4 ms·

WIth two massive scandals within 5 years I think this bank should be broken up as part of its punishment. It's clearly too big to run an honest consumer safe b

by ProAm 4y ago

WIth two massive scandals within 5 years I think this bank should be broken up as part of its punishment. It's clearly too big to run an honest consumer safe business.

michaelmrose 4y ago
It's assets should be liquided. Shareholders should be given exactly nothing. Let people consider that when choosing who to do business with.
baobabKoodaa 4y ago
> WIth two massive scandals... Oh, honey
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
twblalock 4y ago
What about the 268,000 employees who work at Wells Fargo, 99% of whom had nothing to do with this? Most of those employees are just normal people trying to make a living, and it would be wrong to screw them because their bosses, who they never met or had anything to do with, did something wrong. Shutting down a company is the nuclear option -- it hurts many people who did nothing wrong, including most of the employees and the shareholders. It is not justice.
- theptip 4y ago
  Broken up != shut down. Without advocating for/against the proposal, to clarify: typically this means either business units are spun out as smaller companies, or sold off to competitors. You’d expect some job losses due to consolidation but it’s not like you are closing down all of the branches and sending everyone working there home.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    How exactly would you break up Wells Fargo into a subset of businesses that had a chance of surviving on their own? This is especially bad for a bank. Customers would freak out and leave. I can't find a single historical example of a bank breakup that didn't result in the destruction of the entire business.
    - kodyo 4y ago
      Customers freaking out and leaving would be awesome.
      - twblalock 4y ago
        Destruction of jobs and services != justice.
        roywiggins 4y ago
        It's not that they deserve to lose their jobs. There were probably lots of honest people working at Theranos! That's not a good reason to have kept Theranos around, though. Like, asbestos miners losing their jobs was a necessary result of shutting down the asbestos industry. It's not that it's fair, but it's not a reason to keep mining asbestos. Obviously ideally Wells Fargo could be reformed somehow, but the "corporate death penalty"[0] exists for a reason! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution
        ProAm 4y ago
        > Destruction of jobs and services != justice. But it does send a message to the broader industry. Sometimes a few rouge cancer cells can kill the entire host. And this is the second time around for them.
        kodyo 4y ago
        The availability of jobs should be a symptom of good business, not an end goal that justifies the ongoing depravity of a business.
- ProAm 4y ago
  1) Breaking up does not mean shut down. They just need to be split into smaller pieces. 2) A vacuum provide ample opportunity for these people to start a new, honest bank as if there will be a need for it. 3) Sometimes evil just needs to be shutdown, Im sorry these people are working for a criminal organization, someone should have spoken up (Whistleblower money is huge for these types of things).
- pksebben 4y ago
  I'm more worried about their 70 million customers than the relatively paltry 300k employees
- johnny_b_g 4y ago
  > "What about the 268,000 employees who work at Wells Fargo, 99% of whom had nothing to do with this?" Boo-fukken-hoo. They were all part of the problem - the grease of the machinery if you will; something this bad doesn't go unnoticed by so many people. This was clearly an "inside job" with many, many people involved internally. I would have no sympathy for any of them, even if they'd end up losing their own homes as a result (sweet, sweet irony that would be!)
fabianhjr 4y ago
What do you mean broken up? It should be seized and either converted into a credit union (give ownership to the affected people) or a state run non-profit banking service. (And also implement the proposals for the postal service to offer banking services) That would avoid both a lot of smaller wells fargos doing worse things and further financial damage to the economy, clients, and workers of splitting up a private company.
- twblalock 4y ago
  If people really think nationalization is a reasonable solution, I'd rather not punish banks at all.

by ProAm 4y ago

WIth two massive scandals within 5 years I think this bank should be broken up as part of its punishment. It's clearly too big to run an honest consumer safe business.

michaelmrose 4y ago

It's assets should be liquided. Shareholders should be given exactly nothing. Let people consider that when choosing who to do business with.

baobabKoodaa 4y ago

> WIth two massive scandals... Oh, honey

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

twblalock 4y ago

What about the 268,000 employees who work at Wells Fargo, 99% of whom had nothing to do with this? Most of those employees are just normal people trying to make a living, and it would be wrong to screw them because their bosses, who they never met or had anything to do with, did something wrong. Shutting down a company is the nuclear option -- it hurts many people who did nothing wrong, including most of the employees and the shareholders. It is not justice.

theptip 4y ago
Broken up != shut down. Without advocating for/against the proposal, to clarify: typically this means either business units are spun out as smaller companies, or sold off to competitors. You’d expect some job losses due to consolidation but it’s not like you are closing down all of the branches and sending everyone working there home.
- twblalock 4y ago
  How exactly would you break up Wells Fargo into a subset of businesses that had a chance of surviving on their own? This is especially bad for a bank. Customers would freak out and leave. I can't find a single historical example of a bank breakup that didn't result in the destruction of the entire business.
  - kodyo 4y ago
    Customers freaking out and leaving would be awesome.
    - twblalock 4y ago
      Destruction of jobs and services != justice.
      - roywiggins 4y ago
        It's not that they deserve to lose their jobs. There were probably lots of honest people working at Theranos! That's not a good reason to have kept Theranos around, though. Like, asbestos miners losing their jobs was a necessary result of shutting down the asbestos industry. It's not that it's fair, but it's not a reason to keep mining asbestos. Obviously ideally Wells Fargo could be reformed somehow, but the "corporate death penalty"[0] exists for a reason! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution
      - ProAm 4y ago
        > Destruction of jobs and services != justice. But it does send a message to the broader industry. Sometimes a few rouge cancer cells can kill the entire host. And this is the second time around for them.
      - kodyo 4y ago
        The availability of jobs should be a symptom of good business, not an end goal that justifies the ongoing depravity of a business.
ProAm 4y ago
1) Breaking up does not mean shut down. They just need to be split into smaller pieces. 2) A vacuum provide ample opportunity for these people to start a new, honest bank as if there will be a need for it. 3) Sometimes evil just needs to be shutdown, Im sorry these people are working for a criminal organization, someone should have spoken up (Whistleblower money is huge for these types of things).
pksebben 4y ago
I'm more worried about their 70 million customers than the relatively paltry 300k employees
johnny_b_g 4y ago
> "What about the 268,000 employees who work at Wells Fargo, 99% of whom had nothing to do with this?" Boo-fukken-hoo. They were all part of the problem - the grease of the machinery if you will; something this bad doesn't go unnoticed by so many people. This was clearly an "inside job" with many, many people involved internally. I would have no sympathy for any of them, even if they'd end up losing their own homes as a result (sweet, sweet irony that would be!)

fabianhjr 4y ago

What do you mean broken up? It should be seized and either converted into a credit union (give ownership to the affected people) or a state run non-profit banking service. (And also implement the proposals for the postal service to offer banking services) That would avoid both a lot of smaller wells fargos doing worse things and further financial damage to the economy, clients, and workers of splitting up a private company.

twblalock 4y ago
If people really think nationalization is a reasonable solution, I'd rather not punish banks at all.