Wells Fargo Bans Cryptocurrency Purchases On Its Credit Cards (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Wells Fargo customers hoping to use their credit cards to buy Bitcoin will have to look elsewhere. While putting a prohibition on such cryptocurrency purchases for now, Wells Fargo "will continue to evaluate the issue as the market evolves," Shelley Miller, a spokeswoman, said in an emailed statement. Wells Fargo joins Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, which limited cryptocurrency purchases on their credit cards in February, citing market volatility and credit risks. Lenders have said they're worried they'd be left on the hook if a borrower lost money on a digital currency bet and couldn't repay. A study conducted by LendEDU last year found that roughly 18 percent of Bitcoin investors used a credit card to fund the purchases. Of those, 22 percent couldn't pay off their balance after buying the digital coin.

Comments

Jeez

[Anonymous Coward]

How much did those 22% buy?

Are the banks trying to not allow new currencies?

Why don't they just explain how currency works in education systems?

Didn't anyone read about the tulips?

Re:Jeez

[Alypius]

Ahh, but the tulips...that's...that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with...geometric logic...

Re:Jeez

[ShanghaiBill]

Didn't anyone read about the tulips?

The tulips were zero sum. For every buyer, there was a seller. For every loser there was a winner.

Cryptocurrencies are different because much of the money is drained out of the system to pay for power. It is negative sum, with more (or bigger) losers than winners.

Re:Jeez

[jythie]

I doubt banks really care about 'new currencies', but do care about fraud and reversed transactions.

good

[Anonymous Coward]

cryptards shouldn't be using credit anyway

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Commodities and entertainment products have intrinsic value. Different people might have different opinions about how much a game (for example) is worth, but people who buy them definitely feel like they get value from them.

Cryptocurrency doesn't have value even as a currency, it's so volatile the value has changed before the transaction has even completed and the buyer/seller can never be sure which one of them (and by how much) they get screwed.

It's purely speculative, and not in the "stock market always goes up" way, but in a "I'm going to be seated at the right-hand of Musk, the God-Emperor of Mars" sense.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

actually many credit cards don't let you buy currency either. though some do allow but through a hideously expensive cash advance rate, just like crypto currency it is considered high risk.

Re:Good

[war4peace]

Maybe you can. I can't. I can't pay utilities, which is weird, and I can't transfer money from my credit card account to my debit card account. All that if my balance is negative, of course.

I can, however, buy crypto :) which I have tried once, spent the equivalent of 5 EUR just to check.

Still, buying cryptocurrency is very risky and "thou shalt not spend money you can't afford to lose".

Good

[war4peace]

As someone who's interested in the crypto market and believes it does gave future, I applaud this decision.
Generating debt by buying cryptocurrencies is stupid.

for now not good

[AndyKron]

A lot of people want to go to a cashless society but I don't want a private company telling me what I can or cannot buy with my money, so fuck a cashless society for now.

Re:for now not good

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want a private company telling me what I can or cannot buy with my money.

If you're using a credit card, it's not your money.

Re:for now not good

[arkane1234]

This is true, and a key thing for people to remember.
A credit card is borrowing money from someone else, and paying them at a later time with a touch extra as interest.
It's nothing more, and it's a privilege.

Re: for now not good

[epine]

It isn't a charity; you are paying for that money.

No, you're not paying for that money. You're promising to pay for that money at a future date. And if the bank fails to collect at the future date, the "money" wasn't exactly "paid for" was it?

Explain to me how the weird fucking language of even putting that into words doesn't give this whole ridiculous pretense away?

He who has the gold, makes the rules. This could have been one of the original commandments, but stone is expensive and carving is hard on the wrists, and Moses was going "God, everyone already knows that, or finds out real quick" and God was going "ah, I suppose so, I guess you're right."

Re:for now not good

[DRJlaw]

A lot of people want to go to a cashless society but I don't want a private company telling me what I can or cannot buy with my money, so fuck a cashless society for now.

A debit card is your money. A credit card is the bank's money, with your pinky promise to pay off the balance at the end of the cycle or pay down their loan with interest. Hence, "credit."

Each time this issue comes up, the fact that the rules apply to credit cards manages to slip by a startling number of people who believe that they are financially literate...

Re: for now not good

[DRJlaw]

But, as a costumer one can complain with his feet, taking his business with some other bank.

Good luck with that one, since the rule is more common and spreadying more rapidly that the article suggests. It's not exactly a competive and profitable selling point -- "you can use our credit card to purchase virtual currencies that have lost more than half of their value since the beginning of the year."

well that helps

[slashmydots]

The #1 way to get bitcoins for cash right now is one of the many "in person" local bitcoin sales services. It's like craigslist but for purchasing bitcoins for cash. So meeting some sketchy dude in a Denny's parking lot is the preferred, most reliable method for buying bitcoins. This is why people don't respect bitcoins.

To hell with them

[Presence Eternal]

My main credit card's bank treats it like a cash advance. It is a pretty sensible way to handle high risk buying without acting like dirtbag thugs. No one in their right mind would ever knowingly use a credit card for cash advances, but the option is there if desired. I despise payment processors who tell people what they can do with their money and act like de facto law enforcement for things that aren't even illegal.

Re:To hell with them

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean they tell you what you can do with THEIR money.

Re:To hell with them

[Presence Eternal]

My credit rating is 800 and all my accounts are on full monthly autopay. They are nothing more than intermediaries that take a cut from every transaction. Even aside from that, only a complete idiot thinks that blanket credit denials for an entire category of spending involves any risk assessment.

Re:To hell with them

[DogDude]

complete idiot thinks that blanket credit denials for an entire category of spending involves any risk assessment.

Well then I'm an idiot, because I think it's a smart decision to deny all "cryptocurency" purchases. The risk is that you're loaning money to somebody really dumb, to buy something else, really dumb, that is illegal in some places, and will probably become illegal in more places as time continues..

Re:To hell with them

[slew]

My credit rating is 800 and all my accounts are on full monthly autopay. They are nothing more than intermediaries that take a cut from every transaction. Even aside from that, only a complete idiot thinks that blanket credit denials for an entire category of spending involves any risk assessment.

FWIW, right now the big banks are also considering a restriction and/or ban on using credit cards to purchase guns as well. Citigroup has already required all of their corporate customers that sell guns limit sales of bump-stocks and high-capacity magazines.

Also, the New York Comptroller is pushing for BofA, Chase and other banks to reclassify merchants that sell guns as high-risk merchants on par with those that sell drugs like opiods. Merchants considered high-risk have to pay significantly more to payment processors and are generally subject to tight limits on chargeback ratios leaving many to abandon accepting credit cards for purchases because of the risk that the "intermediaries" won't pay the charges that their customers will rack up...

Re: To hell with them

[Presence Eternal]

Your first point is something which all of us should very much keep in mind when dealing with almost any business. All too often I myself forget it. It is wise to do business solely by selfish numbers. If one wants to do good, find a reputable charity. That said, I think the person you're replying to might have been talking about credit unions.

Re:To hell with them

[Presence Eternal]

Do you know what kind of specific percentages high risk merchants have to pay payment processors? I didn't even know it was a formal category before just now. Is there a legal reason buyer credit rating isn't used to determine eligibility when purchasing from a high risk merchant, or is it a cultural thing?

Re:To hell with them

[Presence Eternal]

I may have been unfair in one regard. I mean, yes I was in a bad mood and trolling. But more than that I and a lot of of others simply don't see credit card balance as a loan. Yes, it's right there in the name. That's a very fair point. But...I was raised to never ever carry a balance ever. I do mean I was raised that way. My dad taught me that when I was ten years old. It's outside of my worldview to see it as a loan. And maybe that's unfair of me. I know that I've been fortunate in life, at least economically.

Re:To hell with them

[Presence Eternal]

Are you sure about them not knowing my credit rating? Almost all of mine offer FICO rating at a click. Am I misunderstanding what that implies?

I do NOT trust the 22% argument. Firstly, think about how aggressively credit card companies push balance transfer offers. Credit card companies aggressively court customers who literally can't pay off their credit card bills. Does the 22% thing sound plausible in that light?

Secondly, where is this 22% coming from? Are these people established customers who lost all self control? I think it's far more likely the 22% is reckless folks who are opening nine cards in a month and dumping it all into a high risk "investment."

Call bitcoin purchases a cash advance, which generally limits one to half their allowed credit line and incurs interest from day one? Fine with me. Ban new cardholders from said cash advances? Fine with me. Ban an established and reliable customer with a high tier card? It's ridiculous. Somehow, someway, there is a motive here beyond "risk management."

Re:To hell with them

[slew]

Do you know what kind of specific percentages high risk merchants have to pay payment processors? I didn't even know it was a formal category before just now. Is there a legal reason buyer credit rating isn't used to determine eligibility when purchasing from a high risk merchant, or is it a cultural thing?

A merchant is not allowed by visa/mc to know the credit rating of the card holder. Basically a merchant is required by the visa/mc rules to take payment or deny payment on a non-discriminatory basis (in fact they aren't even supposed to ask for your id).

A payment processor is contracted by the merchant to accepts charge request from the merchant and clears them (usually by contacting the issuing bank through the visa/mc network). The bank who does know the credit rating and charge history of the card holder and presumably knows whether it should accept or reject the request based on credit limit or fraud detection metrics.

However, there's always a risk of a chargeback (the cardholder claims that the charge was fraudulent, or that they didn't get the merchandise or service they paid for), and then it gets into a dispute resolution. At some point, since the payment processor cleared the original charge with the bank and credited the merchant's account, the bank and the payment processor need to fight it out if the card holder refuses or cannot pay. Because payment processors operate on slim margins (the banks are gettting the interest payments from the card holder, the payment processors have to split the transaction fees with visa/mastercard/amex), and they have already paid-out to the merchant account they want to mitigate their chargeback risk, so instead of providing payment processing services to anyone, they rank the merchants they do business with and set their rates based on how many chargebacks they are likely to have to eat if the merchant goes belly up and can't refund the money that the payment processor advanced them and they set their merchant fees accordingly.

For "high-risk" merchants, payment providers may also have contract terms that limit payments to merchant that exceed certain chargeback percentages so the merchant doesn't get any money until the bank pays (so the payment providers don't have to waste lawyer-budget fighting with the bank and/or card holders) so the payment processor can withhold payments to the merchant. As you might suspect merchants in this situation might not want to accept too many credit cards...

Similarly with "low-risk" small-payments, payment processors have different merchant terms (e.g., you don't have to sign for small payments at a coffee shop or lunch counter, and they clear charges at a lower merchant fee rate).

Re:To hell with them

[Interfacer]

That is good for you. Unfortunately, the bank in question has experienced 22% of people defaulting on their payments because they did not get the anticipated profits and don't actually have any money.

Re:To hell with them

[ichimunki]

Balance transfer is so they can take the profit from your previous credit card company. That's why they're often in the form of "interest free" for the first six months or whatever. They're counting on you still not paying it all off, and then they can collect interest that you would have been paying to their competitor instead. They also often have a straight fee associated with them.

If you want to take a cash advance on your card and use that to buy crypto, you could, but cash advances are not only subject to interest, but usually have an upfront fee added in as well. And are likely to have much lower limits than your regular credit limit. They might also be subject to a higher rate than normal credit purchases.

Lesson: if you want to put crypto on your card, take a cash advance. It will cost you more, but the bank can't tell what you're buying with your cash.

Re: What else is prohibited?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is a set of clauses in their agreements. One such notable clause is their âoemoralityâ clause (yeah...talking Wells Fargo here). They can decide not to pay for something they deem against that clause.

In the case of Backpage, the credit card companies decided not to allow Backpage to accept credit cards. So, Backpage responded by taking cash, checks, and bitcoin. They one bitcoin portal charged 2x what Backpage wanted for credits if you paid cash.

Yeah, backpage and itâ(TM)s leaders are scum, but this is an example of how they can can deny credit.

Re:What else is prohibited?

[ole_timer]

good question...off shore gambling is one that is automatically blocked by the bank under the Unlawful Offshore Gambling Enforcement Act (or some such name)

Re:What else is prohibited?

[gravewax]

most banks have quite a long list of what they won't allow you to buy. In the end it is their money not yours so they get to decide what they will or will not allow you to borrow from them to buy directly. Perfectly legal as it is their money.

Wells Fargo stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Wells Fargo: More Public Backlash (Sept. 27, 2017) Quote from that story: "There's been a steady news stream of more scandals and fraud for Wells Fargo for well over a year."

Wells Fargo bank teller stole nearly $200,000 from a customer (Sept. 29, 2017)

Should you sign up for the class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo? (Sept. 29, 2017)

Senators have harsh words for Wells Fargo head (Oct. 4, 2017) Quote:

'For Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), however, Sloan's efforts weren't sufficient. "You should be fired," Warren told Sloan. "Wells Fargo needs to start over, and that won't happen until the bank rids itself of people like you who led it into this crisis." '

Attorney General to make a demand to Wells Fargo for damages on fake bank and credit card accounts (Nov. 29, 2017)

Wells Fargo cheated millions of customers. The Republican tax bill is about to hand it a big win. (Dec. 19, 2017)

Wells Fargo

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of feckless cunts. Fuck DeNiro.

Those items don't have 22% default rate

[raymorris]

If 22% of TV purchasers defaulted, leaving Wells Fargo to pay the bill, you bet your ass Wells Fargo would stop paying for TVs.

The problem is people think they can later resell the Bitcoins in order to pay back Wells Fargo, so they buy more than they can afford to pay back from the paycheck. When Bitcoin prices drop to half of what they were a few months earlier, people can't pay the bill. People don't buy TVs with the thought they can resell it later and thereby pay off the debt.

Re:Those items don't have 22% default rate

[ameoba]

...and crypto is really easy to hide when you declare bankruptcy or get sued for bad debts.

Re:Those items don't have 22% default rate

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

If 22% of TV purchasers defaulted, leaving Wells Fargo to pay the bill, you bet your ass Wells Fargo would stop paying for TVs.

If that were what the article said, it'd imply that Wells Fargo should stop issuing lines of credit in excess of what people can repay. Whether the money was spent on Dogecoin or Home Shopping Network kitch, it's spent. The limit is there precisely so that the consumer doesn't spend more than he can repay (even if it is a long way down the road to paying it off).

Instead, what the study referenced in the article actually said was that 22% of those who purchased cryptocurrency on credit are still carrying a balance. Only 11% of those people carrying a balance said they wouldn't even sell their stake in crypto to pay the balance, which is greater (by 50%) than the average rate of default, but that's only considering this self-selected group of people willing to take extraordinary financial risk (and, we can presume, are not a typical cross-section of cardholders).

So, roughly the same number of people are being irresponsible with money as usual, but because they're being irresponsible in a new and different way, it's time to sound the alarm!

Re: Cryptocurrency?

[supremebob]

I hope that you invested in some guns and ammo as well. If society ever truly falls apart to the point where cash is no longer accepted, nobody it going to want your gold or your bitcoin because they can't hunt for food with it.

You realize Wells Fargo is paying for the stuff?

[raymorris]

You do understand it's Wells Fargo that's paying for the Bitcoins, right? Also 22% of the time, they never get paid back.

> Image Wells Fargo prohibiting purchases of Girl Scout Cookies, or changes to grocery stores that Wells Fargo doesn't own.

Yes, imagine if I could only use my Lowe's credit card at Lowe's, and not at Home Depot. Or if my Sears card could only be used at Sears, not at Dillard's.

Gambling?

[Roger W Moore]

Generating debt by buying cryptocurrencies is stupid.

More stupid than using your credit card for gambling? Why ban just cryptocurrencies and not all other forms of gambling?

Re:Gambling?

[WindowsStar]

Exactly!!! I know people that have put 50,000 to 100,000 USD on credit. Beyond stupid but it was their choice. The banks want to control what and how you spend so they make the most money. Wake up people this is Wells Fargo controlling you. The sooner you learn this the better off everyone will be. This is like those movies where you think you have the character figured out, and you know they are bad, but then they show them self to be good and you say oppps I was wrong and someone else keeps saying you ARE NOT paying attention not everything is as it seems. Well that is the banks and credit cards.

Re:Gambling?

[slew]

Generating debt by buying cryptocurrencies is stupid.

More stupid than using your credit card for gambling? Why ban just cryptocurrencies and not all other forms of gambling?

Wells fargo is not alone in banning cryptocurrency purchases. BofA, Chase, Citi, Discover, CapitalOne, Lloyds, and TD already have bans on cryptocurrencies...

FWIW, I seem to remember visa and mastercard already banned charges from known gambling sites after the UIGEA passed... Also several states have laws against buying securities/stocks using credit cards.

Re:Gambling?

[Interfacer]

Equally stupid, but I would guess that not that many people are stupid enough to do that, whereas too many people bought bitcoin at 20K, sure it would 40K by the end of the week because John McAfee said so.

Re:Gambling?

[AmiMoJo]

I wonder if it's because of fraud. Rather than risk trying to buy stuff with a stolen credit card, buy crypto currency.

Re:Gambling?

[war4peace]

Gambling is regulated. Cryptomarket isn't.
In other words, cambling is covered by law, cryptomarket isn't.
Banks would happily ban people from gambling with their credit cards, but my guess is it's illegal for banks to do so.

Re:What else is prohibited?

[UnknownSoldier]

So which law(s), specifically, allow/disallow this?

In other news, Banks don't allow you to purchase a number! Guess they don't like you trading one fiat currency for another -- who knew!

It's not about debt

[rsilvergun]

it's about the FCBA. These are high risk transactions. Exchanges can and will get hacked and well, it's an unregulated security. It's no surprise Wells Fargo wants to steer clear of that.

Re:All cryptocurrencies are scams

[WindowsStar]

And this is exactly what an "anonymous coward" bank would say because they are freaking out on all the trillions of dollars they will lose if cryptocurrencies take off.

Re:What else is prohibited?

[gravewax]

The same laws that allow you to determine what you do with your money. It is THEIR money, they get to choose what they do with it not you. A credit card is in effect you asking them for an unsecured loan which they are well within their rights to refuse.

Makes sense

[duke_cheetah2003]

I can already smell the scam: Get a credit card, buy cryptocurrency, tear up credit card and refuse to pay. Technically, all you have is 'tokens' that're not legal tender in any government. They are technically worthless, so they can't be seized by a court.

And even if by some twist of logic, some court did decide to rule Cryptocurrency isn't a token, but it is in fact a legal tender, or commodity, or whatever.. still, you're going to have a real tough time trying to extract cryptocurrency from any individual.

The normal collections methods are not going to affect cryptocurrencies in any way, shape or form. In REALITY, cryptocurrency coins are literally NOTHING.

But I imagine a clever criminal will find a way to mask the purchase to make this work out, anyway. So .. no solutions here, nothing more than a: Good luck with that!

Re:Makes sense

[datavirtue]

The classic is to buy Gold/Silver. "I spent it"

Re:Makes sense

[datavirtue]

The court will never discover the crypto. There is no reliable way to do so. Trying and failing is a sure way to lose a case.

Re:Makes sense

[gravewax]

Well they can try! but they can only be seized if you provide them access to the keys, The scumbag running silk road basically handed them the keys through his poor security hygiene. Unlike standard assets without the keys you can theoretically ignore any court order (though you would probably be put in a cell for doing so).

Re:Makes sense

[duke_cheetah2003]

Bitcoins have been seized by the cops already, though. Cryptocurrencies are not a magical end-run around the law like you seem to be implying.

But they are. In the correct hands, with the correct security precautions, your cryptocurrencies can be rendered inaccessable to all but the person who possesses a pass phrase or other 'in mind' key that will unlock whatever storage contains the cryptocurrency wallet.

These cases of seizures of cryptcurrency we've read about.. fools and their money parted cuz fools can't properly secure their wallets. You never hear about the ones that successfully stash ill-gotten gains into cryptocurrency.

Ultimately, what one -should- be doing is renting some cloud based Virtual Machine, storing all your secrets behind a crypted container object on the VM. Pay many years in advance with untraceable currency (those credit cards you buy at walmart are perfect for this!) If you get busted, you have nothing, not even physical copy of your wallet to be seized. As long as there's no traces of you accessing your VM on any of your physical devices, you're home free. You never heard about these guys tho, cuz they got away with it and no one is the wiser.

Re:What else is prohibited?

[bloodhawk]

Their money, Their rules. A credit card is not a guarantee of funds for anything you desire. You sign up to terms and conditions for an unsecured loan and part of those conditions are rules that determine things they will not extend credit for. Also part of those rules you agree to is they can change that list anytime they deem fit. This is status Quo for pretty much all credit cards, While I don't deal with Wells Fargo I imagine they are the same.

Re:Again Banks Controling You

[gravewax]

it is your money and you should be allowed to spend it how you like.

completely WRONG. a credit card is you spending their money through a line of credit. You are asking them for a loan. If you want to buy crypto currencies you can, you just can't use their money.

Re:Again Banks Controling You

[datavirtue]

I'm pretty sure the government loans them the money. So who's money is it?

Re:What else is prohibited?

[SirSlud]

Any kind of loan is a service a bank offers that comes with terms attached. Nobody is obligated to loan you money, dummy. Does it piss you off that your bank insists you use the money from a mortgage to purchase a house?

Re:Again Banks Controling You

[WindowsStar]

Ahhhh, someone is a bit more informed. You are right the bank doesn't have the money either they borrow it too. They also lend money they don't really have which is a whole other problem. So what happens when all you have is your debt card? "This is your money", well not really, the debt card is backed by the bank, so the bank then controls that spending too and tells you that the debt card is not really a "debt card" but a temporary credit card and you are using their money until they get it out of your account. There is no other electronic purchasing mechanism (i.e. debt card) for making purchases and they have the monopoly. The bank has all the control and people just don't see it. Sure you can go back to cash and then you have complete control over YOUR money, but no one wants to do that it is much easier to swipe the card, that is controlled by the bank, because it is not your money. So you want to buy cryptocurrency with your debt card because it is YOUR money, but you can only buy 1000 USD of it because, wait for it, they control your spending, there is a 1000 USD limit. So now you want to buy it with cash so you can buy 100,000 USD worth of cryptocurrency. How are you going to buy it with cash, it is YOUR money??? There is a another thread here where the government is trying to put in place laws to force banks to still handle cash, why because the government is seeing the problem with the banks controlling your money.

There needs to be a law...

[LaughingRadish]

With various companies over the past ten or so years seeing fit to pick and choose what legal products people will spend their own money on, there needs to be a law telling credit card operators, banks, and companies that pretend to be banks (I'm looking at you Paypal) that they may not disallow users from buying otherwise legal goods and services with their cards or accounts. This always seemed like the way things always should be, but now we have control-freak busybodies taking it upon themselves to decide what the masses should and should not buy.

Re:There needs to be a law...

[circularWaffle]

That's great. I like that you pointed out the obvious. The thing you don't really understand is the bank decided to extend this spending power to us (so that they could make money off of us via interest charges), and then decided that because this movement might "hurt them", that they're going to try and choke us out in any way that they can. What they don't realize is that people don't always cash out on crypto right away, hence interest charges could build on any given "customer" that makes these purchases and has a credit card with a given bank. So, basically, the banks are going to make money, some people are going to lose money, and some people may make a little money off of these transactions. What's wrong with the above situation? Not much, except for the fact that this is just another example of the banks trying to control us in yet another way. It's a slap in the face to a customer of a GIANT business. We're not a bunch of damn hobos wandering around the Internet, trying to buy our fix of crypto coins. We're legitimate citizens with built up credit, from which the banks decided they would trust us with extended spending power, and then decided they would change the rules because of their personal opinions. Sadly, my point is probably moot anyways, because you seem to be on the bank's side as it is. Have fun with that.

Re:There needs to be a law...

[circularWaffle]

How is charging interest to customers not profit? The point of a credit card, to the bank, is to extend credit to someone who has a fair/good reputation credit-wise, so that they will make purchases on said card, in hopes of the consumer NOT actually paying the entire balance of the card so that they can collect interest on the purchases. Nobody gives a shit about debit cards in this thread, so stop mentioning them. It's a crap argument.

Re:There needs to be a law...

[farble1670]

This always seemed like the way things always should be

There of course lenders that ask few questions. They are called loan sharks. You are free to make use of them if you think they offer a better, safe transaction than your credit card.

Really think their 10,000 accountants can't add?

[raymorris]

Do you really think Wells Fargo's 10,000 accountants can't do basic arithmetic? Well Fargo makes money when people use their cards, then pay off the purchases, with interest. Wells Fargo WANTS people to use their cards, as much as possible. That's why they spend millions on marketing, to get people to use their cards.

If Wells Fargo doesn't want their cards uses for X, it's because they are losing money on X. This isn't a company that takes the moral high ground, ever.

I didn't say it's immoral

[raymorris]

I didn't say it's immoral for them to not lose money on cryptocurrency.

I said the REASON they don't want to buy cryptocurrency is because they lose money that way, not because they have some moralistic reason.

In other words, they aren't trying to save the env

[raymorris]

To put it another way, yes you're right Bitcoin wastes a TON of energy and it's really, really bad for the environment. Wells Fargo doesn't care about that. Of course Bitcoin is used by criminals. Wells Fargo doesn't care, Wells Fargo is criminals. Wells isn't doing this for any reason but one - because they lose money on it.

Re:Really think their 10,000 accountants can't add

[Joce640k]

Sure, but how is buying Bitcoin worse than buying commemorative crap on the Home Shopping Channel?

Home Shopping Channel makes even Bitcoin look like a good investment.

Re:Again Banks Controling You

[scdeimos]

In case you didn't notice credit card companies pre-approve the loan amount to you - that's what's called a credit limit. It shouldn't matter what you spend that credit on.

If credit card companies are worried about what you're spending your pre-approved credit limit on perhaps they approved you for too much credit in the first place. Shame on them for being greedy fuckers.

Re:Again Banks Controling You

[gravewax]

actually they pre approve a loan to you with strict conditions that you must agree to if you want the credit that stipulate what you can and cannot do with it.

That's fine

[circularWaffle]

I DID go look elsewhere. Didn't have a card with Wells, but go screw yourself :)

HSN users don't plan to resell within 30day to pay

[raymorris]

HSN purchasers don't plan to resell the stuff within 30 days at a profit and use the proceeds to pay the credit card bill?*

If HSN had people spending thousands of dollars on commemorative Obama coins and 22% didn't pay the bill, I wouldn't be surprised if Wells Fargo noticed that and either put the screws to HSN via their merchant account, or banned payments to HSN.

* We are talking about Obama fans, so who knows.

Cash Advances in Las Vegas

[bill_mcgonigle]

Have they stopped those too due to the risk of default?

Re:Really think their 10,000 accountants can't add

[farble1670]

Sure, but how is buying Bitcoin worse than buying commemorative crap on the Home Shopping Channel?

It's pure statistics. WF's numbers show that people who buy bitcoin on their cards are more likely to go into default. Buying crap on HSN is not "better" or "worse", it's just statistically less likely to correlate with WF losing money on the purchase.

Re:Again Banks Controling You

[farble1670]

It shouldn't matter what you spend that credit on.

Yet it does, contrary to your opinion of how the lending industry should be run. Loans always have conditions. If you don't believe me, go take out a mortgage loan and try to buy a new car with the money.