Another class act business appreciating it's customers -- Wells Fargo

[gbpfan1231]

I am not saying what Wells Fargo did was right - I think it is wrong. I am saying that if people were not so irresponsible with the money they DON'T have it may not even matter.

 

Yes the fact is that the way they processed the checks was what caused these people to be overdrawn. The other fact is that these people did over spend.

 

What also amazes me is that people don't get mad enough at Wells Fargo to move the money they have - If a bank does unethical things then move your money - if enough people move money to better more ethical banks then Wells Fargo will suffer much more than paying these people back.

 

Both sides were at fault here and until people are responsible with money and start to do tings to make these businesses stop nothing will change.

[keggerz]

If continuous static profits were considered sufficient by Wall Street, there would be no need to constantly look for angles in order to increase profits. The problem the big (public) companies have is that the expectation has been set that profit, however gigantic, is not enough - profits must always increase, according to the Masters of the Universe and their "analysts", otherwise they'll write you down and there goes your share price.

DING DING DING...I have been saying this for years to family and friends (but not here)....part of the problem is wall street and the fact that companies have to continue to push to move #s upward and forward and many times that takes a company into areas that they haven't gotten the expertise in and then it hurts their core business or trying to appease wall street many companies are expanding when it really isn't the right thing to do...etc

Edited August 15, 2010 by keggerz

[Perchoutofwater]

If continuous static profits were considered sufficient by Wall Street, there would be no need to constantly look for angles in order to increase profits. The problem the big (public) companies have is that the expectation has been set that profit, however gigantic, is not enough - profits must always increase, according to the Masters of the Universe and their "analysts", otherwise they'll write you down and there goes your share price.

 

If you could guarantee me constant static profits, I'd be happy doing every job there is at 5%, of course you would have to guarantee that there will not be any down turns in the economy, and that I won't be sued unless I'm really at fault, and not hold me criminally responsible for something stupid that one of my employees might do without my knowledge or consent. You do realize that it is the very landfall profits that you and Club want to throw extra tax on that see us through times like the 2nd half of this year and at least the first half of next year.

[Perchoutofwater]

DING DING DING...I have been saying this for years to family and friends (but not here)....part of the problem is wall street and the fact that companies have to continue to push to move #s upward and forward and many times that takes a company into areas that they haven't gotten the expertise in and then it hurts their core business or trying to appease wall street many companies are expanding when it really isn't the right thing to do...etc

 

Now I agree with you about expanding too fast into areas you are not familiar with, that is one of the main reasons I've never gotten into road construction, that and it requires too many dealings with the government.

[Ursa Majoris]

If you could guarantee me constant static profits, I'd be happy doing every job there is at 5%, of course you would have to guarantee that there will not be any down turns in the economy, and that I won't be sued unless I'm really at fault, and not hold me criminally responsible for something stupid that one of my employees might do without my knowledge or consent. You do realize that it is the very landfall profits that you and Club want to throw extra tax on that see us through times like the 2nd half of this year and at least the first half of next year.

Not the point I was making, not at all. Increasing profit expectations every quarter is an unsustainable pipe dream that can only lead to total collapse. You, being a prudent businessman, would keep back part of that 5% for a rainy day, just as you urge everyone else to do, thus there would be no need to increase your profit every reporting period. Yes, I know you're not publicly traded but that isn't the point.

 

What do these "analysts" base their so-called expectations on? Who are they to set a bar for companies actually adding value to the nation? BTW, there's a reason analysts have anal as the first four letters of their job name - both are full of $hit.

 

And it's windfall, not landfall.

[keggerz]

Now I agree with you about expanding too fast into areas you are not familiar with, that is one of the main reasons I've never gotten into road construction, that and it requires too many dealings with the government.

far to many companys, imo end up expanding or getting involved in areas that they aren't really ready to be in, etc.

[detlef]

I am not saying what Wells Fargo did was right - I think it is wrong. I am saying that if people were not so irresponsible with the money they DON'T have it may not even matter.

 

Yes the fact is that the way they processed the checks was what caused these people to be overdrawn. The other fact is that these people did over spend.

 

What also amazes me is that people don't get mad enough at Wells Fargo to move the money they have - If a bank does unethical things then move your money - if enough people move money to better more ethical banks then Wells Fargo will suffer much more than paying these people back.

 

Both sides were at fault here and until people are responsible with money and start to do tings to make these businesses stop nothing will change.

1) This policy is not unique to Wells Fargo

2) Truly unique banking options are shrinking. Sure there's a lot of names out there, but many are the same bank. Evidence: Earlier in the thread, I was going to make pt #1 by saying my bank did the same thing for years. Funny thing is, my bank is now part of Wells Fargo (though the did this practice before they were bought by Wells Fargo)

[keggerz]

quick anyone remember back in the day when credit cards actually got declined....prior to the recently changed law CC companies had no problem approving a purchase that would put you over the limit and then they would hit you with an over the limit fee....i believe with the new law that you have to opt-in to be able to have an OTL transaction go thru...or something like that.