What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
97 Comments
- fuelcarddotorg, on 02/05/2009, -4/+60Umm, wells fargo was one of the few big banks who DIDN'T get into risky loans. Awful post
- BlueAyez, on 02/05/2009, -4/+30They canceled the trip. Too much tar and feathers being gathered...
- UtahApocalyse, on 02/05/2009, -0/+25They also did not get billions of OUR taxpayer money.
- Kajarago, on 02/05/2009, -4/+26RTFA *****, the event has been cancelled.
- DrunkenSavior, on 02/05/2009, -1/+22Before you start to condemn Wells Fargo for taking TARP funds:
WASHINGTON — The chief executives of the nine largest banks in the United States trooped into a gilded conference room at the Treasury Department at 3 p.m. Monday. To their astonishment, they were each handed a one-page document that said they agreed to sell shares to the government, then Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said they must sign it before they left.
The chairman of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, was receptive, saying he thought the deal looked pretty good once he ran the numbers through his head. The chairman of Wells Fargo, Richard M. Kovacevich, protested strongly that, unlike his New York rivals, his bank was not in trouble because of investments in exotic mortgages, and did not need a bailout, according to people briefed on the meeting.
But by 6:30, all nine chief executives had signed — setting in motion the largest government intervention in the American banking system since the Depression and retreating from the rescue plan Mr. Paulson had fought so hard to get through Congress only two weeks earlier.
What happened during those three and a half hours is a story of high drama and brief conflict, followed by acquiescence by the bankers, who felt they had little choice but to go along with the Treasury plan to inject $250 billion of capital into thousands of banks — starting with theirs.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/business/economy ... - LTP1984, on 02/05/2009, -4/+22BURIED because TRIP CANCELED.
- Flaptastic, on 02/05/2009, -8/+24In other news...
Banks are still owned by complete *****. - ozekii, on 02/05/2009, -0/+16So lets recap, Wells Fargo never wanted the TARP funds and were forced into taking them. They purchased Wachovia so that the Feds wouldn't have to. And Wells Fargo didn't get into the subprime business. If they want to throw a party let them. They were one of the only responsible banks out there. To bad JamesBondJr doesn't let facts get in his way.
- mfc5200, on 02/05/2009, -3/+18This is why the Banks should have been allowed to fail.
They should have failed; the stockholders and bondholders should have been wiped out.
For the sake of financial stability, the US government should then have purchased the banks for $0 (or whatever their face value was, but in many cases this was less than $0 because they had more debt than assets) , put all of the debt on the federal balance sheet, and then sell of the remaining valuable debt free banks for as much as they could get (to mitigate the losses). This would have been cheaper in the long run, and sent a clear signal to all companies out there, "don't even try to take risks thinking that you can rely on the the "too big to fail" or "systematic risk" card, because you will get screwed". This would have also prevented systematic risk as a result of being "too big to fail"
Of course, the government wouldn't let this happen. To much political ***** in the way. Take Citigroup for example. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns 5% of the bank. At one point in 2007, that much stock was worth $14 billion dollars. Do you think him,( and others like him behind the scenes) aren't calling up politicians 24/7 telling them to protect their investments? This guy wants to get his money back eventually (10-15 years down the road). That can't happen is Citi goes bankrupt. So the polticians are doing all they can to prevent these things from happening. Of course the politicians will phrase it is some retarded way " What we did today was for the sake of the American economy" or some BS story like that.
Please, everyone, I beg you. Stop voting for career politicians. Don't vote for Incumbents. Vote for Ron Pauls, Dennis Kucinichs, Doctors, PhD's, etc. Stop voting in career politicians, lawyers, and bankers. Please just vote for respectable people.
Look at this ***** Barney Frank, one of the author of the bill; he got caught trying to get some Capital for his home state
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article ... - chrissku, on 02/05/2009, -0/+14Warren Buffet is in fact a very modest man. This is the home he lives in Omaha Nebraska. He drives the same car he's driven for 5 years.
http://douglasne.mapping-online.com/DouglasCoNe/st ... - dkeck14, on 02/05/2009, -0/+13Also, Wells Fargo was forced to take money from the bailout.
http://reason.com/blog/show/131506.html - ohokyeah, on 02/05/2009, -0/+11Yep, Wells Fargo just recently bought Wachovia; which did get into the bad loans; and has been working at trying to minimize potential risk.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/i ...
Wells Fargo has some of the lowest amount of sub-prime mortgages of the banks. - Tenareth, on 02/05/2009, -0/+10Wells Fargo was forced to buy a failed company and take Government money, but yeah... keep the headlines coming.
- Jenton, on 02/05/2009, -0/+10Bumped for wisdom..
Yea, it looks bad to throw a lavish event like that, but don't lump Wells in with all the other crappy companies. During the whole subprime boom, Wells was actually ridiculed for not making enough subprime loans, while other companies were doing it like crazy and making a boatload of money. - thefish185, on 02/05/2009, -1/+10It was cancelled! Quit being sensationalist.
- yeediddy, on 02/05/2009, -1/+10Wells Fargo never wanted the TARP - they didn't need the TARP. The TARP was forced upon the company so that the other banks who received the funds wouldn't be stigmatized by it.
- webXL, on 02/05/2009, -0/+9Too bad 90% of digg commenters here don't let facts get in their way. They should all go back to huffpo where they belong.
- AmazingSteve, on 02/05/2009, -0/+7I don't give a ***** what the percentage is. It's not their money to spend as they please. It was a ***** BAIL OUT LOAN!!! Pull your head out of your ass. Bottom line is the Gov. should be getting to the dollar accounting and what doesn't get used to BAIL OUT the company, get returned end of story.
- Tenareth, on 02/05/2009, -0/+5If banks were untouched, Wells Fargo would have won. They didn't make stupid mistakes and they didn't need the money. The Government forced them to take the money they didn't need.
- Tenareth, on 02/05/2009, -0/+5AND Wells Fargo was FORCED to take money, against their will.
- Jenton, on 02/05/2009, -2/+8They took it cause they were strong armed by the government. Paulsen basically said, if you don't take this money now as a show of solidarity, we will never help you guys ever again in the future if you need money.
- Konrad9, on 02/05/2009, -5/+10READ THE REAL ***** ARTICLE.
This was a business trip for meetings and *business* related work.
Oh, and they CANCELED THE ***** TRIP.
Dumbasses. - webXL, on 02/05/2009, -0/+5Jenton's right. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/business/economy ...
And Wells and BofA were both fine before they were encouraged (received guarantees) to take over failed banks. - themadhatter444, on 02/05/2009, -0/+4That was a lot of words.
- enantiodromia, on 02/05/2009, -0/+4yep. their former CEO was on Market Place (NPR) and said they just didn't think sub-prime made any sense, and didn't go down that road.
- ohokyeah, on 02/05/2009, -0/+4I should clarify my first sentence, I meant that Wells Fargo didn't get into bad loans as much as other banks and that it just acquired Wachovia which did get into bad loans and Wells Fargo is now trying to reduce the risk from Wachovia's bad loans.
- Chjoma10, on 02/05/2009, -2/+6And?? What the ***** does that have to do with Bailout money? Does Lauren Conrad owe us some cash for having Meat Curtains?
- Tenareth, on 02/05/2009, -0/+3They didn't want to buy them, but they were the only remaining major bank that still had cash, so the government forced them to take ownership. Oh, and they forced them to take money from them, that they didn't need.
- darkened, on 02/05/2009, -3/+6Previously I defended AIG for their gatherings since that's how business sales are created or rewarded depending on the type of convention, but this absolutely makes no sense for a 12 day trip to vegas? WTF. Most common sales conventions that are rewards at most consist of 2 or 3 nights... not 12. These are for mortgage officers too? DOUBLE WTF. It's not like AIG where they really have a gigantic business outside of their being owned by the SIV/CDO items where as Wells Fargo and mortgages... there really shouldn't be any type of reward.
- KimmyGibbler, on 02/04/2009, -2/+5It's nice to finally see a bank with a PR department not staffed by retards, even if much of the rest of the bank is
- VegasSummer88, on 02/05/2009, -0/+3Well...at least there one of the better banks?....
- megarobotguy, on 02/05/2009, -0/+3Who exactly do you pay your mortgage to if these banks fail?
- Aidenf77, on 02/05/2009, -0/+3I stand corrected. I didn't do my research before I spouted off. Wells Fargo only took bailout money because it was basically forced upon them, and not because they actually needed it to stay afloat. But none of that even matters because the trip was canceled anyway. That'll teach me to take a breath and read the whole article before angrily commenting.
- Barackalypse, on 02/05/2009, -2/+5Do you think maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't how these companies are spending the money, but the fact that the Government gave it to them in the first place? All of these stories have a common theme, they're all examples of Government waste.
- WallyAnti, on 02/05/2009, -0/+2They tried to pay to make us pay for Jimmy Buffet to play a concert for their nonproductive employees... and what angers you most is that people posted a story about it with an outdated title? Doesn't it anger you just a little bit more that that even attempted to do this after accepting taxpayer money?
- rusty0101, on 02/05/2009, -0/+2Let me see, WF Canceled a fairly inexpensive celebration it has held annually to recognize it's best performing employees at all levels from senior management down to bank tellers, the vast majority of whom, while paid conservatively for the business they do, very likely would never have been able to afford to go to with a guest on their own. All because some blow hard reporter misrepresented, and in some cases outright lied, or at the very least failed to do any research on the facts in question, in a report on the event that made it to the national press. This stirred up a very negative response from a public who has ignored the fact that this is the only bank that upon receiving the TAPR fund made more money available for lending, and has already dedicated over 300 million in dividends towards the Fed as payment for the the preferred non-voting stock that is not available to any other investors.
Personally I think they should be using the funds that would have gone to the employee recognition should be used along with the dividends to buy back that 25 Billion TAPR investment. But then I am biased, I happen to work for the company. If you are thinking that this is sour grapes on my part, I don't know anyone who I am aware of was going to be attending the event.
I do not speak for Wells Fargo. - enantiodromia, on 02/05/2009, -0/+2i'm so happy there is the Internet for you people too, because it keeps you off the streets and away from the military surplus stores.
- Opiate, on 02/05/2009, -0/+2The more you learn about government the more you realize it's all about making money and control. Government which governs less governs best.
- magamiako, on 02/05/2009, -2/+4Look, I dunno about where you all work, but expensive paid-for trips to top resorts is not necessary to make employees feel appreciated and "part of the team".
A ***** card, some cookies, and maybe a night out at a local restaurant or bar would be more than enough.
No need for all expense paid flights, trips, resorts. - Tenareth, on 02/05/2009, -0/+1Wells Fargo didn't lose money until they were forced to buy a company that failed. They didn't play games in the subprime game, but facts should not impact your stupidity.
- KimmyGibbler, on 02/05/2009, -0/+2@megarobotguy
To the people, to whom the bank owes money, like bond-holders - KimmyGibbler, on 02/05/2009, -0/+1I could have sworn when I wrote my first comment that the headline said that they cancelled the trip. Am I going crazy? I think JamesBondJr edited the headline to be more sensational in order to grab more Diggs
- radanator3, on 02/05/2009, -0/+1Other countries RIGHT NOW are rioting because their governments are more concerned about making money and running a police state than actually governing.
- Valyn, on 02/05/2009, -0/+1Your point is a good one, but come on, the article description SPECIFICALLY says they are 'sticking with them.'
- torchednoodle, on 02/05/2009, -2/+3You're a moron. Good luck with life, and with handling sharp objects.
- treehugger87, on 02/05/2009, -0/+1where one of the better banks? Huh?
- Gareth321, on 02/05/2009, -0/+1GIANT WALL OF TEXT
- Pinkertinkle, on 02/05/2009, -5/+6if wells fargo is doing so well then they shudn't take the bailout money, you fail
- unfairunbalance, on 02/05/2009, -0/+1GET RID OF THE FED. THE NATION IS IN THE RED! The member banks of the Federal Reserve such as Morgan-Chase, Bank of America, Citicorp and of course Wells Fargo took trillions from from the government with no oversight.
They effectively run the Federal Government. They control the Judicial Branch by paying of the Judges. They control the Legislative by lobbiest and special interest groups. They control the White House by choosing thier owned paid off candidates. And who is going to pay for this? The American People with the Illeagal Federal Income Tax system and these very Banks that run and control the Federal Reserve. This was signed in 1913 by President Wilson without going through Congress. We certainly do not need thier tax program which is extortion for the right to work. The Government does not need the Fed and member private banks to print money for the Government. - treehugger87, on 02/05/2009, -0/+1Wow, Jenton is right. I had no idea. What's up with that? Why were banks forced to take this? Maybe Paulson's replacement would let them give it back?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is