Slashdot Mirror


Wells Fargo Hit With 'Unprecedented' Punishment Over Fake Accounts (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader quotes CNN: The Federal Reserve has dropped the hammer on Wells Fargo, [handing] down unprecedented punishment late Friday for what it called the bank's "widespread consumer abuses," including its notorious creation of millions of fake customer accounts. Wells Fargo won't be allowed to get any bigger than it was at the end of last year -- $2 trillion in assets -- until the Fed is satisfied that it has cleaned up its act. Under pressure from the Fed, the bank agreed to remove three people from the board of directors by April and a fourth by the end of the year. It is the first time the Federal Reserve has imposed a cap on the entire assets of a financial institution, according to a Fed official. "We cannot tolerate pervasive and persistent misconduct at any bank," outgoing Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen said in a statement. Friday was her last day on the job....

Wells Fargo admitted that its workers responded to wildly unrealistic sales goals by creating as many as 3.5 million fake accounts. The bank has also said it forced up to 570,000 customers into unneeded auto insurance... About 20,000 of those customers had their cars wrongfully repossessed in part due to these unwanted insurance charges. In August, Wells Fargo was sued by small business owners who say the bank used deceptive language to dupe mom-and-pop businesses into paying "massive early termination fees." The company was in the headlines again in October for charging about 110,000 mortgage borrowers undue fees.

One U.S. congressman argued that the harsh penalty "demonstrates that we have the tools to rein in Wall Street -- if our regulators have the guts to use them."

Wells Fargo has also spent $3.3 billion on legal bills in just the last three months of 2017.

181 comments

  1. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/c

  2. Regulation by fluffernutter · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is why everything must be regulated.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Regulation by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now it's acceptable to sign people up for services they were never requesting and take money for them as long as they don't 'catch you'. What a wonderful new world we're headed for.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of other banks. This is just a case of "a fool and his money"

      If these rubes can't be bothered to complain about bogus fees and accounts, who are we to stop the slaughter

      Yes. I remember when I lived in California in the 90s and it quickly became clear that my friend was doing business with con artists when he told me some of the shit his bank was pulling. It was Wells Fargo, a bank I'd only heard of in the historical context since I was from Michigan.
      They charged him fees for talking to a teller. Fees for not enough activity in his account for a couple of months. Fees for too much activity. Fees for anything and everything you could imagine.
      This was a scam. He dropped them of course, but there are clearly a lot of idiots that didn't.

    3. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      i dropped them years ago when some outfit processed a transaction on my debit card for which there wasn't enough money in the account. Normal action would be to simply deny the transaction. Instead Wells Fargo honored the transaction, then charged me a "bounced check" fee.
      I asked why and they said "as a courtesy". When I pointed out that it was more like an anti-courtesy the rep on the phone actually laughed (not at me, but at the absurdness of it). They eventually "waived" the bounced check fee only after I proved the transaction was unauthorized. But that was enough for me.

    4. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Back in the day, they started charging me a "check image" fee of 30 cents per check, for the luxury of having them use printer toner on my monthly statement. Of course, I had not requested that they start including check images on my statement, but that's another issue.

      When I called to complain, the nice CSR told me should would waive this month's fee. However, she said it would take 3-4 months for the request to discontinue check images to make it through their system, so I could expect to continue to see additional charges going forward. Of course, she was unable to waive those future fees, so she said I'd have to keep calling back monthly to get those canceled.

      I politely told her that the next time I called it would be to close the account. Magically no future fees showed up on my statement. A modern day banking miracle!

    5. Re:Regulation by zifn4b · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now it's acceptable to sign people up for services they were never requesting and take money for them as long as they don't 'catch you'. What a wonderful new world we're headed for.

      It's never been acceptable to commit fraud and that's precisely what that is. You go to federal pound me in the you know where prison and always have gone there if you commit such an act. That's where Bernie Madoff is right now and will be there until he dies.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    6. Re:Regulation by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      Banking in the us **IS** regulated -- either by the federal government or one of the states depending on the bank's charter. ... Except for PayPal which is for some reason allowed to operate as an unchartered bank in the US.

      Perhaps what you are in favor of is more effective regulation.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    7. Re:Regulation by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Your comment makes me think you didn't notice that this has been going on for seven years now...

      IOW, no, what Wells Fargo is being nailed for has nothing to do with Trump being President....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Regulation by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Yeah... the bastards at WFB did the same crap to me back then. I was stuck with the BS for three years as I was out of the country and couldn't open a new account. Then I opened a credit union account and was quite happy for nearly 15 years.

      Now more of my banking is with Chase, as I get private client services due to my business. What a world of a difference!

    9. Re: Regulation by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, WFB kept buying other smaller banks and sticking it to all of their customers. That was the growth strategy, apparently; be a parasite on existing customers to increase capital sufficiently to buy competition, and parasitically infest their customers too.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    10. Re: Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wells Fargo didn't really need the fee income, that was just icing on the cake. The real money came from putting a lot of loans on their balance sheet and thus inflating it, making them seem really big and thus enjoying better borrowing terms. The dummy loans were risk-free because the recipients didn't even know about them and therefore would never draw on the credit. The dummy loans were like reserves on their balance sheet; they could use them as collateral with no risk of having to draw down real reserves (or borrow) to cover the extended credit.

      The fees were just a distraction. The real money was in the risk-free inflation of their balance sheet.

    11. Re:Regulation by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's not true that it has nothing to do with Trump being president. It *is* unfortunately true that the Democrats wouldn't have been any better. And judging by some of the nominee's comments right before the election, the Greens wouldn't have been any better either. If you want to think the "Libertarians" would have been better, be my guest...but don't expect me to believe it.

      On *this* issue there were four, apparently identical, choices. Up until slightly before the election I had thought that the Greens might be different, but the nominee disabused me. There were issues that distinguished their public positions (would they have kept their commitments?), but this wasn't one of them. They were ALL soft on prosecution of business crimes.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Regulation by Local+ID10T · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now it's acceptable to sign people up for services they were never requesting and take money for them as long as they don't 'catch you'. What a wonderful new world we're headed for.

      It's never been acceptable to commit fraud and that's precisely what that is. You go to federal pound me in the you know where prison and always have gone there if you commit such an act. That's where Bernie Madoff is right now and will be there until he dies.

      And yet... that is exactly what happened in this case, and no bankers are going to jail.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    13. Re:Regulation by burtosis · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the only ones that are going to take an ass pounding are WF victi^h^h^h^h^h customers. This unaccountability is the result of unlimited money and the citizens are no longer fairly represented by either side.

    14. Re:Regulation by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Regulated,hmm, how many people went to jail, none, bwa hah hah, no regulation there chump, you have just been scammed. So how come I can not steal money for years, invest it for profit and when I am caught, pay apparently some of it back, pay a tiny fine, keep much of what was stolen and keep all the profits generated by that invested stolen money. That's not regulation against crime, that's regulated free loans for the rich and greedy.

      When they start handing out custodial sentences I call that regulation, when they pay small fines for mass theft, I call that a permit fee for legalised crime.

      Claim regulation, then how many went to jail, that is the only answer people want, who went to jail and how long will they be going there for. How about confiscation of assets associated with crime, you steal people's cars for a bag of weed, for conspired fraud against millions of citizens, where it the confiscation of assets of the executives involved who earned bloody bonuses based upon those crimes. Not even going to go for the bonuses. Wells Fargo just paid a permit fee to steal of customers, just like the next one they will pay and the one after that and on into the future, as long as they pay a kickback to pimp lobbyists and the string of politic prostitutes selling rides to corporations, riding the taxpayers into the ground.

      HOW MANY WENT TO JAIL?!?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    15. Re: Regulation by thsths · · Score: 2

      > The real money was in the risk-free inflation of their balance sheet.

      Indeed. Except of course it was fraudulent. Thinking they could get away with opening Millions of credit accounts without anybody ever noticing is a surprising amount of hubris. Or is that normal in the banking sector?

    16. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucky you. I was out of the country for an extended period and made the mistake of calling WF and letting them know that I'd be overseas for at least a year. Their response? They summarily closed my account, claiming that it was illegal for a "non-resident" to have one. They also very conveniently kept the $450 or so I had in the account, which was all the money I had in the world, obviously figuring (correctly) that--since I was on the other side of it, and I no longer had any money--there was absolutely fuck-all I could do about it.

      I sometimes hope there's a Hell just so I can think about those bastards roasting in it.

  3. Death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Back in the mayhem of 08 and 09 I remember both parties talking about death penalties for banks that pulled shenanigans that harm the economy. This seems like the perfect test case for that death penalty and they didnâ(TM)t do it.

    1. Re:Death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Execution? Really? If you wanna see the collapse of the economy (and the start of the next civil war/end of the U.S.), then by all means...

    2. Re:Death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm alright Jack" should become the US National Anthem.

    3. Re:Death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you wanna see the collapse of the economy

      You neoliberals are disgusting.

      You can't punish people that commit financial crime against millions of people because it would hurt the economy! You can't punish people that commit war crimes because it would hurt the economy! Your entire worldview and morality system is based upon the current economic system and the status quo.

    4. Re:Death penalty by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pretty sure the OP meant corporate death penalty. They lose their status as a corporation, and all protections against liability that it includes.

      Ideally it would basically make all shareholders members of a basic partnership, they would share in all expenses and liability that the corporation previously incurred - the partners wouldn't be able to get out fast enough plus no one would be willing to buy their share of the partnership. This would be better than imprisonment IMO.

      Since this is a bank however, things get tricky as you can't have citizens losing their savings. In this case you'd have to treat it like the FDIC does a bankrupt bank - due the shear size of the bank it would become a circus trying to divide the customers up to other banks.

    5. Re:Death penalty by zifn4b · · Score: 0

      Back in the mayhem of 08 and 09 I remember both parties talking about death penalties for banks that pulled shenanigans that harm the economy. This seems like the perfect test case for that death penalty and they didnâ(TM)t do it.

      The death penalty is not the solution to the problem. The Glass-Steagall Act should have never been repealed.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    6. Re:Death penalty by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Execution? Really? If you wanna see the collapse of the economy (and the start of the next civil war/end of the U.S.), then by all means...

      Bring it on. I'll be sitting on my homestead and it would be unwise for anyone to come onto my property to start trouble. That's why you need the ability to protect and take care of your own self. Society is full of assholes and the system is broke.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    7. Re:Death penalty by andymadigan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bullshit. Revoke their charter.

      When banks merge, they're sometimes forced to transfer some of their customers to other banks. Take all of Wells Fargo's customer accounts and do that, parcel them off to other banks. Sell off the assets and loans to other banks. Take the proceeds, and any remaining liabilities and put them in a government owned "bad bank" to close out Wells Fargo's business.

      Take the bank records and hand them to the justice department and state AGs, have them start combing through for fraudulently opened accounts, find the bankers who opened the accounts and charge them with fraud and identity theft. Sure, the executives and managers are responsible (and should be charged and imprisoned) for creating a criminal environment and doing nothing to stop it, even encouraging it - but the individual bankers are still responsible for fraud and should be held accountable with prison time.

      Finally - nothing for the investors, they invested in a criminal organization, they voted for a criminal board, and so they get nothing. All Wells Fargo stock is cancelled. All assets and proceeds from sales go to the aforementioned "bad bank".

      It's all doable, it's all possible. For my money, Wells Fargo will try to somehow weasel out of this penalty. First they'll try to get a Fed chairman appointed who will drop the penalty. Then, when that doesn't work, they'll try to hide assets and continued criminality in shell companies and subsidiaries. In about a year when that comes to light, maybe we'll finally see a big bank go down.

      In the meantime, if you're trusting your money to Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase, HSBC, Citibank, or any of the other big banks, stop. Go find a bank that won't charge you a monthly fee, won't charge $35 for an overdraft, and isn't trying to defraud you. They're out there, they're not difficult to find.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    8. Re:Death penalty by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the investors were not complicit in the crime. Losing everything is wrong, although they should get a big haircut for sure.

      What should be done is that they are broken into independent banks on a state-by-state basis (ideally 3-4 different banks in major markets), with the national entity wound down over a few years. All senior executives involved should be banned for life from FDIC insured banks or publicly traded companies.

    9. Re: Death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't find a bank, go find another financial institution, namely a credit union. Not profit driven as they are not accountable to shareholders.

      My CU literally costs me nothing. All they do is provide my family and I with services. I can see a teller as often as I want, but I rarely do because I can scan a check to deposit it with my smartphone or pay bills online or get cash from just about any credit union ATM for free (including all 7-11 ATMs).

      I will pay a minimal fee for a cashier's check or money order to pay the IRS for my tax bill. This year I believe I can use a money order as the bill is less than $1K. I don't keep regular checks any more as I only send one paper check per year, to the IRS.

    10. Re:Death penalty by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      I believe that the current front runner in the new national anthem contest is Donald Trump, Mike Pence,Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan singing "The Road Goes On Forever And The Party Never Ends" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    11. Re:Death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop larping as some badass. A quick Google search finds out exactly who you are and you look like you'd have a heart attack after taking 2 minutes to "run" the 100 meter. Buying a gun doesn't make you hard you sheltered pussy.

    12. Re: Death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Values may go up as well as down. Complicity is irrelevant; they made a bad investment; there is no reason why anyone else should be shouldering their âoemisfortuneâ

    13. Re:Death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the investors were not complicit in the crime. Losing everything is wrong, although they should get a big haircut for sure.

      Every investment is a gamble. Investing in a company that has stock that tanks or otherwise has to declare bankruptcy and being overextended means the investors get nothing is a risk that one must always accept. Whether they're outright complicit or not, investors (aka owners) are the last on the list for repayment and there's no reason they should expect a dime, especially if the company is criminally liable.

      It really is no different than if you invested in the mob and lost all your money because the drugs were confiscated.

    14. Re:Death penalty by DRJlaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ideally it would basically make all shareholders members of a basic partnership, they would share in all expenses and liability that the corporation previously incurred - the partners wouldn't be able to get out fast enough plus no one would be willing to buy their share of the partnership. This would be better than imprisonment IMO.

      "Ideally?"

      All those who purchased shares in a publicly traded corporation, even prior to any criminal act, suddenly have their limited liability investment converted into a unlimited liability investment without having committed any wrongful act themselves.

      No violation of the fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments there at all.

      But we can all be happy that investing for retirement will suddenly place everything that you own, as well as your future wage income, at intolerable risk now that you're a potential general partner in hundreds or thousands of businesses.

    15. Re:Death penalty by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It may not be the solution, but it's and appropriate intermediate step.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re:Death penalty by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Bullshit they did nothing when this news broke. If they fired board of directors, hired private PI and asked LE to prosecute the offenders I might care about investors. This is what might actually have happened if they thought liquidation was a risk.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    17. Re:Death penalty by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If I invest in someone to get rid of someone else, I get charged with murder, too.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      due the shear size of the bank

      They need a big one to fleece customers.

    19. Re: Death penalty by macsimcon · · Score: 1

      How absurd. Banking literally requires zero skill and zero talent. It just requires money.

      The minute you threaten the death penalty, all the criminals leave the market, along with a ton of risk. The remaining honest banks will clean up with less competition and no lawbreaking.

    20. Re:Death penalty by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, the investors were not complicit in the crime.

      Yes they were.

      The company is granted limited liability by the people (in the form of the state) in return for an obligation to obey the law. (In any sensible jurisdiction, there would be a few other obligations too - like not paying the shareholders if the employees are not paid adequately to survive).

      If the company does not fulfil its side of the bargain, then "poof". As others have pointed out - shareholders need to know that if they invest in an organisation whose whole existence depends on scamming people, then they are liable for the consequences. If I lend some money to a neighbour to go and buy dope and sell it, and he gets caught - I expect to lose my money. This is the same thing.

      Of course, you may choose to live in a crime-infested neighbourhood - but that does not mean others think it is a great idea.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    21. Re:Death penalty by DCFusor · · Score: 1
      Nope. Investors are "grandma's pension catfood fund" - she's innocent. And public servants don't want to work for their pay. So, it's both immoral (grandma doesn't get her cat food) and impractical. So it satisfies neither "should" or "will" tests on any level in the current system. Too bad the naive approaches won't work here, but it is what it is. No one's going to overhaul the whole system, sadly, till it gets burned down in anger... Even if you limit losses to the few "whales" you really don't solve this one malefactor's issues. It's the incentives for the people in control of this and other major outfits that are hosed up - and those are the basis for the whole financial engineering system.

      This shows a model of public corporations as primitive AI's just doing what they're incentivised to do and it's pretty close.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    22. Re: Death penalty by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      Credit Unions are fine, too. So long as they don't act like the big banks. I've seen CUs with ridiculously high overdraft fees (and pushy attempts to get people to opt-in to "overdraft protection service"), for instance. I dealt with one CU that I considered opening an HSA at, they dropped the ball repeatedly and even misrepresented their services (I wanted an HSA that wouldn't require faxing/mailing a form for each deposit).

      I'm sure there are plenty of good CUs out there, but I think people do put too much faith in the idea of a credit union. When you look at their actual fees, policies, and service, they're not always as good as they should be.

      That being said, my primary "bank" account is an FDIC insured sweep at a brokerage firm with free checks, free ATM access (any ATM), and no fees.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    23. Re:Death penalty by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      It's not immoral for investors in a bankrupt company to lose their investment. It doesn't matter if the company went bankrupt due to lack of sales, civil judgements, or criminal penalties. If the investors want to seek damages they can sue the board members, executives, and managers who oversaw the criminal activities.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    24. Re:Death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vietnam knows how to deal with corrupt bankers. They apply the actual death penalty.

    25. Re:Death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why the whole system needs to be burned to the ground. When Corporations were created it was a basic assumption that shareholders would keep the corporation in line through their control of the board of directors. This assumption no longer obtains.
      Since shareholders can't control the board of directors they have no effectively no responsibility for the fraudulent actions of the corporation? No rather the fact that they, or their agents, have decided to invest in a corporation that practices fraud should mean that they are held responsible. They should be more careful where they put their money. I have quite a few investments and am fairly careful where I put my money and how I let my retirement fund managers invest my money.
      Why should stockholders and their losses be considered of a higher priority than the losses suffered by the victims of corporate fraud? If the stockholders don't take responsibility then they deserve what they get.

    26. Re:Death penalty by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      It may not be the solution, but it's and appropriate intermediate step.

      Well if you apply the death penalty here you should also apply it to people who don't pay their taxes or default on their loans then too. Are you sure you want to apply the same standard across the system?

      --
      We'll make great pets
    27. Re:Death penalty by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Look up "Corporate Death Penalty". I think you're misunderstanding the whole discussion.

      --

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

      The point of investing in stock is that you have a responsibility to ensure that the board of directors and the officers they choose manage the company so that you make money. It's not some sort of free, let someone else do the work thing. That is the fundamental problem with corporatism today. Investors aren't. Investors are simply handing their money to someone else so the investor doesn't have to do the work for which they are responsible. Sure, you hand your money to a mutual fund manager or a pension fund or some other collective investment - except that the people managing that do not have the same incentive to make sure the corporation is run well. All they care about is whether the stock goes up next quarter - which is why the board and officers care about the same thing. When incorporation started (basically in the coffee shops of London, like Lloyds) the intent was that your share of the stock would pay a dividend from the profit generated by the corporation. In the nineteenth century, robber barons discovered that they could make money by manipulating the stock price and leave the smaller investors with the (sometimes literally) train wreck. All we've done with collective investments is made everyone a wannabe robber baron.

    29. Re:Death penalty by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Why should stockholders and their losses be considered of a higher priority than the losses suffered by the victims of corporate fraud? If the stockholders don't take responsibility then they deserve what they get.

      They're not considered a higher priority. The stockholders take the losses of the fines associated with the corporation. The stockholders may lose their entire investment if, for example, the corporation goes bankrupt.

      The stockholders' indirect liability, however, is limited to their investment so that even if the risk if loss is not well quantified the potential amount of loss is.

      You want to burn the system to the ground simply because you cannot seize everything the stockholder has in the name of corporate wrongdoing? Tough. We're not returning to a time when the only things that you could invest in are physical assets and handful of small businesses that you could personally supervise (as a general partner) and we're not discarding the enormous productivity benefits that have been obtained through large-scale capital investments in the form of corporations.

      No rather the fact that they, or their agents, have decided to invest in a corporation that practices fraud should mean that they are held responsible.

      And the fact that you chose to have a child that committed a crime means that you should be held equally responsible. Gotcha.

      I have quite a few investments and am fairly careful where I put my money and how I let my retirement fund managers invest my money.

      Bullshit. Name and date them. I'll find at least one incident of wrongdoing among them, and then seize everything that you own. And you'll deserve what you get, apparently.

    30. Re:Death penalty by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Look up "Corporate Death Penalty". I think you're misunderstanding the whole discussion.

      I don't misunderstand. If we were talking about that, someone should have clearly communicated that. The problem with this discussion in that context would be incompetent communication skills.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    31. Re:Death penalty by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Since shareholders can't control the board of directors they have no effectively no responsibility for the fraudulent actions of the corporation?

      Fundamentally, mostly. Any money I've invested in a corporation can go away if it goes bankrupt. (I've had that happen to me. Possibly I should have gone for a more shotgun strategy with risky investments.) That's enough incentive for most people.

      In order to accept greater responsibility, I'd have to have some actual real control on the board, which I don't have, and the ability to find crimes the corporation was committing. Since this is impossible, I'm not going to invest because I could lose everything I've got, not just a few tens of thousands of dollars. The risk is too high.

      And there goes the economy, as it becomes exceedingly difficult to raise capital for new enterprises.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re:Death penalty by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Without a larger economy, your homestead is unlikely to do better than support you in a very basic and quite shaky standard of living. However, cutting yourself off from the outside world like that would get you off Slashdot.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re:Death penalty by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Um, who is this "they" that you speak of? Are you referring to a very large number of unconnected people, each with only a limited stake in the company and other things to do with their time and money?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:Death penalty by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      (In any sensible jurisdiction, there would be a few other obligations too - like not paying the shareholders if the employees are not paid adequately to survive).

      If the company survives, it will be required to pay its employees. If it goes bankrupt, there is a specified order in which people are to be repaid, and shareholders are dead last and will not receive a dime (businesses don't go bankrupt if they don't have liabilities exceeding assets, and therefore all assets are exhausted before all the creditors are paid).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re: Death penalty by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Skydiving also requires zero skill and zero talent, I suppose. To do either banking or skydiving and avoid going splat, I'd advise skill, talent, and education.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    36. Re: Death penalty by macsimcon · · Score: 1

      Really? Skydiving requires zero skill? OK, if you've never been, let's both go. I'll live. You'll die.

      Banking is for talentless C student losers who are too dumb to sell insurance.

    37. Re: Death penalty by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Banking requires talent. Being a teller doesn't require much talent, but when you get higher up it's demanding. You seem to grossly underestimate the skill needed in activities you haven't bothered to understand.

      I picked skydiving because my brother did it for a while. He quit when he broke his back, after making a mistake, and had to tell Mom he'd been skydiving. (She worried.) Yes, it requires skill, but so does banking.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. I wonder by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    I was actually wondering today who the hell still banks with Wells Fargo in 2018? They are the 3rd largest bank in the US. There must be tons of people and businesses that still work with them. I don't get it.

    1. Re:I wonder by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Oh, c'mon! Their money laundering services are second to none! The ads write themselves. 9 out of 10 smugglers agree.

      The 10th is with Bank of America.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:I wonder by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I was with them through all this. I'm not with them now. They didn't attempt to sign me up to anything. They even sold off some of my Wells Fargo Investments accounts, but not all.

      Why Wells Fargo? They are the only national bank with a solid presence in Alaska. There is no other national choice.

    3. Re:I wonder by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      A lot of it is not by choice, I had a family member that wound up with them after they bought up a smaller bank. I'm guessing more than half their customers were obtained in this way.

      Its hard and tedious to do, but as soon as your bank changes names, find someone else.

      The other part about banks being 'bought out' or 'merging' is that the FDIC intentionally hides that a bank is bankrupt until the change over of customers to the other bank is completed, so that there isn't a run on the bankrupt bank. My favorite bank went down like this because one of its members of the board forced the loan officer to authorize normally bad loans to his buddy corporations - of course they defaulted and it ruined the bank.

    4. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wells Fargo was a banking giant out of the midwest with solid values you could trust. Until they started getting a bit greedy and merged with East Coast bank titan Wachovia back in 2008. Talk about fruit of the forbidden tree.

      Wachovia corrupted them from the inside out.

      And you wonder why these flyover states are so hesitant to trust things from the two coasts.

      Someone else here wrote about their money laundering services, and that is no joke. Wachovia was chock full of snakes, and now Wells Fargo is infested, and they're going to be shaking snakes out their pant legs for some time to come.

    5. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the other sixty smugglers who keep their cash in bitcoin?

    6. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They keep buying my mortgage, every time I refinance with someone else.

    7. Re:I wonder by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I haven't trusted Wells Fargo since around 1968 when they froze some customers accounts because a politico asked them to do so. It was illegal, but doing anything about it would have been both expensive and problematic, because the political power was instigating the action. And expensive is difficult to handle when your bank account is frozen.

      --

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

      The DPRK was grateful for the donations, I'm sure.

  5. 'Unprecedented'?! by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    What? You mean somebody is going to jail?? Customers will be compensated?? The bank is turning over a new leaf?

    Say it ain't so!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:'Unprecedented'?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed - unprecedented would be the whole thing treated as a RICO operation ending with mass convictions and dissolving the bank with the account balances being assured and the remaining money confiscated. The mob doesn't get to keep their assets just because they organized a front company that also sells pizza to customers in the area.

  6. Harsh penalties? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In what world is this a harsh penalty, considering the scope and graveness of the transgressions? It's barely even a slap on the wrist!

  7. Just a cap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just a cap, for screwing over thousands of people? That's not even a slap on the wrist. Management should be in jail and the bank should have to pay penalties to the customers they wronged. Large penalties.

    1. Re:Just a cap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow they really threw the whole brochure at them!

      Edit: Captcha: CHEATED

  8. We should be proactive, not reactive like this. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful
    No company or bank or institution should be allowed to have assets totaling more than 2% of the GDP of our country.

    No bank doing business in America, whether it is domestic or foreign or sovereign, should have assets more than 2% of our GDP.

    No investment bank should have FDIC insured deposits.

    All retail banks with FDIC insure deposits should have equal access to investment banks.

    Courts are ruling corporations are people. All the hard won freedoms and liberties of real citizens is being usurped by these corporations. Once these corporations become more powerful than the government, it is game over for real citizens.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:We should be proactive, not reactive like this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No company or bank or institution should be allowed to have assets totaling more than 2% of the GDP of our country.

      Assets and GDP have nothing to do with each other. Why are you comparing the two? Not that I'm defending Wells Fargo, mind you. Somebody should be going to jail for fraud, but that's not going to happen.

    2. Re:We should be proactive, not reactive like this. by geek · · Score: 1

      Why 2%? Is this some magic number? Why not 1% or 5%?

    3. Re:We should be proactive, not reactive like this. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      It is the logic similar to blockchain validation. If any one entity controls more than 50% of all the computing power used in blockchain validation, it is game over for all other players. That entity can validate any transaction suo moto.

      Number of entities that can influence 50% of the economic output of the country is the key number. We want it to be large. But if we cap it as too low, some of the players might not gain the clout necessary to survive in the global market place.

      But, your claim that I am pulling this number out of thin air is valid. We need it to be large enough for our companies to fight in global market place. But it needs to be small enough so that no one company or a cartel controls a very large part of our economy.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:We should be proactive, not reactive like this. by geek · · Score: 1

      This isn't blockchain. I'm not going to defend WF but at the same time, there are plenty of instances in which a company might be larger than 2% GDP, especially companies that work directly with the government and/or multinational ones.

      A company shouldn't be punished for being successful. If the valuation is legitimate who are you to strip them of what they earned?

      If I decide you make too much, do I get to come to your house and take it from you? Just because?

    5. Re:We should be proactive, not reactive like this. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      The wealthiest individual is worth less than 100 Billion. These corporations are over 2 trillion. So no single individual is likely to be hit. Anyway corporations just need to split themselves at some size for their own corporate governance sake.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:We should be proactive, not reactive like this. by geek · · Score: 1

      "The wealthiest individual is worth less than 100 Billion."

      Not true. Those lists exempt everyone in government and royalty. The Rothschild family for example is estimated to be worth well north of 2 trillion, but they stay under the radar because they've been given titles of nobility in Europe. It's also why you don't see dictators on the lists. The Gate's and Bezo's of the world are chump change compared to the large banking families

      Look at this:
      https://imgur.com/reLdwNx?r

      Now ask yourself how many people on Earth can get away with poking British royalty in the chest and telling them what to do. Even Hillary bent the knee for these people:
      http://www.trueactivist.com/hi...

      Gates and Bezo's are impressive but they have no real power.

      "Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes itâ(TM)s laws" - Amschel Rothchilds

      That's just one family. There are 19 beneficiaries in the family now, each estimated individually to be worth over 200 billion each. That's just money they have immediate access too, they control a whole lot more than that.

      I understand people taking issues with a corporation. Fine, I get that. But a corp will always be profit driven. The elite families that really control things are above profit at this point. They already have it all.

    7. Re:We should be proactive, not reactive like this. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Thanks, you are well informed. I will learn a lot.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  9. Who's gonna start the office pool by PuddleBoy · · Score: 0

    on how long it will be before Trump & Co. declares that this 'impedes US business' from making America great again?

    The Market knows what's best for the country!

    1. Re:Who's gonna start the office pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But didn't this happen UNDER Trump? Or is it Obama's fault? I'm so confused ...

    2. Re:Who's gonna start the office pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All bad things = Obama
      All good things = Trump

      Don't you know how ruling a country works?

    3. Re:Who's gonna start the office pool by HiThere · · Score: 1

      How about it's they design of the system where the regulatory bodies are controlled by those they are supposed to regulate.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Who's gonna start the office pool by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There is no decision of Obama's that Trump can't make worse.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  10. Finally by GrahamJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Finally we find out how big a company has to get before the government cares about abuses of power:

    *puts pinky to corner of mouth*

    TWO TRILLION DOLLARS

  11. How Does one Prevent Assets From Increasing? by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    When the price of real estate goes up 10% are they forced to give away 10% of their real estate? When their customers pay their bills, which include some percentage of profits, where do their profits go?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:How Does one Prevent Assets From Increasing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's their problem, and their best solution is to fix things to the fed's satisfaction very quickly.

      It's legitimately a hard problem, but wow, that was a blatant fuckup and they should be able to police their own without the feds stepping in.

    2. Re:How Does one Prevent Assets From Increasing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...where do their profits go?" They SHOULD go to the cost of incarcerating those responsible.

  12. Summary by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One U.S. congressman argued that the harsh penalty "demonstrates that we have the tools to rein in Wall Street -- if our regulators have the guts to use them." Uh, no it does not. Wells Fargo has been nailed time and again for abuse yet they continue to do it. The only way to stop it is to make the executives subject to criminal punishment with jail time. Instead, they get away scot-free with a generous golden parachute. This makes me really cheer when the market goes down!

    1. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wells Fargo is an LLC. LLC means executives will never be subject to criminal punishment with jail time.

    2. Re:Summary by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Actually it doesn't mean that, it means that the investors won't. The executives are, in theory, subject to criminal punishment with jail time. Isn't it strange how rarely that happens.

      It's as if those enforcing the laws don't want them to hurt wealthy individuals (except an extremely occasional designated fall-guy).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Summary by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      The 'liability' part of limited liability does not refer to criminal liability.

      If a shareholder or company officer commit a criminal act then they can be prosecuted whether the company is a limited liability organisation or not.

      Limited liability refers to the fact that the owners of the company (the shareholders) are not liable for the debts of the company - if you own a limited company then the bank and other creditors cannot take your house and car if the company goes bust and can't pay its debts.

      In my opinion, in this particular issue with Wells Fargo, it doesn't seem to have been made clear what crime the senior management have committed that would warrant prosecution. It seems clear that they have made some poor business decisions in setting targets that have incentivised others to commit crimes (the middle management and trader who setup these false accounts, who should be prosecuted), but it isn't clear that the senior management have done anything illegal.

    4. Re:Summary by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yes, but since the shareholders don't have any effective control over the actions of the corporation, they basically can't be held responsible for the criminal actions of the corporation. Only for their own. This is, I believe, set aside if you own more that some amount (10%?) of the stock of the corporation, at which point you are considered to exercise some degree of control.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  13. Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    n/c

    No, bad. If you want it to matter, you punish the people who made the decisions and the people who should have known about it. You also punish the CEO and possibly other board members--just like you fire the captain of a navy ship that gets in an accident even if it's not their fault. You do NOT punish the shareholding public, because they don't actually have meaningful control over what the bank does. This is just stupid.

    1. Re:Bad by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes they do. Shareholders elect board members. If they know they will lose money should the company misbehave, they'll start taking their board member elections a lot more seriously.

    2. Re:Bad by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And if they sell the shares, with incumbent overall loss of asset value, then those with more shares in the bank are punished further. But maybe not far enough.

      Wells Fargo is still fighting suits from the 2008 meltdown to this day, and Wells Fargo was part of the problem: fraudulent lending. None of this is new, it's just gone further berserk. Only rarely is there a bad reputation in banking, and Wells Fargo has one. But they don't care, and I doubt they ever will.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re:Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they do. Shareholders elect board members. If they know they will lose money should the company misbehave, they'll start taking their board member elections a lot more seriously.

      Um. Not really. In public companies, the power the average shareholder has over a board election is about zero. That's like saying that if the President breaks a law, we should punish voters because they can just elect a new one.

    4. Re: Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that's part of the consent decree, right?

      The CEO was already canned, and as part of this deal, four board members are being shown the door.

    5. Re: Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes; thatâ(TM)s how itâ(TM)s supposed to work. Free passes would just are the situation worse.

    6. Re:Bad by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      In public companies, the power the average shareholder has over a board election is about zero.

      But collectively they have a lot of power. They can force out board members, and they can initiate a shareholder lawsuit. The Fed is forcing out some board members, but I doubt if that will be the end of it. The shareholders' lawyers will be squeezing those directors for everything they can get.

      Shareholders can also chose to not buy shares in companies with ethically questionable policies, or even from companies that shield their board from shareholder influence. Corporations with transparent and accountable governance tend to perform better. Warren Buffett figured this out many decades ago, and investing in "clean" companies is a big reason why he is the 3rd richest man in the world.

      That's like saying that if the President breaks a law, we should punish voters because they can just elect a new one.

      Dumb analogy. Selling your shares is a lot easier than renouncing your citizenship.

    7. Re: Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoopie doo. The scapegoats have been fired, consent has been reached, how stupid of me. That of course makes everything OK again.

      Given that they have been in charge of outright criminal activity, WHY ARE THEY SHOWN THE DOOR, NOT INTO A CELL?

      Hard on crimes, my ass. Only if the perp is poor.

    8. Re:Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "if the President breaks a law, we should punish voters because they can just elect a new one."

      Isn't this the effect of sanctions on Iran, North Korea, Russia?

    9. Re:Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "We cannot tolerate pervasive and persistent misconduct at any bank," said the judge to the bank robbers, as he stripped them of their board position in the American Bank Robbers Association. The judge added sternly: "We can only hope that they learn their lesson".

    10. Re:Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Iran and North Korea (and not to difficult to argue Russia as well), there are no voters. The sanctions are to make life difficult for the ruling regime, nobody is expecting a revolution in these places due to the sanctions. As such, I've always viewed the citizens in these cases as collateral damage.

    11. Re: Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny that you say that. He is a major stockholder of Wells Fargo

    12. Re:Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you own stock? Because every stock I own shows board members and cronies holding 50+x% of the stock. Much like voting in US elections, shareholder votes for board members have only the appearance of choice. And while there are exceptions, by and large the game was rigged long ago. I could choose of course not to own shares a company for which I don't get a say of board members, but good like finding a Fortune 500 company where that is not the case.

    13. Re:Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumb analogy. Selling your shares is a lot easier than renouncing your citizenship.

      Dumb statement. Renouncing your (US) citizenship is as simple as scrawling out "I renounce my US citizenship", signing it, and handing it to someone at a nearby embassy.

      Selling shares requires a phone call or an online sell order, followed by mountains of paperwork and taxes and stupid fucking bureaucracy created by the government.

    14. Re:Bad by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      The thieves are spending the illgotten gains from the clients. The clients will never be able to recover the unauthorized charges or overcharges or services that were not ordered.

      So, WF, as you have done in the past, and continue to do clandistinely, steal from others to pay this obligation

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    15. Re:Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something some anonymous know-nothing apparently just made up:

      Dumb statement. Renouncing your (US) citizenship is as simple as scrawling out "I renounce my US citizenship", signing it, and handing it to someone at a nearby embassy.

      The reality:

      For all practical purposes, you remain a US citizen until you get the US Government to agree that you're not one any longer, by issuing you a certificate of loss of nationality.

      Getting this to happen is not nearly as simple as you imagine it it to be. There are multiple forms to fill out, and at least one consular visit with an in-person interview is required. Consular officials are required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that you are of sound mind and under no duress. They're also supposed to try to talk you out of it. In addition, there are taxation issues, and you may have to pay an expatriation tax.

    16. Re:Bad by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Let's get specific. I own some 3M stock, and have corresponding votes in company elections. Suppose I decide that a board member, call him Joe, needs to go. My votes are insignificant by themselves. Shares held by mutual funds are almost certain to vote as the board recommends, which likely means voting for Joe. Most individual shareholders aren't going to know why Joe should go.

      To accomplish anything, I'd have to run a major and probably multinational ad campaign to unseat Joe. I don't have the time or money to do that.

      It's much simpler to sell the stock, and I will if I think the company isn't going to be clean. My mother was quite successful by picking more or less local companies that had reputations for treating their employees and customers well, and I'm following her example.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  14. End Financial Crisis WF considered the good bank by sasparillascott · · Score: 1

    In retrospect, its very ironic. Wells Fargo didn't actively pump up and create sham mortgages and was considered one of the few good larger banks at the time - in the mean time their Execs goals only mentality had their employees creating fake accounts etc...

    In the past (prior to the financial crisis) the highest WF officers knowingly associated with this behavior would have been marched off to prison. None of that, just like the financial crisis, none of the actual actors get punished, again...

  15. The financial sector is already highly regulated! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The financial sector in the US is extraordinarily highly regulated, even after some relatively recent attempts to deregulate some aspects of it.

    If anything, I think this matter shows just how pointless regulation so often is.

    Regulation doesn't actually prevent incidents from happening.

    Regulation doesn't provide any real remedies if something has happened.

    All that regulation does is increase costs, without any benefit being gained for these costs.

    Even worse, these increased costs caused by regulation mean that it's much harder for anything resembling real competition to happen in the sector.

    It's extremely rare to see a new entrant in the US consumer financial sector, and in fact we've actually seen a lot of consolidation take place.

    Time and time again we've seen that the best environment for everyday consumers is when there are many players, with lots of competition not just on price, but also on the quality of service.

    In summary, regulation has proven itself to not work, and in fact it has proven itself to be harmful in many ways.

    Suggesting more regulation just indicates shortsightedness, I think.

  16. NOPE! by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If someone fraudulently creates an account in someone's name and then incurs charges on that account, that's at least fraud and probably ID theft. If anyone here reading did that, we'd be talking to a judge or sitting in a cell (eventually). Wells Fargo does it to millions and a few people lose their jobs. If corporations want to be considered "people" then they have to be accountable as "people". Equal Justice Under The Law must be applied to these at least a few of these C level executives before I'll believe that we all can expect the same treatment for the same offense.

    --
    Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
  17. In this situation the corruption is pervasive by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

    and the company needs to die. There is no other remedy that will purge all of the greed that this institution has used to justify this behavior. It cannot be effectively punished which will otherwise correct or otherwise bring it back into a socially acceptable direction.

    It's far past time to institute a corporate death penalty. With the courts neutered w.r.t. other financial remedies, this is what we are left with.

  18. Not Even Close To "Harsh" by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Their entire business is founded upon defrauding and entrapping "customers" into paying pays. Capping them at 2 TRILLION dollars is not even a fucking punishment, they would be well below that if they even just stopped the sleazy bullshit. The only correct solution is to force them to close down and throw their entire board in jail for life. "Harsh" would be executing the board members after extensive torture, but even that is debatable.

  19. This is why I use a credit union by DevNull127 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know why everybody doesn't just use a credit union. They're non-profits, so they simply have no reason to pull the kind of crap that Wells Fargo did to hundreds of thousands of people.

    If you hate banks, remember: you do have another choice.

    1. Re:This is why I use a credit union by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      But isn't that socialism? Surely credit unions are extremely uncompetitive and will soon all disappear because they don't have a profit motive to drive them to greater efficiency?

    2. Re:This is why I use a credit union by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      No, it's pure capitalism. the credit union members are OWNERS and get the profits.

    3. Re:This is why I use a credit union by dryeo · · Score: 1

      So socialist capitalism, or is it capitalist socialism. It's like co-ops and worker owned businesses, socialist constructs working in a capitalist world.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:This is why I use a credit union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why everybody doesn't just use a credit union.

      Because their level of service sucks. Their website sucks. Their smartphone app sucks. They don't offer as many products and services, particularly investment and brokerage services and they don't integrate them all together on their crappy website. I had a credit union account for a while but I closed it because compared to my major US bank accounts, the level of service was crap. The big banks are big for a reason. As long as you keep 20k+ in your accounts and don't bounce checks, the major US banks offer a level of service that the credit unions just cannot match.

    5. Re:This is why I use a credit union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that socialism ...

      Yes, so is your municipal council and your social club. In many places, even the sports team is socialist.

      ... don't have a profit motive ...

      Americans have it wrong again: Marxism/socialism isn't against profits, it's against them being retained. That is, it strives to eliminate the 1%; not the market, not profits, not even ownership, although socialism is frequently defined as ownership (of agriculture/manufacturing) by the state.

    6. Re:This is why I use a credit union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      It's not like they can't be badly managed and engage in risky or illegal behavior to cover their losses.

    7. Re:This is why I use a credit union by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      silly, socialism has nothing to do with it. or you think companies with stocks and stockholders are socialism too? hahaha, my sides

    8. Re:This is why I use a credit union by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Basically socialism is the workers owning the means of production, with lots of branches including running the means of production in a democratic way, one worker, one vote. Companies with stocks work by one share, one vote.
      There are also branches of socialism that are about small or no government. Anarchism being the extreme, libertarian-ism also was originally a socialist ideal.
      Unluckily, given human nature, libertarian-ism just leads to a power vacuum which the (usually corrupt) totalitarians move into, whether in the form of Stalinist-ism or fascist-ism.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re:This is why I use a credit union by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      socialism is done at government level though and controls ALL companies. Owners of a company are not practicing socialism, an outsider doesn't get a piece of the pie

    10. Re:This is why I use a credit union by dryeo · · Score: 1

      No, you're thinking of State Socialism, which is one type of socialism. To quote the blurb at the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Libertarian socialism (or socialist libertarianism)[1] is a group of anti-authoritarian[2] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy.[3]

      Libertarian socialism also rejects the state itself,[4] is close to and overlaps with left-libertarianism[5][6] and criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace,[7] instead emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace[4] and decentralized structures of political organization.[8][9][10] It asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[11] Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions and workers' councils.[12][13]

      All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[14][15] and voluntary human relationships[16] through the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] As such libertarian socialism, within the larger socialist movement, seeks to distinguish itself both from Leninism/Bolshevism and from social democracy.[25][26]

      Like all ism's, it is probably impractical due to human nature but does have some good ideas.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:This is why I use a credit union by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      pffft, someone was just putting invented tripe in the middle of the normal definition. It's not a real thing, while capitalism and socialism are.

    12. Re:This is why I use a credit union by dryeo · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a very 2 dimensional viewpoint. Libertarian-ism and authoritarian-ism are just as much real things and have little to do with capitalism and socialism. Then there is the free market, which both capitalism and socialism can be against. (Capitalism strives to remove the free market and socialism often doesn't want to compete in a free market)

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  20. Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I get a no fee credit card, free checking, and much better service.

  21. BoD needs jail time. $3B fine for each as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BoD needs jail time. $3B fine for each as well.

    Banking is about trust and keeping it and doing what is BEST for the customer. Clearly, WF didn't do that. They need to be shot in the chest ... and try to survive for a few years on life support, perhaps dying.

  22. A temporary cap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a cap, for screwing over thousands of people?

    A temporary cap.

    --fyngyrz*

    * Anon due to mod points, because Slashdot moderation rules are stupid. Soylent News does it better. A lot better.

  23. Re:The financial sector is already highly regulate by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My point is, if things like this can happen, then it isn't yet regulated *enough*. Companies have long proven they will find any way to take advantage, legal or not, as long as the penalty is worth the reward. Therefore regulation cannot leave any opening.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  24. Protocols of Satan part 34 audio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://christogenea.org/system/files/audio/ChrSat20180113-Protocols_of_Satan_34.mp3

    THERE has yet to be a convention, commitee, forum, or otherwise that has ever contrasted the damages allegedly done by a corporation or Limited Liability guised as an artificial person to distribute blame or remediation bwyond forfeiture of it's initial investments.

    iirc, 500 years of judicial pondering has only promulgated investment power of a corporation to equivocate as freedom of speach not bribery/lobbying/solicitting. There has yet to be a competitive application of criminal jurisprudence to a corporate charter.

  25. Not until by fred911 · · Score: 1

    the penalty for defrauding joe-sixpack becomes higher than the profit the fraud yields will this ever change. Especially with the banking communities "We're too big to fail" attitude.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  26. Most perfect punishment for bankers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the bankers involved with his should be shacked up with their ass as the glory hole of their local sex club for the night. Let the misery of that night and whatever they catch linger in their minds for the rest of their lives.

    Also make sure to put out full page ads for this occasion so everyone who wants to fuck their banker in the ass can, and there will be a line out into the streets.

  27. Wow! by cas2000 · · Score: 1

    They got slapped on both wrists. That's really harsh.

  28. Re: The financial sector is already highly regulat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That regulations exist is insufficient. You also need agencies with the authority, autonomy, mandate, and resources to enforce the regulations evenly across the sector without political interference or regulatory capture by the sector. Clearly, this isn't currently the case. Wells Fargo are getting a slightly more strenuous version of a slap on the wrist that the sector typically enjoys: So called "light touch" regulation. It's a joke and the banks know it.

  29. Yep, we knew it would be be like this by wonkavader · · Score: 2

    No jail.
    No dip into the fortunes of the people who directed the fraud.
    No keeping these thieves from working at another financial institution.
    No systematic attempt to fix the sabotaging of the careers of the workers who refused to commit fraud.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

    This little bit of Old Harry's Game is spot on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  30. That's Not A Harsh Penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they were serious they would withdraw WFB's business license.

  31. Re:The financial sector is already highly regulate by HiThere · · Score: 2

    It's not highly regulated if the regulated get to choose who regulates them and how the laws are enforced. There needs to be a firewall between the regulators and those that are regulated, and *one* of the components of that wall needs to be that the regulators are from time of appointment forwards until death and beyond forbidden to accept any form of remuneration from the regulated. I'm also dubious about giving them *any* input into who would be an appropriate regulator, but since this needs to be a public process, that's probably unconstitutional. So just forbid them spending any corporate money to campaign either in favor or against any candidate.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  32. Janet Yellen's retirement. by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    This was Janet Yellen's final act before retiring.

    That's what made it possible: the fact that she was free to take the action because she didn't care about future career prospects.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Janet Yellen's retirement. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In other words, it gets turned over in the appeal.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Janet Yellen's retirement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was Janet Yellen's final act before retiring.

      She isn't retiring. She wanted to serve more and Trump didn't appoint her to a second term. I'd call that being fired.

  33. Nobody said the magic word by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    This is what a Fascist economic system looks like.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  34. Remember Bank of America being Foreclosed on by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

    I remember this like it was yesterday and its becoming even more common.

    Man Sues BOA for trying to foreclose on their house that they paid cash for

  35. Wake me up when people are in jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Criminals need to be in jail. We have a lawless society when the feds simply hand out fines and restrictions.

  36. What does presence do? Try Ally by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why Wells Fargo? They are the only national bank with a solid presence in Alaska. There is no other national choice.

    Ally is a branchless bank offering deposit accounts across the USA. So if you rarely handle cash, why not go with a credit union or an out-of-state bank such as Ally?

    1. Re:What does presence do? Try Ally by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I also went with a credit union, but I don't trust the "online only" banks. Sometimes I need a branch. Given the number of issues I've had with banks (BofA before Alaska, and a local bank in Alaska, which is why I ended up going back to the national bank), I like being able to sit in a branch until someone fixes the problem.

  37. Wells Fargo Fake Accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's exactly why my "Trap Money" is with Wells Fargo!!!

  38. Those who control many shares have power by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Those who control many shares, and thus stand to lose a lot of money if the company does wrong, have a lot of power in electing the board.

  39. Banks are bad businesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they are bad for the economy. They lend gladly when the economy is hot making it hotter. And refuse to lend when the economy is bad making in worse. When a bank goes bad it is killed.

  40. Schwarzschild's formula by tepples · · Score: 1

    No company or bank or institution should be allowed to have assets totaling more than 2% of the GDP of our country.

    Assets and GDP have nothing to do with each other.

    That's like saying mass and weight have nothing to do with each other. The thing relating them is a constant of proportionality, in this case the gravitational constant and the planet's radius. Likewise, by Schwarzschild's formula, the maximum mass of a spherical body before it becomes a black hole is proportional to the body's radius, with a constant of proportionality related to the gravitational constant and the speed of light.

    140Mandak262Jamuna is trying to establish the financial analog of Schwarzschild's formula relating the maximum assets of a company (in dollars) to a single market's GDP (in dollars per year). Here, the suggested constant of proportionality is 2% of a year or one week.

    1. Re:Schwarzschild's formula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing relating them is a constant of proportionality

      lol no.

  41. Re:The financial sector is already highly regulate by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Regulations mean jack shit if overstepping them isn't fined in a way that makes those that overstep them rethink that option. If I make 1000 bucks breaking a law and the possible fine is 100 bucks, don't expect me to follow the law. If the fine is lower than the revenue, it's not a fine, it's part of the calculation.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  42. not of this reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely credit unions are extremely uncompetitive

    maybe your damaged brain is grasping this concept but your brain is apparently not connected to reality

  43. Self Interest by emaname · · Score: 1

    Wells Fargo is ANOTHER example of why there needs to be regulation.

    The economic concept of "self interest" can mutate easily into "greed". When that happens, destructive behaviors are the result.

    To think we can have a marketplace without any oversight or regulation is at best naive; more likely wilfully ignorant.

    --
    An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
    1. Re:Self Interest by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      There is plenty of oversight on banks, but in this case, it wasn't an official strategy of fraud, rather a completely irrational sales goal coupled with a wink and nod to lower management and then to individual employees.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  44. And of course no one goes to jail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As is common, no one goes to jail, and others pay the fines (shareholders). Again those who commit the crimes get a way scott free leaving others to pay for their crimes. America, the best government money can buy.

  45. Re: The financial sector is already highly regulat by macsimcon · · Score: 1

    You have it backwards: it is the LACK of regulation which allows companies to merge, thus depriving consumers of choice and competitive prices, and henceforth becoming too big too fail.

  46. $2 trillion in assets by iamacat · · Score: 1

    That's almost half of annual GDP. Sounds too big to fail. Is this a good thing and should we worry about what happens if Wells Fargo assets grow to more than annual GDP?

    1. Re:$2 trillion in assets by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Whose annual GDP? The US GDP is a lot higher than four trillion..

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  47. Re:The financial sector is already highly regulate by Beeftopia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The regulations don't deal with the core destructive and problem-causing issues which are also massively profitable. All regulations which have any teeth are walked back by politicians. See "How Wall Street defanged Dodd Frank". Now, Dodd-Frank was a joke for a lot of reasons, but the big reason was its intentional complexity and incompleteness and its unwillingness to deal with core issues. But even the pieces of Dodd-Frank that had small teeth were defanged.

    Back in 2008, the big issue was lenders not having 'skin in the game' - they could make loans and shed all repayment risk when they sold off the loan to investors or the government. It's a license to print money and a perverse incentive to create bad debt. If you google "QRM safe harbor and risk retention", you'll get some history (QRM = qualified residential mortgage). There was an attempt to make lenders retain some small portion of repayment risk, instead of the government taking all of it, but that was walked back, as the above search will tell you.

    The current Wall Street economic model is "privatize the profits and socialize the losses." Not a thing was done to address that. "Too big to fail" was never addressed - the biggest banks are even bigger today than in 2008 ("In the US, since the crisis, the six largest US banks now control nearly 70 per cent of all the assets in the US financial system, having increased around 40 per cent (against overall asset growth of only 8 per cent). JP Morgan, the largest US bank, has over $2.4 trillion in assets, larger than most countries." -- The Independent)

    So. Instead the regulations are along these lines: Instead of just outlawing robbing people, they outlaw robbing people at 12 Noon. The rest of the day is fine. But then they add, 'well you can't rob people at 3 PM either'. And so on. They refuse to deal with the core issues (i.e. "you can't rob people"), instead nibbling ineffectually around the edges.

    "Complexity breeds loopholes." That's the point of complex regulations - to breed loopholes. It's fantastic because it keeps competitors out of the business, because you need vast legal and accounting departments to stay abreast of the regulations. And it does little to stop the destructive behavior.

  48. Re:The financial sector is already highly regulate by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    Simple, effective regulations like Glass-Steagall, instituted during the Great Depression, worked for generations. But they were slowly weakened, then eliminated.

    Simple, clear regulations, which don't require massive regulatory departments in companies in order to comply, are the most effective. Wall Street companies today, the ones whose heads have lunch with Federal Reserve heads, and to whom central bankers and Treasury officials go to work after their term expires, don't want simple, clear regulations.

  49. Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much does Trump owe wells-fargo?

  50. The people at the top set the bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we all know this type of behavior was encouraged from the top down. You don't have this much fake account creation without this being some sort of internal scheme. The problem lies deeper then just Wells Fargo, where we seem to have a expectation of constant and rapid growth no matter what for these enterprises. There is no such thing as just rolling along at a reasonable pace.

  51. Re:The financial sector is already highly regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. We need criminal laws, not regulation. Why are people not in jail over this? If people lost their car or their home over this it should be prosecuted as criminal fraud. Such widespread actions indicate a culture of corruption that should be prosecutable under RICO or an equivalent statue, which place supervisors and management in the docket along with the individual employees who actually implemented the fraud.
    You want these white collar criminals to take things seriously? Criminal prosecution, not fines and more regulation is the answer.

  52. Jailtime for people, closing the bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything else will make this shit happen again.. and again... and again

  53. Refund Our Money by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    What great idea for a game and movie. A group of sick fucks with nothing better to do but hunt Wells Fargo Executives,

  54. They are grounded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me see if I have this right. No fines. No one is jailed.

    Basically, they can't go out and play. They have to stay in their room and only play with the toys they already have.

  55. Copy cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems Wells Fargo is plagiarizing government bureaucracies

  56. A Real Punishment would be a Lower Cap by laurencetux · · Score: 1

    as in you have 89 days to divest of enough assets to bring your net worth to 1.5Trillion (oh and you can't close any branches).

    Or as part of the fight on poverty you must begin opening NO Monthly Fee accounts to anybody with assets less than or equal to 90% of the National Poverty Line (also waive the neat Gotcha Fees).

  57. Re: The financial sector is already highly regulat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have it backwards: it is the LACK of regulation which allows companies to merge, thus depriving consumers of choice and competitive prices, and henceforth becoming too big too fail.

    Funny...it's not "lack of regulation" that prevents me from starting an ISP in my shitty town where CenturyLink is the only option and provides 5 down 1 up on paper, but in actuality it ends up being about .6 down and .2 up...for $50/mo. There are over 150 people in this town who have *NO OTHER OPTION*, and regulations and laws are *exactly* what prevents be from buying 1,000 megabit fiber transport for ~$2,500/mo and ~$500/mo transit via Hurricane Electric and then splitting that 1,000 megabits into 5 megabit chunks for $45/mo and selling that to customers while earning $9k/mo gross (~$6,000 net) to pay off the loan to purchase equipment and employees to install it. Oh, and don't forget all the taxes I have to pay to the government or they'll waco my ass for providing you something you want without giving the maffia their cut...

    Regulation and taxes are *exactly* the problem.

  58. 4 People forced out of the board by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    OK, but that is not far enough. Those persons removed should be banned from ever sitting on a board ever again, or holding a C-level position at any American company, and should be forced to pay restitution equal to 100% of their pay, less the average Wells Fargo employee salary (~$55k/year) starting when the unreasonable sales goals were set, and 100% of any severance package, to the victims of the scams.

    It is high time to put the fear of God in these lawless dirt bag MBAs with an "anything goes for a dollar" mentality...

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  59. the real crooks..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what the article mentions and no one pays attention to - the real crooks here is not Wells Fargo... It's the lawyers who are getting 3.3 billion.

  60. Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the level of "identify Fraud" by opening fraudulent accounts in someone name by a bank institution was certain unprecedented.

  61. Charge them under RICO act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally.

    This is not their first offense. These banks (Wells Fargo, HSBC, et al) are now criminal syndicates and are charged, pay fines, but no jail time. Companies don't commit crimes/fraud people do. Send them to prison.

    1. Re:Charge them under RICO act by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Exactly. A jail term is a far better deterrent than being fired and moving over to another company, which will hire them because it sees them as aggressive marketers.

  62. why not jail? by belmolis · · Score: 1

    This is fraud on a massive scale. Why aren't the managers responsible for it going to jail?

  63. Re:The financial sector is already highly regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^THIS. So much THIS!

    If I had mod points, you'd have them.

  64. Unprecedented Punishment by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Um...really?

    Where is the punishment? Oh, we've basically said you can't make any acquisition purchases until you fix you ways. Um, that's NOT punishment.

    "Unprecedented Punishment" would be the government doing its job. That means, board members don't resign, they're tossed into jail. That means fines.

    20,000 cars repossessed by their corrupt system. At let's say $20,000 each that is $400,000,000. What should the punishment be? Plus all the other fraudulent crap. Considering that a minor traffic offense often results in a $400 ticket, which equates to around 10% of an average U.S. worker's monthly gross. An equivalent fine for minor infraction would be around $750 million. However, in this case, Wells Fargo's actions were egregious and far from a minor infraction, causing tens of thousands great financial harm. And they're a repeat offender. So let's make it closer to a repeat DUI. That would put it around $7.5 billion.

    So let's see the "unprecedent punishment" of treating a corporation as a person and hitting their executives with jail time, and their finances with a fine that is simply equivalent to what an individual would be hit with $7.5 billion seems reasonable to me.

  65. So what by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    I think the Fed has some smart people but you would think they would know that fines do not work.
    The people that made the decision to commit the fraud do not pay them.
    The bank just beats the stock holders and then takes this as a loss.
    If they want it to matter they need to put bankers in jail and hand out 10 year industry bans for the ones that escape jail.
    This would kick them where it counts.

    “The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependant on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.” - Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863