Thread: Wells Fargo pays 175 million dollar fine, aye

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Holy crap.

This was a civil case, not a criminal one. This was not a plea deal (those happen in criminal courts).

This was a settlement of a civil case. The settlement involves Wells Fargo paying out money to settle the claim without admitting any wrongdoing. They have not pled guilty (despite your fabrication that they had).

Try actually reading the article the OP posted.

Matt, left wing nuts tend to WANT to believe that business and industry is always the guilty party when there is a dispute between they and the government. I don't like WF for other reasons, not the least the way they determine the interest rate. I don't like Romney and won't vote for him in Nov, yet I will defend him against all the phoney charges left wing nuts throw at him.

BTW, I damned sure not going to vote for Obama either. I don't want either of them in the WH though it appears at the moment we will end up with Romney. When will America wake up and take left wing nuts like Obama and the REAL Romney and throw them all out of office. PS, I feel the same way about the right wing nuts.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

Plea bargains yes. But this was not a plea bargain, it was only a settlement to save the company money. You really need to learn how to read for understanding doggie. Nowhere in any article has there been proof of guilt or admission of guilt. You are right you sure an hell are not up on legal stuff.Yep! All the time.Only to someone not interested in checking out what is available to the contrary. I was a stock holder in a bank years ago and was one of the rotating board members because of family interests in the bank. We were frequently accused of bullcrap like WF so I know just how often accusations are made for no reason but to get money out of the bank.

IE innocent until PROVEN guilty, and the rumors and innuendo do not influence me for a moment.

I reckon DNS I have only been middle middle class for most of my life, and the thought of paying out over a hundred million dollars for something that was not substantiated just makes no sense to me at all. But if you polled regular people, and not ideologues, I think they would agree with me and not you. For what it's worth.

Personally if I was charged with speeding, and but knew for certain I was not speeding, I am the type of guy that would fight it, tooth and nail because I was innocent. And I judge others by this same measure. Call it a gut feeling...

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy all,

this just in today, mateys;

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/bu...harges.html?hp

fer folks who thunder against the tyranny 'o the charges 'o racism that get hurled to and fro, they often hold up thar hands in protest and say, "we don't mind givin' a hand up, just not a hand out!", what say ye all about this? do the protocals 'o Wells Fargo sound fair?

the same folk often get very spirited when they talk 'bout the endless regulations that be inflicted on the bankin' industry, shacklin' the "magic of the free market" that would just whisk us away to land 'o riches that this Darwinistic philosophy will carry us to, if we we would only let it. since black americans statistically are a bigger risk to default on a loan than white americans, should banks be allowed to keelhaul these black folks with bigger rates due to thar skin color as long as thar decisions be based on empirical evidence or do ye approve 'o the actions 'o the Justice Dept in this instance?

- MeadHallPirate

The article says the minority borrowers posed the same credit risk as whites. Discrimination is illegal and wrong. Pretty cut and dry politics here. I cant think of anyone but maybe Ron Paul who would defend this.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy MattLarson,

me bucko, i think these contractors be workin' fer Wells Fargo, so thats whar the trail ends...so they bear responsibility.

i'm shocked and baffled that so many folks who be respondin' be paintin' Wells Fargo as the aggrieved party, hounded by the relentless Justice Department into bein' forced to pay $175,000,000 to make these unjust charges go away.

I don't know whether there was actual wrongdoing or not. The statement the bank made when they reached the settlement says that they deny wrongdoing on their part and they are settling to avoid protracted litigation. It is conceivable that the felt defending the case would cost them that much or more, so this was the smart way to resolve it.

It could be that they were actually complicit in wrongdoing, and they know they are going to pay one way or another. I really don't know.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

i find it odd, and almost surreal that no one seems too riled up 'bout the idear that bankin' institutions illegally stuck minorities with unfair rates, based on racial profilin'.

i find it completely bizarre that one or two folk hath dismissed these charges usin' the rationale that "Barrack Obama be President, so these charges be false."

that seems like such a weak and tepid rebuttal fer a debate site.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

I agree that the Obama rebuttal is nonsense. I don't see how Obama has anything to do with this.

If - and this is a big if - the bank actually did hit minorities with higher rates based solely on their race, then they were clearly in the wrong. That conduct would be absolutely despicable.

Matt

Originally Posted by dnsmith

Then you are taking a lot for granted, especially when the only proof so far is statistical studies of rejections. If that were going on I would be the first to condemn them. But so far there is no real proof it did happen.So Holder's DOJ shot at WF and missed then shot at BoA and hit them in the same place, right pirate?It is Holder's DOJ, and when (and if) real evidence is shown the more power to them. But so far in neither case was it anything but statistical correlation which proves exactly nothing.

ahoy DNSmith,

well, aye....the only proof i have is readin' o'er the statistical studies 'o rejections when loans fer white americans and equally qualified black/hispanic americans were compared and the findings were that despite havin' the same creditworthyness, the minorities were stuck with higher rates. if ye add up the statistical studies from both the Wells Fargo and BOA investigations, ye end up with around a quarter million instances whar this occured.

beyond that, i don't have much, 'tis true.

i also think ye have the timeline off, me friend. the DOJ shot, as ye put it, at BOA was last December and extracted $335,000,000 in the biggest settlement 'o its kind in US history.

The United States' complaint says that Countrywide was aware that the fees and interest rates that its loan officers were charging discriminated against African-American and Hispanic borrowers, but failed to impose meaningful limits or guidelines to stop it.

By steering borrowers into subprime loans from 2004 to 2007, the complaint alleges, Countrywide harmed those qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers. Subprime loans generally carried costlier terms, such as prepayment penalties and significantly higher adjustable interest rates that increased suddenly after two or three years, making the payments unaffordable and leaving the borrowers at a much higher risk of foreclosure.

Bank of America to Pay $335 Million Settlement in Fair Lending Case | Fox News

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by dnsmith

Matt, left wing nuts tend to WANT to believe that business and industry is always the guilty party when there is a dispute between they and the government. I don't like WF for other reasons, not the least the way they determine the interest rate. I don't like Romney and won't vote for him in Nov, yet I will defend him against all the phoney charges left wing nuts throw at him.

BTW, I damned sure not going to vote for Obama either. I don't want either of them in the WH though it appears at the moment we will end up with Romney. When will America wake up and take left wing nuts like Obama and the REAL Romney and throw them all out of office. PS, I feel the same way about the right wing nuts.

Pirate is no left wing nut. Neither am I. But I do tend to lean left on most things. Here is the deal though. I do not trust banking any longer. Not given what happened to cause the crash of 08. I think this is a reasonable distrust.

But if white people with the same credit rating and similiar financial positions were charged less, not steered into sub primes, as the darker skins, something was going on here DNS. This is not just some big coincidence. What would you have to know, in order for you to think that something was going on here with WF? From what we know today, I don't see how a reasonable mind would think WF innocent.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

I think this is a good thing personally. Wish they would do as much due diligence going after companies that hire illegals as well.

I think in this case the "Independent" brokers are covered the same way if I hired a contractor for a job. I am still responsible for what that contractor does.

ahoy Wlessard,

pardon me matey, but could ye expand a bit on what precisely was the "due diligence" that ye speak of?

these brokers took minorities who had the identical credit worthyness as white person, and then just charged the black/hispanic person more, sometimes shovin' them off into a sub-prime loan...just on the basis 'o thar ethnicity.

what kind 'o due diligence be this?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I reckon DNS I have only been middle middle class for most of my life, and the thought of paying out over a hundred million dollars for something that was not substantiated just makes no sense to me at all. But if you polled regular people, and not ideologues, I think they would agree with me and not you. For what it's worth.

You would be polling the wrong people. To determine whether or not it makes business sense to settle. You would need to poll CEOs of companies as large as WF for your poll to make any sense at all.

Personally if I was charged with speeding, and but knew for certain I was not speeding, I am the type of guy that would fight it, tooth and nail because I was innocent. And I judge others by this same measure. Call it a gut feeling...

Your gut feeling is pretty petty at the moments since from what I believe your past judging of situations are, do not fall into what is normal human behavior for people who make business decisions relative to costs and savings.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by jviehe

The article says the minority borrowers posed the same credit risk as whites. Discrimination is illegal and wrong. Pretty cut and dry politics here. I cant think of anyone but maybe Ron Paul who would defend this.

The writer of the article is basing their argument based on the statistics of who was turned down. Until there is actual proof of discrimination I tend to go with the business' word rather than the Obama DoJ.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy DNSmith,

well, aye....the only proof i have is readin' o'er the statistical studies 'o rejections when loans fer white americans and equally qualified black/hispanic americans

The key word is EQUALLY QUALIFIED. Who made that call?

Time line make no difference. Shooting and missing, then shooting and hitting in the same place was the point.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Pirate is no left wing nut. Neither am I. But I do tend to lean left on most things. Here is the deal though. I do not trust banking any longer. Not given what happened to cause the crash of 08. I think this is a reasonable distrust.

But if white people with the same credit rating and similiar financial positions were charged less, not steered into sub primes, as the darker skins, something was going on here DNS. This is not just some big coincidence. What would you have to know, in order for you to think that something was going on here with WF? From what we know today, I don't see how a reasonable mind would think WF innocent.

You made up your mind that WF was not innocent as soon as you say they settled, which gives you no more grounds to believe they are guilty that a coin toss. If I believed that WF or BOA were guilty of discrimination I would join you in condemning them. As it is, the likely hood is the brokers made decisions which may or may not have been discriminatory but even if they were, there is no reason to believe the paper buyers knew of it.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

The key word is EQUALLY QUALIFIED. Who made that call?

Time line make no difference. Shooting and missing, then shooting and hitting in the same place was the point.

ahoy DNSmith,

well, two things matey.

when the Justice Department shoots and extracts hundreds 'o millions in settlement fees, thats "shooting and hitting". the Government 'o the United States 'o America isn't interested in destroyin' the pillars 'o the economy, and thats true no matter who holds the reigns 'o power.

they just want to assess a fine fer these illegal activities (which the DOJ succeeded in doin', thats why these settlement fees aren't $1, but total instead hundreds 'o millions 'o dollars) and extract a pledge that the entities in question change thar way 'o doin' business (which they also succeeded in doin').

and in terms 'o EQUALLY QUALIFIED? who determines that? well, in this case it was the banks - and then they took these equally qualified folks and stuck the black and brown colored folks with higher rates.

aye?

aye!

- MeadHallPirate

PS - to be frank, i was hopin' that BoA and WF were totally cleared 'o any wrongdoin' and could emerge triumphant. i make a great deal 'o monies off them entities and don't really feel much joy to see'm gettin' creamed in these settlements.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

You made up your mind that WF was not innocent as soon as you say they settled, which gives you no more grounds to believe they are guilty that a coin toss. If I believed that WF or BOA were guilty of discrimination I would join you in condemning them. As it is, the likely hood is the brokers made decisions which may or may not have been discriminatory but even if they were, there is no reason to believe the paper buyers knew of it.

I would love to see the database that contains the zip codes that determine discrimination.
As far as correlation goes you have no credibility as you think shipping off all our jobs has created a global financial mecca when the opposite has occurred.
In term of stating someone is a "bleeding heart", you've got to be kidding me with your, "It's their turn" crap.

BTW, there was a recent settlement by the Bank of America where they denied all culpability and the judge wanted the plaintiffs to reject the offer in order to publicize the scummy bank's behavior.
But the reality of the matter is that ordinary people need money on which to live and can't outlast multi-millionaires in the "waiting" game.

Wells-Fargo, my mortgage manager, has pulled off lots of crap against their mortgagees, including myself.

I think we need tort reform.....Cases like this drive me nuts....We dont know shit. I mean did They cave cause they were guilty as hell like the stoner pirate thinks? Or did they cave cause it was just cheaper than fighting? Also what the fuck is the DOJ doing getting even involved with a a civil suit? If they cant prove a crime step the hell away. If it was made that the loser pays court costs you would be seeing far less of these suits and the ones we do see would be far more conclusive.