Thread: Wells Fargo pays 175 million dollar fine, aye

Ima bit confused here. The quote says "independent brokers" charged higher fees, but the bank is paying the fine?

If they are really "independent", how is the bank liable for their actions?

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Ima bit confused here. The quote says "independent brokers" charged higher fees, but the bank is paying the fine?

If they are really "independent", how is the bank liable for their actions?

The investigation showed executives knew that independent brokers were charging higher fees to minorities and looked the other way. I don't know if that makes them legally responsible but settling is probably far better than fighting and taking the PR hit.

I'd be interested if any of these independent types were charged (ok), or if it was another case of going for the deep pockets (pretty bad), as this would be the doj right?

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

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?

I don't think anyone has ever argued the former despite your insistence.

As to the latter, I think a business should be able to treat any potential customer any way they want within reason.

Lets say for argument sake a big group of minorities looked at this article, decided they can't trust white people, and refused to get their mortgagees through white mortgage brokers. Should the government then force them to buy from white people to be fair?

To my way of thinking, the loans should be made with a color blind eye, with the usual things looked at when making a loan. Income, liabilities, assets, time on the job,job history and so on.

Since it seems that the higher fees and rates applied even when the credit ratings for the minorities were the same as whites, this has a foul smell to it. Also it was more likely that the minority borrowers were steering into subprime loans, not getting a fixed rate. The blacks and hispanics were taken advantage of.

We just cannot trust bankers, lenders anymore. Someone should have went to jail over this. It is time we teach these bastards a lesson. Just more of the same behavior we have seen from these people for way too long. Entitled sons of bitches.

Originally Posted by Wagner

The investigation showed executives knew that independent brokers were charging higher fees to minorities and looked the other way. I don't know if that makes them legally responsible but settling is probably far better than fighting and taking the PR hit.

ahoy Wagner,

the PR hit would only come if they were found guilty 'o thar discriminatory actions. considerin' the gruesome odor that Eric Holder be in, i'd think that Wells Fargo would be spoilin' fer a chance to vindicate thar innocence, if they truly were innocent 'o any wrongdoin'.

as it is, they indeed decided to take both pay to settle (2nd biggest in US history fer this kinda settlement), as opposed to take the drubbin' they'd no doubt be in fer if they were found guilty in a US court 'o law.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Wagner

I don't think anyone has ever argued the former despite your insistence.

As to the latter, I think a business should be able to treat any potential customer any way they want within reason.

Lets say for argument sake a big group of minorities looked at this article, decided they can't trust white people, and refused to get their mortgagees through white mortgage brokers. Should the government then force them to buy from white people to be fair?

ahoy Wagner,

matey, imma not sure exactly how i feel 'bout the Wells Fargo settlement.

on one hand, alot 'o me financial survival depends on the health 'o Wells Fargo (formerly Wachovia), many 'o me clients hail from that particular bank - so even if they are guilty 'o behavin' in a manner inconsistent with the spirit 'o these United States, imma not feelin' so righteous that i wanna cut me own throat.

on the other hand, as a minority, i always get nervous when the issue 'o profilin' comes up, because i want to have a fair shake in me own pursuit 'o the American dream. that may or may not be somethin' ye can relate to.

yet again, on the other hand (the third hand, yarrr), black americans (or as Jasper likes to put it, "colored people") are historically more likely to default on a loan than other ethnic groups - so should the bank be allowed to charge these folk more painful rates?

finally on the fourth hand (four hands, aye), imma not clear how we ever expect black americans to assimilate if we continue to sanction givin' them the shitty end 'o the stick.

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

To my way of thinking, the loans should be made with a color blind eye, with the usual things looked at when making a loan. Income, liabilities, assets, time on the job,job history and so on.

Since it seems that the higher fees and rates applied even when the credit ratings for the minorities were the same as whites, this has a foul smell to it. Also it was more likely that the minority borrowers were steering into subprime loans, not getting a fixed rate. The blacks and hispanics were taken advantage of.

We just cannot trust bankers, lenders anymore. Someone should have went to jail over this. It is time we teach these bastards a lesson. Just more of the same behavior we have seen from these people for way too long. Entitled sons of bitches.

ahoy Blue Doggy,

the biggest doggies, the officers on the bridge 'o the banks, never go to jail, mate.

they've enough monies to buy thar way out, thats how the system be set up. ye can't have these wealthy folk in jail, they be job creators.

- MeadHallPirate

In my line of work I do a whole lot of business with various banks lending divisions and I have to say that on more than one occasion I have questioned whether WFB based some of its decisions on race.

I don't have enough familiarity to with the issues of the OP to make a completely impartial assessment and I sincerely believe that the DoJ Civil Rights Division has a tendency to get more than a little overzealous in some (many) of its "investigations" but, as I said above, there have been a few instances where I left WFB scratching my head.

Such clear discrimination is obscene. One might even say gestapo-esque. (this is gesture to the insane Maine Republican conservative tea-party governor's absurdly over-the-top reaction to a policy that will add 34 million Americans to the health insurance rolls)

Once again we have delivered to our doorsteps a stark example of how naked greed corrupts our morals and our society.

The free market is merely an engine for wealth. How a society employs it and allows others to employ it is a vital measure of that society's moral standing.

Originally Posted by jpn

Such clear discrimination is obscene. One might even say gestapo-esque. (this is gesture to the insane Maine Republican conservative tea-party governor's absurdly over-the-top reaction to a policy that will add 34 million Americans to the health insurance rolls)

Once again we have delivered to our doorsteps a stark example of how naked greed corrupts our morals and our society.

The free market is merely an engine for wealth. How a society employs it and allows others to employ it is a vital measure of that society's moral standing.

And the government stealing from one who earns and gives to one who mooches, that isn't naked greed? Sure doesn't sound too moral to me. It seems strange when Libs claim some moral high ground while they are picking your pocket.

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

And the government stealing from one who earns and gives to one who mooches, that isn't naked greed? Sure doesn't sound too moral to me. It seems strange when Libs claim some moral high ground while they are picking your pocket.

ahoy OldmanDan,

thats great matey, but what do you think 'o the topic 'o the thread? the OP isn't about liberals or conservatives, really. i know ye want to get yer shots in...but it doesn't really relate to anythin' imma talkin' about.

should banks be allowed to discriminate? be this an example 'o too much regulation and government o'erreach?

- MeadHallPirate

I have a comment to the issue at hand. The banking industry had problems due to the fact that they basically were forced to provide loans to people they normally wouldn't. If they had denied groups that were known to have a higher rate of defaulting on their loans they would have been sued. So they make the loans and then pawn them off to other people. Around and 'round it goes and the banking industry collapses. So....how do people expect the market to work if you keep messing with it? I mean, banking is a pretty straight forward business. You make money or you don't, and go out of business. When a bank goes under everyone else loses their money then what happens?

It sucks that it happens but we live in the real world and not everything can be looked at in an idealistic manner.