Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

M* on wells fargo

"We still think the bank has done well for shareholders and customers overall." Anyone else sickened by this article? Does it have to be the bottom line FIRST, FOREMOST AND FOREVER?


  • I have better question for you. Why are your reading M*?

    I'm not sure if I'm sickened by the article. That's because now that you told me, I'm not going to read it and get my BP up. My doctor gave me a clean bill of health 2 weeks back and I see no reason to develop ulcers.

    Now, like I said on the other thread, let's focus on how we as individuals can take charge. Everytime I hear anyone talk about "did you hear what happened at Wells Fargo?", I ask them if they have a Wells Fargo account. If they say yes I tell them "First spend time moving it to another institution instead of gossiping about it".

    A long time back when I had hair, I got so pissed with TWC, I stopped watching cable tv. I had no other option for Cable TV through my apartment complex. I still simply stopped. I've made this argument before. We have choices. We don't have to be hypocrites about it. We may not have choices regarding who supplies water to us. We have to suffer it. That's not the case with finding a replacement for Wells Fargo.

    We also have choice. We don't have to read M* articles. If we are sickened by it, we should take that stand. That is if we want/expect M* to change its ways. I did long time back.
  • "Does it have to be the bottom line FIRST, FOREMOST AND FOREVER?"

    Ummmm... yes, I think so. Maybe check with Samsung on their little pocket bombs.
  • You can pay me now or you can pay me later !
  • edited September 2016
  • heezsafe said:


    And contrary to popular belief it will create more jobs not less. No "economies of scale" to line up executive pay, right?
  • I'm not quite clear on what you're asking, but sure, break a TBTF bank into two jumbo banks and you'll have the same work being done between them (with similar economies of scale), but now there will be two CEOs. Sounds like job creation to me.:-)
  • Yup, more banks, more competition, more reasons for folks wanting to be bank CEOs to try to loot some other industry, more honesty, more jobs, and last but not the least, less need for regulation.
  • On his show today Ric Edelman gave a thorough WF history review, with detail, and called for his listeners to cease all business with them; not sure he has ever done that before, at least that I have heard. Hear.
  • Vintage, I totally agree with your suggestion that folks vote with their feet. Some of us remember the tech crash in 2000-2002, in which several fund companies and managers were found to have engaged in self-trading. Janus was one of these, and was probably the biggest at the time. We had done business with them prior to that, and we immediately sold every client dollar with their funds and have never looked back. I still do not take calls from Janus. Did my action hurt them? On its own, no it did not. But thousands of investors did the same thing I did, and they have never regained their once-exalted position. There are other big companies I personally will not have anything to do with, for a number of reasons.

    While I do not have an account with WF, I would do the same with them as I did with Janus and others. The ease of electronic banking makes moving accounts pretty darned easy.
  • @BobC. Yup. As the old saying goes - We can be part of the problem or we can be part of the solution.
Sign In or Register to comment.