ADVERTISEMENT

Wells Fargo fines

cvilleelkscoach

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2011
2,450
3,845
1
As you may have heard Wells is being fined $1 billion by the OCC and CFPB for various violations in their operations and lack of lines of defense impacting the safety and soundness of the bank. I just read through the OCC consent order and one of the bank's board members and signee, Karen Peetz. She was part of getting BONY Mellon fined now is present when Wells gets fined.

I'm sure it will be a distant memory to the customers defrauded and the shareholders impacted in no time.
 
Once again, the regulation against this is already in place. And the regulators... in place.

It is and was illegal to sign people up for accounts without their consent.

Regulation does not change that.

LdN

This was not the credit card scam but charging customers for bank caused lost interest rate locks on mortgage loans and charging for auto forced place insurance when cover by customer was in place. Fraud yes, just different fraud.
 
This was not the credit card scam but charging customers for bank caused lost interest rate locks on mortgage loans and charging for auto forced place insurance when cover by customer was in place. Fraud yes, just different fraud.

OK yes just read regarding this specific fine.

The problem with Wells was a classic incentive vs. policy issue. Lack of internal controls, which get worse when revenue increases.

It happens at a lot of institutions. The people earning the money get promoted, despite whether they should. Then they create similar models over and over.

Compliance has too little oversight.

I'm glad they were found out, but to be clear the regulations already existed. As did the internal policy. Unfortunately the internal controls were terrible. And that's the issue.

LdN
 
As you may have heard Wells is being fined $1 billion by the OCC and CFPB for various violations in their operations and lack of lines of defense impacting the safety and soundness of the bank. I just read through the OCC consent order and one of the bank's board members and signee, Karen Peetz. She was part of getting BONY Mellon fined now is present when Wells gets fined.

I'm sure it will be a distant memory to the customers defrauded and the shareholders impacted in no time.

Ha-ha-ha! I got a check from them for another thing they did wrong for $9 and some odd cents!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
As you may have heard Wells is being fined $1 billion by the OCC and CFPB for various violations in their operations and lack of lines of defense impacting the safety and soundness of the bank. I just read through the OCC consent order and one of the bank's board members and signee, Karen Peetz. She was part of getting BONY Mellon fined now is present when Wells gets fined.

I'm sure it will be a distant memory to the customers defrauded and the shareholders impacted in no time.
She blames Dale Robertson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95 and Bob78
Wells Fargo sold a lot of people auto insurance they didn’t need or want, when WF financed auto loans. A pity that none of these Banksters are going to prison.
so why did people buy insurance they didn't want (or need)?
 
so why did people buy insurance they didn't want (or need)?
many times they didnt know they had it to later. Sign here, here and here, and go enjoy that new car!! Now you have a loan, credit life insurance, disability insurance, many believe you had to have.
 
so why did people buy insurance they didn't want (or need)?
Fair question. The car dealer recommended WF to finance my loan. I said maybe, whaddaya got. Dealer said, very good interest rate but WF says I must buy auto insurance. Told Dealer already have insurance. Dealer pressed. Told
Dealer that WF (and the Dealer) can go take a flying leap at a rolling donut. Dealer folded. Some folks will sign anything to get the vehicle they want, get stuck with stuff they don’t need. P.S. extended warranties are total crap, too. P.P.S. Title insurance is total crap too, a real racket. Ok, rant over....
 
As you may have heard Wells is being fined $1 billion by the OCC and CFPB for various violations in their operations and lack of lines of defense impacting the safety and soundness of the bank. I just read through the OCC consent order and one of the bank's board members and signee, Karen Peetz. She was part of getting BONY Mellon fined now is present when Wells gets fined.

I'm sure it will be a distant memory to the customers defrauded and the shareholders impacted in no time.
White-collar crime pays.......
 
Fair question. The car dealer recommended WF to finance my loan. I said maybe, whaddaya got. Dealer said, very good interest rate but WF says I must buy auto insurance. Told Dealer already have insurance. Dealer pressed. Told
Dealer that WF (and the Dealer) can go take a flying leap at a rolling donut. Dealer folded. Some folks will sign anything to get the vehicle they want, get stuck with stuff they don’t need. P.S. extended warranties are total crap, too. P.P.S. Title insurance is total crap too, a real racket. Ok, rant over....
The undercoating is totally worth it though ;)
 
Once again, the regulation against this is already in place. And the regulators... in place.

It is and was illegal to sign people up for accounts without their consent.

Regulation does not change that.

LdN

I know. We should make it illegal to use a van to run over a bunch of people. How many people need to get run over by a vehicle before we do something.
#laws
#dosomething
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
All of this may be true but as the saying goes the devil is in the details; i.e. do the regulators have sufficient budget and staff to carry out their responsibilities?

Just because regulations are in place doesn’t mean you have the resources to enforce them.

Yes, they have more than enough...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
All of this may be true but as the saying goes the devil is in the details; i.e. do the regulators have sufficient budget and staff to carry out their responsibilities?

Just because regulations are in place doesn’t mean you have the resources to enforce them.

Well, there's the wrinkle. I agree with this. Budget may be a problem.

More regulation, like Dodd Frank for example, costs billions to put in place. Just take a look at the federal register and the CFTC memos from the adjustment period.

So that's not the answer.

Regulations were in place for Madoff. The regulators had budget. Just none cared to do their jobs.

LdN
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
Well, there's the wrinkle. I agree with this. Budget may be a problem.

More regulation, like Dodd Frank for example, costs billions to put in place. Just take a look at the federal register and the CFTC memos from the adjustment period.

So that's not the answer.

Regulations were in place for Madoff. The regulators had budget. Just none cared to do their jobs.

LdN
Put the fraudsters in prison. Now the bank/company pays a fine with the money they stole. Starting putting people in jail for some serious time and all of a sudden enforcement and budgets are not as important since there will be far less of this type of crime. Currently it is a joke and everyone knows it.
 
Somewhere, somebody high up at Wells Fargo is getting a nice bonus for keeping the fine so low.
 
Well, there's the wrinkle. I agree with this. Budget may be a problem.

More regulation, like Dodd Frank for example, costs billions to put in place. Just take a look at the federal register and the CFTC memos from the adjustment period.

So that's not the answer.

Regulations were in place for Madoff. The regulators had budget. Just none cared to do their jobs.

LdN

Beuacracies are dangerous. They do not fix problems, they cover them up because it is always someone else's problem. You split up responsibilities enough times and suddenly it's nobody's responsibility and no one with a full picture of what is going on.
 
As you may have heard Wells is being fined $1 billion by the OCC and CFPB for various violations in their operations and lack of lines of defense impacting the safety and soundness of the bank. I just read through the OCC consent order and one of the bank's board members and signee, Karen Peetz. She was part of getting BONY Mellon fined now is present when Wells gets fined.

I'm sure it will be a distant memory to the customers defrauded and the shareholders impacted in no time.
I'm not defending Karen Peetz for what she did as a member of the Penn State BOT, but do you really believe that the BOT of a bank is planning for and implementing cyber security measures? This is what the people with "day jobs" at Wells Fargo are paid to do.
 
I'm not defending Karen Peetz for what she did as a member of the Penn State BOT, but do you really believe that the BOT of a bank is planning for and implementing cyber security measures? This is what the people with "day jobs" at Wells Fargo are paid to do.

They are responsible for setting the agenda, making it a priority, and making sure it is properly funded. They are also, cough cough, responsible for providing proper oversight and making sure their directives are enforced.
 
Beuacracies are dangerous. They do not fix problems, they cover them up because it is always someone else's problem. You split up responsibilities enough times and suddenly it's nobody's responsibility and no one with a full picture of what is going on.

Yep. I just lived through this for the last 4-5 years at my former workplace.

This is why on one hand blaming the Wells CEO for the cc fraud is stupid but at the same time it's right.

He is 20 steps removed from that decision. But at the same time, he is the only person likely ultimately responsible.

That's the issue with large companies. Noone knows what the heck is going on.

LdN
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
As you may have heard Wells is being fined $1 billion by the OCC and CFPB for various violations in their operations and lack of lines of defense impacting the safety and soundness of the bank. I just read through the OCC consent order and one of the bank's board members and signee, Karen Peetz. She was part of getting BONY Mellon fined now is present when Wells gets fined.

I'm sure it will be a distant memory to the customers defrauded and the shareholders impacted in no time.

Big deal. They got $25B in bailout money (though they did pay that back) and another big tax break (as much as $25B) from Paulson.

Crooks.
 
Big deal. They got $25B in bailout money (though they did pay that back) and another big tax break (as much as $25B) from Paulson.

Crooks.

Well, of course what you're discussing happened years before this recent episode.

Wells was a sort of white knight for the gov't. Wachovia (actually First Union) was a POS. Wells was kindly asked to step in and take them over to prevent the government (FDIC) from having to take them over and lose billions. Also preventing a massive loss of jobs.

Wells balked initially but then thanks to the liquidity provided by the Fed took them over.

In hindsight still a terrible decision for Wells which was a well run institution back from the days of Norwest financial.

This is a simplified version of events, but of course if you just see "$25bln" and "tax break" not having any understanding of what that means there's no helping you.

LdN
 
Well, of course what you're discussing happened years before this recent episode.

Wells was a sort of white knight for the gov't. Wachovia (actually First Union) was a POS. Wells was kindly asked to step in and take them over to prevent the government (FDIC) from having to take them over and lose billions. Also preventing a massive loss of jobs.

Wells balked initially but then thanks to the liquidity provided by the Fed took them over.

In hindsight still a terrible decision for Wells which was a well run institution back from the days of Norwest financial.

This is a simplified version of events, but of course if you just see "$25bln" and "tax break" not having any understanding of what that means there's no helping you.

LdN
Also have to be clear....Madoff had a totally different standard than Wells Fargo. Wells is FDIC/FFIEC insured. That means that Wells has to put a large part of their deposits into a fund to insure that anyone who has up to $250k in an account won't lose money if the bank goes bankrupt.

Madoff had no such insurance, made no such deposits, and investors lost everything. If you are depositing money into something other than a bank or a credit union that is insured, if the company goes bankrupt, you are screwed.

Back to the big collapse in 2007. There were few laws broken. There was an over investment and lax adherence to lending standards, most pointedly in mortgage lending. People and companies were way over invested in real estate values. It was common to get a no money down mortgage so when property values dropped, the home was worth less than the mortgage. That led to banks getting "jingle mail"; a payment envelope with the keys to the property inside. And since mortgages were bought and sold in bulk between companies, companies investing in real estate got killed. In the end, it was cheaper for the Fed govt to prop up staggering banks than to pay off the FDIC insurance (because the amount of insurance didn't cover the losses). Dodd/Frank, frankly, didn't address this.

Back to Wells...lots of shady practices and ownership (stock holders and executives) have lost a ton of money and/or jobs. However, a lot of what was done was on the grass roots level (branch managers, under pressure, simply started to open accounts without approval, their was little oversight, and these are the crooks but there are thousands and they are "the little guys").

images
 
Well, of course what you're discussing happened years before this recent episode.

Wells was a sort of white knight for the gov't. Wachovia (actually First Union) was a POS. Wells was kindly asked to step in and take them over to prevent the government (FDIC) from having to take them over and lose billions. Also preventing a massive loss of jobs.

Wells balked initially but then thanks to the liquidity provided by the Fed took them over.

In hindsight still a terrible decision for Wells which was a well run institution back from the days of Norwest financial.

This is a simplified version of events, but of course if you just see "$25bln" and "tax break" not having any understanding of what that means there's no helping you.

LdN

Wells Fargo had proposed taking over Wachovia, however Citigroup had come up with a proposal that was ultimately agreed upon with Wachovia. Wells Fargo then came up with a counter-proposal with the aid of siginifcant tax incentives.

If you are okay with the U.S. Government providing incentives and financial means to allow a private company to take over another (albeit in financial despair) then we disagree. And call me a cynic, but I don't believe for a second when there is billions of dollars at stake that there isn't any impropriety somewhere down the line. Let the losers fail, keep the government out of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
Also have to be clear....Madoff had a totally different standard than Wells Fargo. Wells is FDIC/FFIEC insured. That means that Wells has to put a large part of their deposits into a fund to insure that anyone who has up to $250k in an account won't lose money if the bank goes bankrupt.

Madoff had no such insurance, made no such deposits, and investors lost everything. If you are depositing money into something other than a bank or a credit union that is insured, if the company goes bankrupt, you are screwed.

Back to the big collapse in 2007. There were few laws broken. There was an over investment and lax adherence to lending standards, most pointedly in mortgage lending. People and companies were way over invested in real estate values. It was common to get a no money down mortgage so when property values dropped, the home was worth less than the mortgage. That led to banks getting "jingle mail"; a payment envelope with the keys to the property inside. And since mortgages were bought and sold in bulk between companies, companies investing in real estate got killed. In the end, it was cheaper for the Fed govt to prop up staggering banks than to pay off the FDIC insurance (because the amount of insurance didn't cover the losses). Dodd/Frank, frankly, didn't address this.

Back to Wells...lots of shady practices and ownership (stock holders and executives) have lost a ton of money and/or jobs. However, a lot of what was done was on the grass roots level (branch managers, under pressure, simply started to open accounts without approval, their was little oversight, and these are the crooks but there are thousands and they are "the little guys").

images


SIPC. That is the equivalent to the FDIC for brokerage accounts.

Madoff was a brokerage firm. Now his pretend inside trading business where only select people were allowed based on family line... well that maybe wasnt.

Ldn
 
SIPC. That is the equivalent to the FDIC for brokerage accounts.

Madoff was a brokerage firm. Now his pretend inside trading business where only select people were allowed based on family line... well that maybe wasnt.

Ldn
Trust me...SIPC is quite different that FDIC. The base goal is the same, but SIPC insured customers are at much greater risk than FDIC.

I am not going to go into all of it on a message board, but they are much different
 
  • Like
Reactions: LionDeNittany
Trust me...SIPC is quite different that FDIC. The base goal is the same, but SIPC insured customers are at much greater risk than FDIC.

I am not going to go into all of it on a message board, but they are much different

I am not saying they are one in the same. However both are regulators whose job it is to ensure these accounts.

Both, at different times, were asleep at the switch.

LdN
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax
Get Art's opinion. He is the expert on things like this.
 
Wells Fargo had proposed taking over Wachovia, however Citigroup had come up with a proposal that was ultimately agreed upon with Wachovia. Wells Fargo then came up with a counter-proposal with the aid of siginifcant tax incentives.

If you are okay with the U.S. Government providing incentives and financial means to allow a private company to take over another (albeit in financial despair) then we disagree. And call me a cynic, but I don't believe for a second when there is billions of dollars at stake that there isn't any impropriety somewhere down the line. Let the losers fail, keep the government out of it.
I don't believe that is accurate. Citi agreed to by most of Wachovia and leave a bunch of other stuff on the table. Laster, WF came in and bought the entire franchise.

If you want to see a mess, check out OneWest. Ostensibly, a bunch of policos were given the option to buy the good stuff leaving the govt with all of the bad stuff. The CEO position was given to Steve Mnuchen and one of the major investors was George Soros. Mnuchen, is now Sec of the Treasury. Soros made tens of Billions in a few short months. Their common thread is that they were connected. If you look closely, all of the major investors were politically affiliated and handed a deal that made them more money than a person can count in their lifetimes. Just for fun, check out a bank named "Urban Partnership" in Chicago. The administration simply started a bank because they wanted one in downtown chicago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT