to anyone else. A house address can be found on the internet (there is a benefit to ego searching), but I have yet to find the PO box on the internet. It is easy to change - if the box starts getting inundated with junk mail (or mail from a vindictive ex), I can move to a new box, give the change of address to official parties, and all legitimate mail moves to new box and junk mail is left behind. Yes there is an additional cost with annual box rental and fuel to pick up mail, but the peace of mind is worth it.

      I am saving $$$ to build my own house and it will be the house I retire in. Since the house being public record will be broadcast to the junk mail marketing bastards, I refuse to install a mailbox. From then on, all important mail goes to a PO Box.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    10. Re: Why mention Wells Fargo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A junk offer is an unsolicited offer, one you don't want, but not necessarily one that is illegal or even "bad". Insurance companies will send out fliers to new home buyers, these are perfectly valid offers and services, but still "junk." Additionally, cities will send welcome packets including coupons to local businesses, also largely "junk."

      Junk is in the eye or the beholder (another man's treasure and all that), where as scams are actually illegal things and should be stopped.

    11. Re:Why mention Wells Fargo? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It can get worse. I was paying cash, and I had a car dealer tell me that Payment Protection Insurance (sold to me in a different name) was not only mandatory but fulfilled the state requirement for auto insurance: both false. It took me a few days to figure out I'd been had, but I complained angrily and at length and got my $100 back.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:Why mention Wells Fargo? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the the banking industry learned this from the phone industry or the reverse.

  17. Re:Life Pro Tip by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Informative

    The difference is that they are owned by the depositors. Hence they are not subject to the same commercial pressures that regular banks are. Unfortunately most of the mutual financial organizations in the UK where destroyed in the 1980/1990's when the building societies converted to banks. During the financial crisis the building societies in the UK weathered the storm much better than the banks and demutilized former building societies did for example.

  18. Re:if you don't like banks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a huge gulf between consumer / retail banking and investment banking. Hence the efforts to legally separate the two.

  19. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Orphis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where is it legal? Asking for a friend and his company with the amazing monthly paper clip delivery service that's just $999 a month.

  20. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some plac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Only four posts until Godwin.

  21. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some plac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The Time To Godwin might be a bit longer if there weren't open demonstrations and murders by white supremacists who self-dentify as Nazis taking place.

  22. If you join a credit union, you may be a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That will be the narrative. Possibly. If Americans wake up and leave the banks.

  23. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Trump speeches sound like Vogon poetry.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  24. WF? HR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Wells Fargo: We Know Highway Robbery"

  25. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by skovnymfe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh freddled covfefe,

    Thy micturations are to me,

    As plurdled gabbleblotchits,

    On a lurgid bee,

    ...

  26. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Dunbal · · Score: 0

    By not replying to this post you agree to be subscribed to horse porn and also admit you deny the holocaust. See? Legal in my area. Although horse porn and holocaust denial - not so much

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  27. It's almost as if... by easyTree · · Score: 1

    ...you guys need a set of rules as to what's acceptable and the will to punish those who don't follow them.

  28. Actions speak louder than lists by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Here's a quick Wells Fargo fraud scorecard: stealing thousand of cars with fraudulent repos; defrauding mortgage borrowers; blackballing whistelblowers; creating 2,000,000+ fraudulent accounts, and stealing millions with fraudulent fees and penalties."

    Lists of blatantly corrupt and illegal activities don't mean jack shit unless you do something about it.

    And by do something, I mean shut them the fuck down, and throw executives in prison.

    Since Greed N. Corruption took over as CEO of US Capitalism, Inc. that will never fucking happen.

    How ironic that if any US citizen did this, it would be labeled terrorism. The fact that nothing is ever done only clarifies just how unethical and corrupt the Banking Industrial Complex has become.

    1. Re:Actions speak louder than lists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopey McChange

      I thought it was Hopey O'Change.

    2. Re:Actions speak louder than lists by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Okay, they are both slackers about such, agreed, but which party is MORE likely to do something about such? Or is all the talk about how "great" deregulation is from Republicans merely talk?

    3. Re:Actions speak louder than lists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by do something, I mean shut them the fuck down, and throw executives in prison.

      That, or just make corporate crime unprofitable. But, it just isn't so easy.

      Many financial companies willing go against the law/regulations because a law/regulation is burdensome/costly, and the fee for non-compliance is comparatively small - assuming you get caught in the first place.

      But ensuring corporations are consistently on the up-and-up involves more regulations (which people tend to not like) and hiring more people to audit corporate documentation (bigger gov't). Prosecution is also costly.

      And, because our economy is a primary source of our world superpoweredness and standard of living, we need to protect our big corporations - aggressively cutting down a bunch of corporate executes could destablize this. Likewise, having a high pressure gov't may have companies look elsewhere to plant their headquarters n' such, so we'd lose those taxes.

      And of course at the same time, we need civilian confidence in our companies so they continue to buy stuff which keeps everything afloat.

      So, I guess, as long as so much is derived from our economy, we'll always have this bastard balance of corporate profitability driven policy and ethics driven stuff. Sorry, think I got off topic and just starting thinking aloud.

    4. Re:Actions speak louder than lists by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Lists of blatantly corrupt and illegal activities don't mean jack shit unless you do something about it.

      Taking your business elsewhere is often futile.

      When I got a mortgage, I went out of my way to avoid Wells Fargo. The dirty secret in getting any loan is that the guys offering the loan (ie. the bastards at the credit union, etc.) can sell the debt to another institution before the ink dries.

      Which is how I became another "satisfied" customer of the institution I tried to avoid.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    5. Re:Actions speak louder than lists by Euroranger · · Score: 1

      "which party is MORE likely to do something about such"? Okay, well, clearly you think Democrats are...but I would insist that we discuss actual accomplishment as opposed to election season claims of caring about such things. Neither party does dick "about such". If it comforts you to support the party that tells more plausible lies...go for it.

    6. Re:Actions speak louder than lists by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Often because they block each other in gridlock.

  29. Read Before you Sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it really too much to ask that you actually READ your closing documents before you sign them?

    In every single one of those cases, there was an opt-in form in the closing documents that clearly indicated this was an optional service that you did not have to buy. Everyone who purchased the American Home Shield warranty did so by signing an opt-in form during the closing of their loan.

    1. Re:Read Before you Sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you ever actually bought a house?
      Typically you're in a room with a Realtor, who works for the seller, because the Realtor always works for the seller, that's who pays them (even if you think they're working for you), a real estate lawyer, who works for the Realtor, and maybe a seller, if its a private sale. There's a stack of papers about three inches high and you have to sign about fifty times and initial another twenty. The lawyer has set aside about twenty minutes to do all this and reading everything is impossible, not to mention it requires both a law degree and an economics degree to understand what's been written.

    2. Re:Read Before you Sign by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      That sounds pretty bad. In the UK, the buyer and seller each have their own solicitor. Typically, all communication happens via the two solicitors (which can sometimes involve long round-trip times) and anything that you're supposed to sign will be first read by your solicitor, who should point out anything that looks dubious.

      The French system is much better. The estate agents work for the buyer and have a legal responsibility to them: they are liable for any costs incurred by the buyer that the buyer was not aware of up-front (which means that they have an incentive to have a surveyor look at any property that they're selling and ensure that they have records or pointing out anything important in it to the buyer).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Read Before you Sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, I have bought dozens of houses. I am aware that it is a lot of paperwork. That is not an excuse to ignore any of it, nor it is an excuse not to have your own attorney thoroughly review them with you.

      Reading everything is not impossible by any stretch of the imagination. If your lawyer only spends 20 minutes on it, you need to tell them that is unacceptable and make them read everything.

      Making the largest purchase you'll make in your lifetime is not a time to be uneducated and complacent.

    4. Re:Read Before you Sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boo hoo for the attorney. I pissed them off by reading everything single word of every single page that I signed. Took 4 hours start to finish. That 20 minute limit? Well, too g0d damn bad for them.

    5. Re:Read Before you Sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds pretty bad. In the UK, the buyer and seller each have their own solicitor. Typically, all communication happens via the two solicitors (which can sometimes involve long round-trip times) and anything that you're supposed to sign will be first read by your solicitor, who should point out anything that looks dubious.

      That's the way my house purchase went in the USA, I picked my lawyer and the seller's lawyer was present as was my realtor and the seller's. In fact the only person absent at the closing was the seller herself.

  30. My home warranty has been useful by scourfish · · Score: 2

    We bought a house and the seller paid for a year of a home warranty service. So far, we have had plumbing snaked out, The garage door repaired, and our dishwasher replaced, free of charge.

    1. Re:My home warranty has been useful by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Motherfucking worthless when the AC compressor dies! Mine was covered under the home warranty, but because it used the old older R22 system (which I'm sure at least 95% of Americans are still using), they couldn't, or rather, wouldn't replace it for an R410a system. One, can't get new-old stock compressor, and two, they wouldn't cover the entire labor of flushing out the lines and replacing the the evap coil that goes with it. I even stated I would meet them half way if they at least replace the compressor and labor for just that part, and I'd pay for the flushing and coil. NOPE! They couldn't warranty it based on that.

      So here's the deal. If you have an R22 system, and you bought home warranty, chances are you got royally fucked. They will NOT take the 5 grand hit for the mandated chuck and replace to be federally compliant with R410a system.

      Hope you boys and girls have a nice little nest egg saved to replace your AC when it dies (because they all do eventually). Otherwise, I need to invest in company stock that builds window units. Holy shit!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:My home warranty has been useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We bought a house and the seller paid for a year of a home warranty service. So far, we have had plumbing snaked out, The garage door repaired, and our dishwasher replaced, free of charge.

      Your post is more of a troll than anything else because it completely misses the point. The issue is NOT about getting any benefits from the $43/month home insurance. The issue is that Wells Fargo (cooperated with American Home Shield) pushes the insurance into the contract with the "opt-out" option for people who sign the mortgage contract with them. As a result, many people signed the contract without their knowledge that the option is included. The decision of adding home insurance should be by the OWNER of the house, not the lender/mortgage company (in this case, the bank).

    3. Re:My home warranty has been useful by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      We lucked out... they applied the cost of the compressor and labor to replacing the whole thing. Didn't end up much out of pocket.

    4. Re:My home warranty has been useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I rebuilt my compressor with parts from one thrown out down the street. Now when that fails, I dunno what I'll do. I have quite a few spare parts for the air handler and controller, but no more for the compressor.

    5. Re:My home warranty has been useful by davemchine · · Score: 1

      Same story here. AHS paid for a new double oven, fixed the ice maker in my freezer, fixed my dishwasher twice, and replaced my pool pump. I've got no problem with them at all and I've recommended them to other people.

    6. Re:My home warranty has been useful by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Not sure how you managed to pull that off, or more importantly, why? The compressor part itself is sealed in can bathed in oil in a closed loop. It never gets serviced, only replaced and recycled for its elements (to be melted down). In my specific case, the compressor either had a shorted out coil, or suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure (piston, crankshaft?).

      My new unit is a scroll. Apparently they're more reliable.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:My home warranty has been useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had some bad wiring in my house (basically some lamp cord in the wall instead of romex for lights in one room). AHS refused to fix since it was a "capacity" issue, claiming it was the wrong gauge wire (duh, it's lamp cord). refused the $300 to fix it. I argued for hours on the phone and got nowhere. Posted one tweet with #screwed and #ripoff to @AHS. Resolved in 30 minutes.

    8. Re:My home warranty has been useful by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      We bought a house and the seller paid for a year of a home warranty service.

      The seller "paid" out of the money you gave them.

      I also was "gifted" a "home warranty."

      Every single problem I encountered was judged a pre-existing condition, and it was my fault for not noticing the problem during the home buying process. (This includes the garage door, microwave, HVAC system... all of which was functional during the home inspection)

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    9. Re:My home warranty has been useful by scourfish · · Score: 1

      House had both a 3 year old air conditioner and roof, which was a buying point for us.

    10. Re:My home warranty has been useful by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Hope you boys and girls have a nice little nest egg saved to replace your AC when it dies (because they all do eventually). Otherwise, I need to invest in company stock that builds window units. Holy shit!

      IMO, a responsible homeowner will keep about 10% of the value of their home in cash or easily liquidated assets in order to handle this kind of maintenance. You need to put away about 1% of the value per year whether you spend it or not that year. That's about what it averages out to, but it tends to come in inconveniently large hits when it needs to be done. I have very little sympathy for someone who buys a house, and doesn't plan ahead for this sort of thing.

      For AC replacement under a home warranty, you're virtually always going to be better just cashing out and then finding your own people to do it properly. The home warranty company will send incompetent (cheap) idiots, and only pay for the cheapest, least efficient piece of garbage they can find, though, so you'll still be out a couple of grand to get it done properly.

      The warranty companies pay the contractors a flat fee per call, so their incentive is always to get the hell out and to the next call as fast as possible - they get more money if they have to come back!

    11. Re:My home warranty has been useful by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      When you buy a house, you pay money. Some of that goes to the realtor(s) involved, most to the seller. If you've agreed on a price, and a new expense comes up, then either you as the buyer pay more money or the seller accepts less. In the latter case, the seller paid for it. (I negotiated last-minute expenses when buying my present house. We decided to split them, and the seller was grateful.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  31. Re:if you don't like banks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    you're an idiot conspiracy theorist who knows nothing about economics.

    Shut the fuck up, idiot. "Economics" has been reduced to nothing more than trying to maintain a bullshit valuation of the US Dollar, which obviously is fueled by corruption.

    It's not that people don't like banks. Citizens don't like having "do as I say, not as I do" demonstrated over and over again, especially when the end result is screwing over the 99% while the 1% get away with financial murder.

  32. I'm pretty sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Anonymous Coward" isn't a customer with Everbank... or any bank.

    This is not so because the rules forbid it. This is a problem moreso than it solves problems. Just like criminalising drugs.

  33. well what d'ya all expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    from a cowboy outfit?

  34. OK, so answer this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If some company sends you crap through the post, a company you've never done business for, how do they access your bank account when you don't even look at their trash and shove it in the bin?

    Because Wells Fargo is selling their service to you on that companies' say-so.

    It's Wells Fargo doing the billing, because they have your account actioned and opened for the mortgate bill. The other company can't tell them to add them on without either Wells Fargo or your signature and agreement.

    And not having opened their stuff means YOU didn't authorise it.

    So who did?

  35. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some plac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's as if people completely forget the BLM protestor who killed 5 cops in Dallas.

    Get rid of ALL forms of hate protestors.

  36. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, Hitler wasn't elected. His was appointed Chancellor.

  37. THE BANKS ARE BROKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not the act of a few criminal types within the banking system. Unfortunately, it is a result of the insolvency of that system, and the need to conceal that status from the public.

  38. "Wells Fargo" is the "Clintons" of Consumer Banks by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    With all the crap they've pulled, it's a miracle that the "Wells Fargo" brand is worth anything in consumer banking anymore. Any normal company would have rebranded/recolored itself long ago.

  39. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some plac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually, Trump wasn't really elected either. He was only "elected" because was not Hillary. Least of two evils and all that shit.

  40. Re:Life Pro Tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Life Pro Tip: if you don't like banks, join a credit union.

    In the 1990's my credit union...

    Changed my routing number to my social security number. This had two effects. My unused checks were worthless, and tellers would literally write my SSN on the back of any check that I deposited.

    The credit union bounced a check for no reason whatsoever. They could not explain why the check was not processed, and promised to resolve the matter with the company that I had written the check to. Ultimately, they did not lift a finger to resolve the matter.

    When confronted with these, and a list of other banking errors, in a response, the president of the credit union claimed that I had been a member for only a couple of years and could not have experienced all of those errors. I rendered copies of all of the statements going back more than half a decade. They were confused because they had changed the routing number twice.

    As a final insult, they charged a $15 account closing fee. I have never done business with a credit union since.

  41. Re:Life Pro Tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real tip is to not use Wells Fargo and deal with a more reputable bank. As for Credit Unions none of them could compete with all the services I get from my current banks (use more than one bank as well, only idiots put all their eggs in one basket.)

  42. There's other shady crap they pull too by ausekilis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Years ago I got mail from them regarding my credit card. I had been signed up for "Credit Defense", which WF charged some % of your monthly balance to put toward a pot that you could draw on should you be unemployed for a length of time. I didn't think much of it and didn't care because I didn't have a high balance.

    Fast forward a few years and couple moves later and my balance was a bit higher. To top things off, this charge was getting between $50 and $60 every month, which was making payments harder. Basically my story was a lot like this guys. I called up WF, they told me to call this third party company. I call them "Sorry, I can't refund". So I broken record the assholes, "So send me to someone who can". A few people later and I can "file a complaint" or whatever their lingo was. They had to prove that I had signed a document allowing them to charge me. They couldn't, so I got refunded near $2k for my troubles. No bogus charges since.

    If it weren't for having my longest running line of credit with them, I'd have walked into a branch, shredded my credit card and given them the two finger salute years ago.

    1. Re:There's other shady crap they pull too by sarbonn · · Score: 1

      >

      If it weren't for having my longest running line of credit with them, I'd have walked into a branch, shredded my credit card and given them the two finger salute years ago.

      A peace sign? The Vulcan sign of prosperity?

      --
      Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
    2. Re:There's other shady crap they pull too by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I think he means by utilizing each hand, identically.

      But thank you for that... I can't recall the last time I saw a post on Slashdot that made me laugh that hard.

    3. Re:There's other shady crap they pull too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your justification for sticking with WF rings very hollow to me. People like you are exactly the reason institutions like WF exist and flourish. I have a small beef with WF. I have a big beef with you. Your actions are more damaging to me and the society in which I live than are their actions. If their actions go unpunished it encourages more and worse. You are in a direct position to punish them, but you refuse to do so. I have a limited ability to punish them. I have a limited ability to punish you. But I will call them out and I will call you out.

      Here is me scraping my finger at you.

    4. Re:There's other shady crap they pull too by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps GP is British?

      British version of the finger is traditionally given using two fingers.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:There's other shady crap they pull too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The V sign with fingers facing forward means f**k off.

  43. I've had both by Euroranger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wells Fargo for my mortgage for 10 years, AHS for about 7 years. I'm currently battling Wells against their attempts to foreclose on my home (for the second time) and I dumped AHS 3 years ago after I got a local consumer investigative reporter to contact them regarding fraudulent work their chosen AC contractor told me I HAD to pay for (new pad for a replaced AC unit when the old pad was fine, new wiring harness for same when the old was fine, etc). Wells had been okay with my incremental catch up payments for 6 months (I'm behind due to a recent divorce)...but last month I made the mistake of telling them I'll be current probably within 60-90 days...and 5 days later I got the "pay us now or we accelerate the loan to foreclosure by 8/23". I have the ability to do that so I will...but it pisses me off that a previously agreed upon plan was jettisoned when they understood that the late payment penalties are about to stop and they'll lose any legal chance to steal my home. Effing bastards. I can't recommend more strongly for any and everyone to avoid both these companies as if they were plutonium gonorrhea.

    1. Re:I've had both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, you haven't dumped them. Mortgage rates are under 4%.You are 10 years into yours. If you started at 30yr, you could refi for 30 and have a lower payment. If you started with a 20yr, you could refi for 15 and have a lower payment. If you started at 15yr, you could refi for 10yr and have a lower payment. But you don't. You continue to make a higher payment to a bank that has repeatedly abused you. You write that you recommend against them, but your actions speak louder than your words.

      If you want to get to the root of the problem, look in the mirror.

    2. Re:I've had both by Euroranger · · Score: 1

      Ah! The online "expert". Tell me sport...what rate am I paying today? I'll give you a hint your omniscience clearly doesn't need: I modified my mortgage back when HARP came on the scene at a time when the prime lending rate was around 0%. Thanks for the advice but I'm not an idiot. I did mention a recent divorce and my credit has taken a significant whack because of post divorce shenanigans (if that tempts you to pen a response extolling your expertise in dealing with credit reporting agencies, go ahead and shelve it...I've forgotten more about how to deal with them than you'll likely ever know). I could indeed re-fi today but I wouldn't be able to get a rate as good as what I enjoy now. I'm not with Wells because of their sterling servicing of my mortgage.

  44. That makes sense. Trump is a Vogon Captain by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1, Troll

    Not even a good disguise. Seriously.

  45. Re:If you join a credit union, you may be a terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitcoin = pedo-druggie terrorists

  46. Re: Life Pro Tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So which financial institution makes mistakes on your accounts now? Or did you start your own?

  47. Re:"Wells Fargo" is the "Clintons" of Consumer Ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly I'm surprised it's taken this long for all the stories to start hitting. Back when I was in college they made the list of banks I'll never do business with due to shitty behavior. The university my sister attended would pay students working for them by direct depositing money into a WF account that you were required to open as part of being a student at the university, not sure of the details as I went to a different university. Anyway, what happened to her and several friends was when they stopped working for the university they'd leave money in there because since it was a university account one was required to have it was supposed to be shielded from minimum balance fees and inactivity fees. Yeah, my sister and several friends lost a few hundred bucks a piece due to their accounts getting shut down due to "inactivity" while they were still students and WF just kept the balance. They complained but WF refused to refund them any money. They'd have had to sue to get their money back, but they were poor college students and couldn't afford to. That point was the point I declared WF as a banned company that would never see my business. If I'd taken out a mortgage and it got sold to WF, I'd have refinanced to get it away from them, because they are that scummy of a company.

  48. Re:if you don't like banks... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    you're an idiot conspiracy theorist who knows nothing about economics.

    If you don't know fraud goes unpunished at the highest levels of finance, you really haven't been paying attention. No conspiracy here, just the power of wealth and connections.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  49. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some plac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's as if people completely forget the BLM protestor who killed 5 cops in Dallas.

    You mean Micah Xavier Johnson, the man who was discharged from the military with significant evidence of mental illness? That the police murdered by killing him with explosives?

    Good example. What exactly should we remember? That the Dallas Police defied all common sense in their practices? That multiple angry parties filed lawsuits in order to silence dissent and criticism? That you're still ignoring the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, not to mention thousands of others?

    Get rid of ALL forms of hate protestors.

    It's as if people forget that you completely accused all BLM protesters of violence, just because you don't want to hear what they have to say.

  50. Re:"Wells Fargo" is the "Clintons" of Consumer Ban by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    I was one of the folks that got a "free" credit card and another checking account as part of a mortgage I did with them upteen years ago. I learned about the credit card when I pulled my credit report for my next mortgage but learned about the checking account a lot sooner, because Wells Fargo tried to start dinging me for $6 "zero balance" fees after a few months. I told them to go stuff themselves, which took some time, but since they couldn't come up with the paperwork where I requested the checking account, they eventually dropped the issue.

    But I would have almost forgotten to tell everyone I know to never bank with Wells Fargo if I didn't get my class action settlement check in the mail: "yessiree, that $0.21 of satisfaction over a decade after the hassle was ample compensation."

  51. Different but the same by andyring · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My son's school pictures arrangement is about like this too. Some company called Lifetouch contracts with the schools for school pictures. OK, no big deal, right?

    If only...

    So here's what they do. They herd the kids through the usual picture rigamarole and then a few weeks later, there is a proof image to look at and parents can decide which poses the want, right?

    Oh no. Not at all.

    A few weeks later, a full print set with all the usual sizes shows up in my son's backpack. A few 8x10s, some 4x6s, a bunch of wallets. Probably about the $25-30 package. Printed, ready to go, in his backpack. And Lifetouch puts a letter in there saying (paraphrased): "Hey mom and dad! Here are the wonderful pictures of your super cute kid! We already printed them for you, if you want to keep them just send a check back to the school. Or if you hate your kid and think he's ugly, send them back with a note to the teacher. Oh, and if you keep them and don't pay, we'll just kick your kid out of the photo line next year."

    And not to mention what happens if you do send them back. Who knows? I bet they don't actually get sent back to Lifetouch. My guess is a pile of crisp 8x10 photos with all the identifying information a sexual predator would want printed right on the envelope goes straight into the dumpster.

    1. Re:Different but the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ...with all the identifying information a sexual predator would want printed right on the envelope...

      As if sexual predators are actually something you need to worry about...

      Kids are pretty much _always_ sexually abused by people they're already acquainted with. (Frankly, it's almost _always_ the parents.) No need to go dumpster diving there, the abuser is already a friend of the family or _in_ the family!

      Having said that, statistically speaking, kids are pretty much _never_ sexually abused. So, sexual abuse from a _complete_ stranger? Your kid is more likely to die from Dengue Fever contracted in Boulder, Colorado.

      Spending significant amounts of time worrying about this without having _any_ evidence that an abuser is targeting your kid is like making life-hampering changes to protect against being killed while jogging by a freak micrometeor strike.

  52. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please uncheck this box if you would not like to be subscribed to CAT FACTS. If left checked you agree to be subscribed to CAT FACTS hourly updates via email, SMS, and phone call.

  53. In defense of AHS by computational+super · · Score: 1

    I don't know what the whole Wells Fargo/AHS scam is, and $43/month sounds low for a home warranty, but I do have AHS (about $70/month) and they've replaced my A/C, pool equipment, and a refrigerator. So there may well be a scam going on, but I'm not sure it's fair to brand AHS a "scam factory" outright.

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    1. Re:In defense of AHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what the word of an Anonymous Coward is worth around here - yes, I'd attest to this too. The seller of my house threw in a 12-month AHS warranty due to the age of some of the appliances, and I've renewed it three times since. So far I've had a dishwasher repaired (mice damage) and the furnace/heat-exchangers repaired twice.
      The first HVAC contractor that AHS sent was tardy and borderline incompetent, but I don't blame AHS for that. When I called and complained they immediately sent another one who were awesome. The AHS warranty is well worth the $45/month or so I'm paying.

  54. Re:If you join a credit union, you may be a terror by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin doubled in value over the last month; meanwhile banks pay one percent of one percent interest on savings.

  55. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think he's leaving out details. The bit about charging small businesses for credit card charges: Businesses have been charged for credit card charges for decades. It's not new and it's not just Wells Fargo.

    In regard to this 'American Home Shield' $43/mo thing - I'm guessing that when you sign up for a mortgage with Wells Fargo, this comes as part of the deal. If you don't reject it when signing paperwork, then you get signed up for it once everything is processed. So the act of saying "No" in the e-mail would be cancelling your service after you've already signed up for it. I'm too lazy to look into whether this is actually the case or not, but I really doubt Wells Fargo would do what Doctorow is proposing, when the thing I said is easy and safe (no legal messiness).

    Don't get me wrong, some of the things they've done are bad. But you can't go grabbing things that boil down to "Well, did you read what you were signing?" Ever here someone say "That's how they get you"? This is what they're talking about. This is how they "get" $43/mo out of you for basically zero effort on their part. They're banking on the fact that millions of people won't read the agreement or care that an additional $43 is on their mortgage.

  56. AHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is misleading. I have had AHS for 4-5 years and while they can be very frustrating to work with they have replaced defective kitchen appliances and other devices that have far exceeded the monthly cost of the insurance.

  57. Re: if you don't like banks... by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    It is kind of a conspiracy because authorities agree not to charge bankers.

  58. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by hoffmanjon · · Score: 1

    He was petty and vindictive and never cared for advice he didn't agree with

    Sounds like a president we all know. I wonder how Hitler would of used Twitter.

  59. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by SeriousTube · · Score: 1

    Viewing / owning horse porn is legal in most places afaik. Making it isn't though.

  60. Re:Life Pro Tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When you are 1 of 1 million share holders in a credit union, you're not any better off than owning stock in your bank. Being owned by depositors does not necessarily make the institution more responsive to depositors.

  61. AHS User - good service by mpechner · · Score: 1

    I did not get AHS from a forgetting to check box, which is bullshit and Wells should be raked over the coals for that. I took the service when I purchased my place because of another friends positive experience with them.

    But I have successfully used them for the 10 years I owned my home.
    A/C issue in the heat of summer, multiple years, someone shows up in a couple of days and gets it fixed.
    Washing machine rebuild.
    Dishwasher fixed.

    AHS hold a lot of weight with their contracted vendors. They tend to be higher quality than those I have found on my own. They don't screw around. I have no issues paying the monthly fee.

    But Wells, who is my banker, should be raked over the coals for what they are doing.

    1. Re:AHS User - good service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you've spent a little over 5K for issues which would have cost around 2K to solve them yourself (even cheaper if you don't hire a contractor and instead watched a few handyman tutorials). Yeah, what nice arraignment you've got going there. They do bring peace of mind if you're unwilling to educate yourself on how to maintain your appliances, but such education only takes a couple hours online and that peace of mind is completely destroyed the moment they deny any claim.

  62. I have AHS and am happy... by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

    I've had AHS for 5 years and I've always had a great experience. I've never had long hold times, been denied for service, or any other problems. I've had some expensive failures (Refrigerator had to have an evap coil replaced, furnace control board failed, and hot water heater failed), and they've always paid for the repairs, done so in a timely manner, and held up their end of the contract.

    I'm not sure what the Wells Fargo contract covers (possibly not much?), but they've always provided good service for me. When my hot water heater's original heater burner failed (and I had flames literally shooting up around the hot water heater), they elected to replace the entire heater because the unit was old and was about to fail. That involved some significant plumbing changes to bring my house up to code--and ALL of it was covered by them.

    Wells Fargo is scum, but I've had nothing but good experiences with AHS. Posting non-AC so you can tell that I'm not an industry shill.

    --
    -=Lothsahn=-
  63. I can tell you by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    That it isn't just Wells Fargo doing this, it's all the big and regional banks doing similar tactics. From Chase, Bank of America, Citizens, Santander, etc. Some to a lesser degree of evil than others but they do it anyhow.

    Why is that? Because they know they've managed to completely weaken any regulatory actions.

  64. Re: if you don't like banks... by Nutria · · Score: 1

    That purposeful denial of reality confirms my opinion.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  65. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by jabuzz · · Score: 0

    Sure more advanced in rockets. They where not however more advanced in technologies that would have helped them actually win the war. Whether that be things like radar, proximity fuses, cryptography, or er atomic weaponry. The rocket program sucked huge amounts of resources out of the German war machine that could have been far more profitably used elsewhere.

    Of course the last one atomic weaponry meant the Germans where fucked, as come August 1945 we could have easily flown B29's out over Germany and dropped nuke's till the German's surrendered or there was nothing left, even if the D-Day landings had been a total failure.

  66. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    for a contract to be valid, both parties need to have a meeting of the minds.

  67. Re:if you don't like banks... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    quiet, trained seals need only to clap their hands.

  68. Re:if you don't like banks... by hey! · · Score: 2

    It's not the gulf, it's the conflict of interest on the bank's part between its retail and investment activities, as illustrated by the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2008. Even where they weren't technically gambling with depositors' funds, their investment activities put them in a position where they were in danger of failing while holding onto those funds.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  69. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Solandri · · Score: 1

    They can be legal if you previously signed an agreement agreeing to them. e.g. Credit card company changes its terms. Sends you a letter describing the changes and says by continuing to use the card you agree to the new terms. And if you don't agree to the changes, stop using the card and call them to tell them you're cancelling the card.

  70. Re:"Wells Fargo" is the "Clintons" of Consumer Ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I read these stories, I am more thankful that I got out of there years ago.

    They started charging us $5 per month per account (we had several accounts, mine, hers, two kids, a joint checking, joint savings, emergency savings, vacation savings, etc). We went in once to get this fixed, it fixed it, but only on the joint checking.

    Thankfully, they had previously declined to loan me for a car ($6k was too little), so we had a car loan through a credit union. We brought all our accounts over in short order.

  71. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "By opening this mail you are hereby found to have agreed to:" ...
    Thanks M$

  72. Re:if you don't like banks... by Nutria · · Score: 1

    And bark. And balance balls on their noses, and play horns.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  73. It's actually quite simple by Solandri · · Score: 1

    It's because we as a society have decided that money is less important than people. On the one hand this means that a company owner isn't justified in putting workers' lives at risk just to make more money. On the other hand, it means the punishment for a financial crime is less than the punishment for physical crime. e.g. The majority of the punishment for bank robbery isn't because you stole money, it's because you threatened people with violence during the act of stealing money.

    You can't have it both ways. If you want the punishment for financial crimes to be equivalent to the punishment for physical crimes, then you are saying money is as important as people's lives and physical well-being.

    1. Re:It's actually quite simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Choosing bank robbery as example is really close to a strawman. If anything you should compare it to breaking into a bank vault while nobody is there (legally, that would NOT be robbery).
      I don't know how the punishment for that compares to financial crimes.
      However, by your argument the punishment for financial fraud and other things that Wells Fargo did (since they directly affected people and/or happened in their presence, so more like robbery) should be higher than the one for breaking into a vault, and I doubt that is the case.

    2. Re:It's actually quite simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]
      "It's because when you're rich you make the rules." Much simpler.

      I have a collection of old financial instruments from evil megacorps. I only buy artifacts from companies that have intentionally directly murdered people for money among other things.

      I am no historian but I do a bit of research when i buy this shit and I can tell you that it seems that usually nobody ever ends up doing more than a few years most of the time

  74. Re:Life Pro Tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect the credit union's executives and senior management are still compensated based on revenue so are incentivized to increase revenue.

  75. georgia's own credit union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my credit union, Georgia's Own Credit Union tried this opt-out non-sense recently with an attempted $7 monthly charge to my checking account -- opt-out should not be legal -- imagine if the grocery store employees dumped things in your shopping cart when you weren't looking

    1. Re:georgia's own credit union by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The credit union has the ability to change things going forward, and you have the ability to accept that or find another provider (or try to negotiate the changes you don't like - that sometimes works).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  76. Re:Life Pro Tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You *may* find a more reputable *local* bank, but is there a nationwide bank that is any more trustworthy than Wells Fargo?

  77. You gotta live somewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Housing is not purely an investment. It also addresses a need: shelter.
    I guarantee you that on average buyers come out financially ahead of renters--well, unless you have 5 roommates and you are sharing a flophouse. That one might financially favor the renter short term. Long term, it is harmful to other areas of your life, and thus eventually your finances.

    Think about it: buyers have to spend some money every year on taxes, maintenance, etc., but they get some back in equity. The renter never gets any of his rent back.

    1. Re:You gotta live somewhere by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Whether it's a benefit or not depends on a lot of things about your life situation. A mortgage can be worse than rent. You can get out of rent in a month or two. But it can also be a lot better. I don't regret the time I spent as a renter before ending up with a house. Now my situation has changed again, and I'm going to go back to being a renter. I'm not really pleased, but I'm not upset about THAT aspect. (I really don't like home maintenance or gardening, or any of the other things that make a house vastly superior.)

      OTOH, rents in this area have skyrocketed during the period when I was living in a house. Renting now would be a much worse deal...but then the prices of houses have also climbed a lot. So I'm going to need to leave the area.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  78. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I see that on just about any "free" software installation and update to get you to install extra "promotionware". Java still does it, last I remember. I suppose they can argue the "extra" product is not being charged for and thus does't fall under such statutes; and the boundary between product and "feature" can also be blurry. Still, it's an annoying practice.

    The worse case I ever saw was a confirmation box with a double-negative, something like:

    [_] I don't want to not install the ShinyMonkey Toolbar.

    Half the users in the org ended up with the goddam ShinyMonkey Toolbar, which conflicted with other apps, causing job security and/or headaches for the help desk.

  79. AHS profits from "non-covered expenses" by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    I had AHS for a few years. They always came out promptly when I called, and did the repairs. The problem was that they always found "non-covered expenses" that ran up my bill into the hundreds of dollars, instead of the claimed $50 co-pay. Examples included coolant evacuation and recharge for $400, and a concrete condenser pad for $150. When my condenser went out, my total non-covered expenses were $900!

    Later, when I dumped AHS and started paying for my own repairs, I discovered that my A/C contractor didn't even charge me for these same "non-covered expenses"! At one point, my new contractor replaced a condenser with a new one for $1,400, just 50% more than the replacement under the so-called warranty! The AHS contractors are paid so little by AHS that they have to find ways to make their money, so they come up with these nonsense extra costs.

  80. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Calydor · · Score: 1

    If filming horses mating is illegal we've got a whole other set of problems to deal with ...

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  81. Re:if you don't like banks... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Why do you say "no conspiracy"? I see no grounds for assuming that just because the wealthy and powerful aren't punished they aren't engaging in conspiracy. And there are certainly meetings which are very carefully not recorded. If there were a conspiracy, what evidence would you expect to see that isn't present?

    It would be quite reasonable to say we can't prove there's an illegal conspiracy. Even that would probably depend upon who "we" was, however. It seems quite clear that Wells Fargo management was engaged in an illegal conspiracy...it's just that it was against their customers rather than against the government. Proving it, however, could be a different matter.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  82. Re:if you don't like banks... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Which banks? What about banks?

    Were you to say the basic principles that are behind banking are important to the working of economics, I'd agree. This doesn't mean organizations that seem to be run by gangsters are a good idea. This doesn't mean that the currently existing banks should be either liked or trusted. This doesn't mean that the current regulations are either just or reasonable. Etc.

    I really like the idea of banks. It's just the implementation that seems a bit lacking.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  83. Re:if you don't like banks... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    My main question is what is to stop a Credit Union from being just as dishonest and corrupt as a bank?

    Not-For-Profit, is more of a Tax thing, then a change on how one does business. Except for Profit there is excess revenue, which could then be used for a lot of things, such as paying the CEO more money, or investing back into the organization. Finding loopholes to find a way to scam people to increase the excess revenue is just as bad as a company finding a loop hole to scam people to increase profit.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  84. Opting In / AHS Performance by dualkarnain · · Score: 1

    While I completely agree that opting in / choosing add-ons must be left to the home owner, I have had vastly different experiences with AHS than many folks here, apparently. I had a new home built in Texas around 2005 and chose to add AHS to my home mortgage bill. They initially gave me a $25 copay amount for parts and labor which went up to $75/incident a year later. I lived in that house for 11 years and used AHS several times a year in that time to repair my A/C compressor, replace a water heater, snake plumbing lines, replace a built-in microwave, repair a washing machine, address in-house plumbing leaks and more. AHS more than paid for itself albeit not every claim was fully paid. This is in stark contrast to the home warranty I obtained with the purchase of an older house in Alaska a year ago. It came Choice Home Warranty for 2.5 years and features a $40 copay. I've tried to use them about a dozen times and they've only paid a couple of claims. In every case the home warranty paid little to nothing and extended the outage of each issue. AHS was great, by comparison. Your mileage may vary. I concur with previous posts and comments recommending a small nest egg for home repairs.

  85. Re:if you don't like banks... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    When you put your money in the bank, they just don't lock it up. Awaiting for you to take it out. They invest it, they will use your cash to give people loans who pay it back with interest (where the old fashion savings account gave you a little bit of it). Banks do have FDIC insurance, so if those investments fail, your personal savings up to $100,000 is protected. But when you put your money in the bank, it isn't your money, it is the banks, to do what they want. As an agreement you are allowed to take the equivalent values back.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  86. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    That's all political speeches though.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  87. Re:if you don't like banks... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    The problem is the banks, don't like normal citizens. With penalties on being too poor (High Interest Loans, too small of a balance, overdraft fees, etc...) If you try to get out of the bank they charge you for leaving the bank. As a citizen and getting dinged for trying to survive, they may not like these banks.

    If you had millions of dollars in the bank, they treat you like gold, give you low interest loans, greater interest on your account....

    Yes I understand the millionaire is a lower risk, so they get these perk, because the chance for reward is so high. However ethically it is bad.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  88. Re: Life Pro Tip by sl3xd · · Score: 1

    So which financial institution makes mistakes on your accounts now?

    I hear good things about The First National Bank of Serta.

    There are also less established institutions offering innovative solutions to the financial industry.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  89. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    Where IS it legal?

    And how much did they have to bribe the corrupt state legislature to make it legal?

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  90. Re:if you don't like banks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lower risk when taking a loan means lower interest rates. I get that. I don't understand why you get higher interest rates with more money deposited.

  91. Re:if you don't like banks... by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're talking in vague, hand-wavy analogies here. What's actually going on is the banks are creating an obligation (to you) in exchange for liquidity. The bank then converts that liquidity into productive assets (loans and investments), subject to the requirement that they retain enough to service likely account demands in the near future.

    And either way, it doesn't mean that the banks can't be regulated. From the 1930s to the 1990s retail banks couldn't undertake certain risky businesses that might jeapordize their ability to meet depositor obligations. That was changed by a law signed in 1999 by Bill Clinton, and ten years later the mix of retail and investment banking contributed to a crisis that almost brought down the world economy.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  92. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    I'm fine with the horse porn, thank you, but you can't make me deny the Holocaust! That's filthy.

  93. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by Kobun · · Score: 1

    No. The third bomb (earmarked for Tokyo) was the last one for which materials could be put together for to make in August. Output during September was projected to produce another 3 bombs and then the same in October.

    Three per month is especially bad when you consider that, after the very beginning of the campaign, the military on the receiving end would have learned the critical importance of shooting down otherwise insignificant-looking air formations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  94. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some plac by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Hitler was appointed, not elected. Hitler was never elected. I have no idea why this myth continues to be parroted. Read a book!

    Seriously, use Google. Hitler wasn't elected.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  95. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I pretty much use "free" software, exclusively. I never see any such thing. ;-)

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  96. re: American Home Shield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I'm honestly a bit confused about is this accusation that AHS is nothing but a fraudulent seller of contracts it has no intention of making good on?

    I don't like AHS a bit, but that said? When I bought the house we live in now, the realtor got the seller to pay for a 1 year home warranty on our place through AHS as part of the deal. (I'm sure there was something in it for her, but apparently she was also able to set things up so sellers could add it at a heavily discounted rate - making it an attractive "add in" to help sell the property.)

    We had several appliance problems within that first year and I was able to successfully use the home warranty. It had a $50 deductible for each item, but that was worth paying when they had to replace the thermostatic control board on the electric stove, and when they had to come back about 4 times to fix the dishwasher (replaced the main control board and the aux. board with the control buttons on it, plus cleaned out the drain line and replaced it).

    They always use a second-rate repair service and specify only refurbished replacement parts for things -- so no, I wouldn't recommend anyone pay full price for one of these home warranties. But the fact remains -- they did honor the one we had and things got repaired by using it.

  97. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The entire US space program was built by captured German scientists.

    Although Wernher von Braun and pals were a great help, your statement is mostly false. The father of modern rocketry is Robert H. Goddard, an American.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  98. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some plac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's as if people forget that you completely accused all BLM protesters of violence, just because you don't want to hear what they have to say.

    Wow, the projection here. Racists are racist, whether it's white supremacists or BLM, racism all the same.

  99. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some plac by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    >> self-dentify
    A real knuckle-biter.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  100. Re:if you don't like banks... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    You're talking in vague, hand-wavy analogies here.

    You're using jargon. GP is more understandable.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  101. Re:if you don't like banks... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Keeping any account open costs a bank money. They could pay everyone the same interest rate and charge a single monthly fee on every account, but I'd guess they wouldn't get much business that way. What they do is equivalent, but more palatable and more conducive to getting customers to keep more money in the bank.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  102. Re:Life Pro Tip by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Compared to banks, credit unions are more likely to be run by amateurs who will allow stupid mistakes. For instance in about 1980 the Litton Employees Federal Credit Union did not charge a fee or interest for 45 days on credit card cash advances. You could get a cash advance, deposit it in your LEFCU interest-paying savings account, pay off the advance in 30 days or so, and thus make a little money. It took LEFCU a couple of years to figure out their blunder.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  103. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by muecksteiner · · Score: 1

    He managed to lose the air war which he needed to win if he expected to produce enough for the domestic markets and the war.

    Yet he did come very very close to win the battle of Britain. So close, yet so far. So it goes.

    Actually, if you look at how the actual Battle of Britain played out, it took quite substantial military genius on the part of the Reich to wrest spectacular defeat from the jaws of victory in that particular case. If the German side had kept their cool and done what was logical, the RAF would have been history. Instead, they whittled their resources on petty destruction of civilian targets, and lost focus. Which was of course in character for the bunch of mindless fascists they were, but still, military genius this ain't.

    Mind you, that particular clusterfuck was more Göring's work than Hitler's - but still. Dunkirk and BoB were prime examples of amateurs losing sight of what they originally set out to accomplish. Basically, the invasion of France earlier had worked only because it was led by professionals, and was over before Hitler could intervene. And also because the French military leadership made it rather easy for them, of course. Which the Brits did not.

  104. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by jabuzz · · Score: 1

    Duh, that was because the war in Europe was over by the time of the Trinity test. To suggest had the war in Europe still been raging that the use and distribution of atomic bombs would have been the same is utterly preposterous.

    As for shooting down insignificant looking air formations by 1945 both the German and Japanese air force was so degraded that shooting down insignificant air formations was not possible. The raid over Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not have a fighter escort because one was not needed.

    Even taking that out of the equation the allies could just have put up a P45 air escort over Germany and/or done the bomb raid at night.

    The point remains the German's were fucked because of the atomic bomb. That it's use in Europe was not require does not change the fact that nothing the German's could have done would have helped them.

  105. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Hitler wasn't that bad. It wasn't so much that he was an idiot in military affairs as that his generals were idiots about the overall situation. They thought that the correct thing to do, when losing the war, was to negotiate terms, accept an unfavorable peace, and rebuild. Hitler knew that was not going to happen.

    Therefore, Hitler was only interested in winning, and his generals were interested in losing slowly when things went bad. As things got worse, Hitler had to call for more and more extreme action, since doing something crazy might possibly succeed and win the war, while doing something that looked right would not win the war. Superweapons might not win the war, but by the time they were coming into play the ordinary ones clearly weren't. As long as the war was going well, he put a moratorium on their development. Moreover, Hitler could not trust his generals, since after about mid-1943 they were at cross-purposes, so he couldn't believe them. Does this retreat lead to a potential victory, or is it just going to lose slow? Can I trust this general in a position of power?

    The whole idea of the war, besides killing Jews, was Lebensraum in the East, which meant he had to defeat the Soviet Union. (He was also fanatically anti-Communist.) The initial attack was extremely successful, far more effective than the years of fighting on the Eastern Front in WWI, which caused two revolutions and forced the Russians to accept pretty much what terms the Germans wanted to impose. However, the Soviet Union was far more resilient than either the Tsar's government or Kerensky's provisional republic, which was hardly obvious at the time. Delaying by a year would have given the Soviets time to train and equip the forty tank divisions they had facing Germany, and the attack would have been far less successful.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  106. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Three nukes a month would have devastated Germany in short order. It would have been difficult to get the bombers in after the first couple, but it might not have been necessary, and the Allies would find ways to get the bombers through. They could send formations of B-29s if they had to, expecting to lose some to the detonation.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  107. Re: Negative agreements aren't legal in some place by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    When thinking about the Battle of Britain, you have to realize that this was the first battle of its kind ever, and the Germans were seriously limited in finding out what was working.

    First, they attacked radar stations, and the British found that keeping the stations transmitting was a whole lot easier than keeping them working. Second, they attacked the air defense system. This was working, but the Germans didn't realize that. Then they switched to cities, like all the prewar theorizing had suggested, and the RAF could recover.

    If they had defeated the RAF, the RAF would have pulled back from southern England, and kept its tactical forces ready to intervene in case of an invasion. Any German invasion would have failed horribly. The Germans could possibly get enough forces ashore (although that's really iffy) but never could have supplied them. By then, the British Army had strong formations, although most were underequipped.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  108. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I'd bet that Wells Fargo owns a lot of mortgages it didn't initiate. There's plenty of companies that specialize in arranging mortgages and then selling them immediately. My contract is with one of those, not with Wells Fargo, so denying special Wells Fargo treatment, even with lube, is not violating any agreement.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  109. Re:if you don't like banks... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    If you don't like the whole idea behind the banking system, that's one thing. If you don't like individual banks (or even most banks), that's another and more rational stand. There's a difference.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  110. Switching from Wells Fargo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it hard to believe that a non-Wells Fargo bank could be WORSE.

      Staying with Wells Fargo is like staying in a marriage where your spouse beats you.

  111. Re:Negative agreements aren't legal in some places by Agripa · · Score: 1

    The habit of having a "negative agreement" where you have to check a box and send back if you don't want a service is not legal in some areas.

    Just like something being unconstitutional, it is legal if it is not enforced.

  112. Wells Fraudo by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    Libertarian columnist Vin Suprynowicz once wrote an article (this had to be in the early 1990's or before) in which he labelled them as "Wells Fraudo". I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.