digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cnbc.com

Wachovia is on the Brink of Implosion

cnbc.com — Wachovia posted an $8.86 billion second-quarter loss, slashed its dividend and announced 6,350 job cuts after losses tied to mortgages soared. Wachovia has been among the major lenders hardest hit by the nation's housing crisis, following a disastrous $24.2 billion purchase in October 2006 of Golden West Financial, a California mortgage specialist.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • paulot, on 07/22/2008, -5/+38They are totally *****. Due to their bad timing of picking up Golden West Financial, there are now serious rumors that Wachovia will be the next IndyMac.
    • daivos, on 07/22/2008, -2/+32If Wachovia were to fall, it would be far worse than IndyMac.
      • rhydondirty, on 07/23/2008, -11/+15Wachovia will not fail. Small regional banks (Indymac types in hardest hit areas such as the Pacific coast and the South) could fail but not a large player like WB. Since WB's 'horrible' earnings report was released, which was actually less than what WB was forecasted, their stock price is up nearly 40%. If by some minute chance Wachovia were to fail, your account is FDIC insured for $100k. God knows most diggers are living in their parent's basement, eating cheetos and drinking mountain dew all day, let alone have 100K in the bank.
      • PorchSong, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3Yes they made poor decisions, but thier stock was up over 30% yesterday and is up 4% almost 5% currently. Wachovia will be fine and long as they have properly acounted for the Golden West (Option Arm) paper. Also, acquiring JD Edwards was not the smartest, either. They paid about twice what it was worth.
      • rizla420, on 07/23/2008, -1/+24Here's the issue with the FDIC and their insurance. They've only got about 52 Billion dollars and they say that they can handle a lot of smaller banks going under, but if major banks such as Wachovia and others start to fail they wont be able to back them all.

        I listened to an interesting pod cast yesterday where this guy said something about the banking industry being different than other industries in the sense that if a bank goes under, more people will be apt to withdraw their funds from their current bank even if their bank is in good standing. Its something like the lemming effect.

        If we have a massive run on the bank, the FDIC will not able to gaurantee everyone. They FED will have to step in and impose limits on withdrawls.

        This all stems from fractional reserves my friends... yea that Ron Paul *****. Funny, in hindsight people who thought Ron Paul was a loonie will realize that he was onto something. Sadly it'll be too late by then.

        Todo we're not in Kansas anymore. The other shoe will drop sometime this year. If anyone has any ideas on a safe place to move funds aside from swiss banks or Euros or Yen's etc (which will all go down with us) let me know.

      • Elranzer, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7Now might be a good time to transfer my student loans to Wachovia.
      • rpi22, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5@rizla420

        Gold is an excellent option; not only is it outside the banking system, itś also a great hedge against wholesale inflation.
      • devophl, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8rizla is correct. The FDIC only keeps enough funds to handle less than 1/10th of 1% of the money held in its insured banks. If a 1931 style run on the banks were to occur, the FDIC would stop paying out. In essence, most of us are out of luck.

        Depending on the source, anywhere from 500 to as many as 3000 banks are in bad shape and if financials don't improve, most of them could fail in the next 12-18 months.

        I've heard recently that it might not be a bad idea to keep about one to two months worth of income in cash just in case your bank goes belly up. The Fed would basically close the bank down for several weeks and you will have limited or no access to your money.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1I think Wachovia's going to be fine. It's going to be a bumpy road to recovery, but they've already got a new CEO in place, they're making the necessary job cuts and they have a turnaround plan.

        http://www.charlotte.com/business/story/724286.htm ...
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1@charlotte
        Gee, a rightard shill saying the financial industry is going to be fine.
        Isn't that what you guys have been pushing for the last few years, and it turned out to be lies and *****?
      • zzoned, on 07/24/2008, -1/+0Another bank consumed by the foreclosure mess. Check out the latest foreclosure turmoil here

        http://www.foreclosurecraze.com
    • gbates31, on 07/23/2008, -18/+4oh yes! pull out the lotion! time for bank failure! FAP FAP FAP
    • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8Most of the banks that make their businesses of giving housing mortgages are in dire straights.
      A few things:
      Economy is down.
      Unemployment up.
      Mortgages failing ( which wouldnt be a much of a problem if not for...)
      Housing prices fallen in past 2 years.

      Bad loans given out to, yes, unworthy people. Who cannot pay the loans back, and then blame others for giving them responsibility and money.

      Is it the banks fault? yes
      Is it the loan garantee companies fault? yes
      Is it the people that took the risky loans? The most responsible - YES!

      Does housing go through cycles every 15-20 years? yes

      Is one group ultimately to blame!??! NO !!!!
      • BoonTobias, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4i have a friend who works in the wachovia lending dept and he told me they were still giving out bad loans to people who can't really afford it, they don't really care.

        hopefully he didn't put a down payment on that g35 he was thinking of buying
      • jezsik, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4Are the people that took the risky loans responsible? No! If some street urchin borrows fifty bucks from you so he can go gambling, it's your damn fault if you loan him the money. You're the one with the bucks, and therefore (hopefully) the smarts. You just took a bet that the bum could win some money with YOUR money and pay you back the full amount and MORE! Sorry, chum, but it's YOUR responsibility to invest wisely.
      • jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3So the Bum has no responsibility himself?

        I see, so you being the head socialist will deem who is worthy and who is not. And who can take responsibility and who cannot.
        Was your name again? Mussolini?

        Sorry I'm saying they ALL have responsibility for this from the loaner down to the bum.
      • Y0tsuya, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1@jezsik,

        The bum took your money, pissed it away, then blame the casino for his losses and you for loaning it to him. This is essentially what's happening with the losers who're whining about the "value" of their houses going down.
      • jezsik, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Sorry guys, if you loan money to a bum, you're the one assuming the risk and responsibility. If you're stupid enough to give money to a bad risk, you can't blame anyone but yourself. The banks have PLENTY of tools to determine risks and returns. They are the ones who win or lose based on their OWN decisions.

        Socialism? Mussolini? Jabberwolf, where DO you get your crazy ideas?

        Loaning money to anyone is a gamble. Some people are willing to take big risks in hopes of a big return. Any bank that examined the income potential of a couple buying a house that was too expensive for them, in a market fraught with risks, and gave them the money anyway was taking a gamble the couple would pay it (and more) back to the bank. The bank pays and the bank takes the chances. No one forced the bank to give them a loan, it's the bank's decision, they're responsible for their money, plain and simple.
    • thebaron2, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5For some reason I can't get to this article from work, but the description said that they're "slash[ing] dividends" - did they just slash them or did they eliminate them?

      If a company was going under it would NOT be paying dividends at all; those are the first things to go when a business is hitting hard times.
      • Y0tsuya, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Slow-growth companies paying dividends would rather sell their employees' first borns than slash dividends. So anytime that happens it means there's a fair chance the company's going down the drain.
    • phoenixshard, on 07/23/2008, -3/+12"Wachovia said it ended the quarter with a Tier 1 capital ratio, which measures its ability to cover losses, of 8 percent. Regulators consider 6 percent sufficient. Wachovia raised $8.05 billion of capital in April.

      In afternoon trading, Wachovia shares were up 86 cents, or 6.5 percent, at $14.04 on the New York Stock Exchange. The cost of protecting Wachovia debt against default fell, according to Phoenix Partners Group"

      Really sounds like they're going to implode to me. /sarcasm

      Might want to read the entire article instead of just the headline that somebody posted.
      • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 07/23/2008, -4/+6..but facts don't make for a good story on your evening fearcast
      • gquaglia, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4That why I buried it as inaccurate. ***** sensationalist headline just to get on the front page.
    • unclecaveman, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I am (or WAS) an intern/ recruiter at Wachovia on the securities side. Things here are finally beginning to play out. First it was UBS that got hit and had to write off billions, then it was Merrill Lynch, now it is Wachovia. Only thing is, Wachovia made a LOT of mistakes after there were signs of trouble.

      1.Acquiring Golden West Financial was the biggest mistake. Wachovia did not have much exposure to sub-prime mortgages until this mind-boggling pick up.

      2. Acquiring AG Edwards. This is a great example of the "buying high, selling low" strategy. A few months before the banking industry is rocked, Wachovia pays $6.8 Billion to make themselves the 2nd largest brokerage firm in the United States, with over 15,000 brokers. Great move, team!

      3. Wachovia's St. Louis headquarters is raided. Apparently some brokers may have lied to investors when they were selling auction-rate securities as near-liquid investments, which they were; as long as the auction-rate market stays open. Then it failed. Cue thousands of angry investors who can't get their money out.This is big in the minds of the investors, but is probably not a big deal in terms of the overall health of the company.

      So basically what has happened is a perfect storm of ***** has formed off the coast and moved directly over Wachovia Securities, causing headlines such as "Wachovia is on the brink of Implosion". I don't think it is going to get THAT serious, but who the ***** knows for sure?
    • geddon, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2You can bet that more than one Senator is eyeballing a C.E.O. position after sponsoring a government bail out.

      "It's for the good of the economy!" cries the Senator. "MY economy, that is," he thinks to himself.
  • rpi22, on 07/22/2008, -3/+110¨Bear Stearns is well-capitalized!¨ -- Stearns CEO a few days before imploding

    ¨The Financial markets are working¨ -- George Bush on the day of the Bear Stearns collapse

    ¨The worst is behind us.¨ -- Every talking head, political pundit, and analyst, just after Bear Stearns´ collapse

    ¨Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are well-capitalized¨ -- Bernanke and Paulson, a few days before announcing a $25 Billion bailout with more relief to come

    What´s next?!
    • rpi22, on 07/22/2008, -2/+42I forgot to mention, ¨The problems in the subprime market are contained and will not affect the economy at large. I expect housing to recover in the second half of 2008.¨ - Ben Bernenke

      Geez, my magic 8-ball does a better job forecasting the economy
      • BoneheadFarker, on 07/23/2008, -1/+18You're assuming that they are trying to be truth when they say these things. It's all just a game to them...
      • eryximachus, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5To Ben's credit, the subprime mortgage issue has been blown way out of proportion. The problems in our financial system are far more systemic than simply lending to risky borrowers.

        In essence, huge losses due to highly levereged speculative investing has forced banks to acquire assets at all costs. As a debt is considered an asset, high-risk borrowers were essentially the last group to whom banks could lend and shore up their balance sheets.

        In essence, subprime mortgages were the final response to a collapsing financial system. They were not the cause.
      • tschau, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2At some level, I kind of see this like George Bush's constant claims that things in Iraq were getting better over the course of 4 years when it just wasn't true. That's what he had to say - it wasn't the truth, but he was in a leadership role, and to talk overly gloomy would have just made the situation worse.

        Bernanke could light his hair on fire and start running around, but then everyone else would too and things would fall apart.

        I'm not saying it's the right thing to do... just that maybe they're not doing it because they're lying scum, but because they're misguidedly trying to help things.
    • edstate, on 07/23/2008, -10/+9Well, to Bush's credit, technically this IS the financial markets "working"... it's just that the house of cards that Greenspan built, with W's nod, wasn't sound economic policy. Hence the ***** we're in now.
      • rpi22, on 07/23/2008, -4/+9if the financial markets were working, we wouldnt need the fed to bail out bear stearns and the Mac´s
      • SouthernGuy118, on 07/23/2008, -2/+14of course it's working. Banks that made risky investments are collapsing as it should.
        What isn't working is the neo-con's plan of non-intervention unless it saves a few corporate buddies. If the neo-cons wanted non-intervention, then they should have stuck with non-intervention all the way through.
        The second the government bailed a bank, it got every right to regulate them
    • altgeeky1, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2>What´s next?!

      FREE MONEY!!!
    • zyklon, on 07/23/2008, -5/+17What's next? The fall of Rome.
    • unknamed, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6"What's next?"

      Anarchy!!!! or maybe the second Depression...
    • Homerr, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5This American Life had an interesting show a while back that explained the global financial meltdown via the players between the banks and homeowners.
      http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1 ...
    • jzuska, on 07/23/2008, -4/+7Obama will save us?




      yeah, yeah yeah. I meant to put it here.
    • andythefan, on 07/23/2008, -3/+10"The sky is darkest before the dawn" - Harvey Dent
    • insanebrain, on 07/23/2008, -5/+1The dollar itself is next.
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7Dude. You seriously need to chillax. Go pick up your bread. We're on the way to the circus; See ya there.
    • muckemuck, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6Here.. go read this.. . seriously...
      "1927-1933 Chart of Pompous Prognosticators"
      http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_01/seymour062 ...
    • richmomz, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2"Mission Accomplished"
    • aeoo, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1"The Wall Street got drunk, and now it has a hangover."
  • StingingNettle, on 07/22/2008, -5/+30And they were laundering drug money! http://digg.com/world_news/Feds_look_at_Wachovia_i ...

    What a bunch of scum.
    • lukerat88, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Wow, looks like they aren't the best company to watch-ova-ya finances after all
    • Hangly, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1All these banks are laundering drug money, even freddie and fanny. Real estate is the most popular method.
  • Panzwhore, on 07/23/2008, -6/+53that free checking came back to bite them in the ass
  • shutaro, on 07/23/2008, -12/+17These articles would be much more interesting if the banks were *actually* in danger of imploding... You know, all the individual bank buildings simultaneously collapsing into individual rifts in space-time and just... Disappearing. Call me when that happens. Until then it's all just hyperbole.
    • diggduggDOOM, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3Your Poetic License has been revoked. Please report to the nearest Literal Writing Reeducation Center.
    • CrazedLeper, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Someone spilled jet fuel on the bank?
    • rizla420, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Like in Fight Club, aka Project Mayhem. oops.. i know... first rule..
  • schroeder, on 07/23/2008, -15/+34***** them and their $35 per transaction overdraft fees. I've gone over by less than a dollar many times. And if the merchant makes an error that causes you to overdraft, you have to pay for that too, because, of course, it's not "their" fault. And they bill the largest charges first so all the smaller charges get the overdraft fees. ***** them. I hope they die. I'm closing my account and sticking with private banks with percentage based overdraft fees.
    • Eparause, on 07/23/2008, -11/+62Handle your money better, problem solved.
      • pockiez, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9People digg you down because you're not an idiot. If you spend money that you have, then there isn't a problem. Why let your bank account get below 100 dollars?
      • tidu, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4because I have to have it NOW
    • sanderscm2, on 07/23/2008, -9/+3Actually, they bill you in the order that the transactions go through (when they get them). It's just that, usually, larger transactions=bigger company=speedier debits from your account. Maybe if you managed your money a little better you wouldn't have to worry about overdraft fees. Also, maybe if you were a little bit more resourceful/tact you could get merchants to pay your overdraft fees for "their" errors.
      • logicalnoise, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5many banks including chase and wamu have it in their policy that they run larger charges through first.
      • ir1337, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9Speaking from inside the four walls of a bank...all transactions on a given day are batched and run big to small. That's the way it is at most if not all. Overdraftees are HUGE profit centers for banks. We love them. Setting up transactions to benefit the bank is de riguer.
    • monkeyrun, on 07/23/2008, -4/+9as a former victim of wachovia, I agree with you.
    • billybillyboy, on 07/23/2008, -3/+14You signed the contract. You are resposible for handling your money and accounts in such a way so as to not incurr those fees set forth in your contract. Take responsibility for your own actions, as these banks should be taking responsibility for their actions. My money is all in shoebox.
      • RudeTurnip, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8This.
        During college, I used to work for customer service for Corestates Bank, which was bought by First Union, which was bought by Wachovia. Being a left-leaning college student who didn't intend to make customer service a career, I tended to side more with the customers...until I heard every freaking excuse as to why their accounts were getting overdrawn. Out of thousands of phone calls, I could count on my hand how many times a merchant or a bank teller screwed up and I made sure the customer was taken care of. Every other time it was simply poor money management and passing the buck (no pun intended).
      • tidu, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1where do you live
      • Nerys, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4billybillyboy your clueless. A contract can not violate the law. Embezzlement and Racketeering are illegal in this country.

        YES I am responsible for my money. NO I am not responsible for wachovia's time travel. I am responsible for ONE FEE. not there manipulation that turned one legitimate fee into hundreds of dollars.

        Thats like you abusing your brakes on your car. You come to me to fix it and I go back in time and ALTER your brakes so your abuse ends up causing an accident and I try to say to you then you should not have abused your brakes.

        THATS what wachovia and the other banks are doing. They are ALTERING history to change the outcome to increase the number of fees
      • billybillyboy, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2I don't know, in respect to this matter it doesn't seem to me that I'm clueless. Honestly, I can't really decipher what you are talking about. However, I am guessing that you also are unable to manage your accounts properly and have somehow deemed it the banks fault. My advice to you is either adhere to the legal policies laid out in any term of service or other agreement you enter into or don't enter into them.
      • cdahlkvist, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3While I agree that the first step is in learning to manage your money I have heard so many stories of crazy overdraft fees and the order in which they service transactions.

        The common claim people tell me is that the bank tells them they "process the larger transactions first" as a convenience since it is more likely a very serious payment (mortgage, car, etc.).

        I'm really not sure this is they way the banks should handle it. If the majority of people are complaining about this practice then I find it difficult to view it as a "courtesy".

        Furthermore, having been on the board that governed standards of OFX, I see that there really is no need to charge a customer $35 for an overdraft that is not paid.

        It costs a bank the same whether a transaction is paid or denied. So, by the banks reasoning they should charge a customer $35 for any transaction - even if they have the money in their account.

        I keep my finances in check. However, I do know people make mistakes. The banks are literally robbing people and the people being robbed are the ones that can least afford it.

        Still, you really need to learn to run your finances better if overdrafts are your fault.
      • billybillyboy, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3So on top of predatory loan practices now we can have predatory banking practices too. How sad is it that the individuals of this time will in no way take responsibility for their own fiscal well-being? If you can't afford to buy something, don't buy it. Has this concept been completely lost?
    • hokie47, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5I never have had a overdraft fee in my life but what I don't get is that if you are using our debit card they should instantly tell if you have the money or not, so why not just deny the purchase.
      • debtman7, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1It works fine if all you do are debit transactions. The problem is when your checkcard goes through the Mastercard/Visa system. Typically it takes a few days for those to post to your account. That means if you have $100 and a visa charge for $75 is applied, then later in the day you go do a debit charge for $50, it will probably allow it because the other charge hasn't made it's way through the visa network yet.
      • Nerys, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2This is poppycock debtman7

        I have NEVER ONCE made a point of sale credit card transaction that was not visible and deducted from my bank account within 30 seconds of me making the charge.

        I do not use checks for just this reason. This process also worked JUST FINE for in excess of 10 years with First Union (before they became wachovia) I would charge and it would decline if there was not enough money. IT NEVER ONE TIME failed to work precisely how its supposed to work.

        They ALTERED the system to permit this overdraft system to work. IN FACT its even worse. You can not even depend on your balance from the ATM with some banks. The micro loan credit amount they add so you can overdraw your account? On some atm's THEY ADD THIS TO YOUR VISIBLE BALANCE SO YOU THINK YOU DO HAVE THE MONEY !!!

        I DO NOT WANT to keep a register. Thats the banks job. Why the hell else do I pay them for? When I can no longer depend on a bank to do this I no longer have a need for banks.

        I am not good at monitoring my money.Its just a skill I do not have. I am always off by just a little bit. (and thats all they need)

        The creation of debit cards and electronic banking saved my life almost literally. Once I was able to bank electronically (internet) I went from 10 or more late credit card payments a month to NOT ONE SINGLE LATE PAYMENT in nearly 6 years.

        Now the banks are ruining this. I guess me doing a good job of paying my bills is not profitable enough for them.
      • theutopian, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2My local bank would just deny the transaction if there wasn't enough money in the account. Then my nice local bank got bought by a bigger bank that wants you to screw up and one decimal error in quicken cost me $220.
      • cdahlkvist, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3Nerys: You should be able to view the transaction immediately. However, that transaction is "pending" until the proper ledger/paperwork is processed.

        After a certain number of days that charge may fall off (typically up to 10 days) if the transaction ledger has not been submitted.

        Some merchants don't run their ledgers for a few days because it costs less to run them in bulk. So if you have a $50 pending transaction fall off then your account shows $50 more in it. You spend said $50 and 3 days later the first mechant finally submits the transaction for processing.

        Voila! You have overdrafted.

        Keep track of all of your transactions.

        Aren't they teaching basic finance skills in high schools anymore?
    • scottphphq, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8I don’t understand how it’s the banks fault you have to borrow money for burger king. You agreed to that fee when you signed up for the account. Not only do you need to learn how to manage your money, you also need to learn how to read an agreement before you sign it.
      • Nerys, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1I DID NOT agree however to the micro loan. Please show me where that is listed in my terms of service.

        Reading the agreement is irrelevant. Its not an agreement its an ultimatum. There is no negotiation there is no compromise there is no discussion. Its TERMS you accept them or you get nothing.

        So what happens when there terms VIOLATE the law and the law refuses to do anything about it?
      • BoonTobias, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2that overdraft ***** is just ridiculous, if it goes over a buck then you pay $34, wtf

        It should be like 20%, and i should mention that wamu gives one overdraft fee back each year
    • schroeder, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5I have no problem paying for an overdraft. I am poor and sometimes i miscalculate. That shouldn't mean that I should be ripped off. The problem I have is that it is usually under $5 and that is no reason for such a high fee. I have paid hundreds of dollars. Most private banks reasonably charge a percentage of a charge. All the large banks just take a large fixed charge because they can. It preys on the poor since they are the ones who accumulate these multiple small overdrafts. I use Citizens Bank now and they are much better for my situation. Credit Unions are also good. I had one bank where I paid like $6 a month that protected me for up to like $100 in accumulated overdrafts as long as they were paid within the month (or something like that). The large banks could do that as they already front up to $100 on deposited checks before they clear. But whatever, it's their business.
    • Hosalabad, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4So try keeping some money in your account. "Act your wage," as Ramsey says.
    • cbartlett, on 07/23/2008, -2/+8Everyone at every bank has done this. Seriously, though, if you ***** up like this more than once you're an idiot. Manage your finances better.
      • Nerys, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3Sometimes that is hard cbartlett and hosalabad. My current wages leave less than 5% to spare over my expenses. My debt is my own. I have multiple time refuses assistance from my father to pay down my debt. I spent the money I have to pay it back.

        The problem is the abuse. Even though I have a literally 6 year perfect payment history many of my cards are now pushing 30% interest. How this is even LEGAL is beyond me. My payments now are literally a few dollars more than my interest. I do not have enough extra income to "pay down" anyone card quickly so I can apply larger payments.

        Its going to take me years to pay them off. Correction I already paid them off multiple times its going to take me years to pay off the interest.

        I can handle it though. Again I created the debt.

        But now banks are in on the jig. How do you fight that? I can not leave enough money in my account. I DO NOT make a habit of overdrawing my account. I am pretty good at making sure I do not overspend.

        But I am also human I make mistakes. I simply miscalculated by $12.50 OK thats my error. I can understand and I can unhappily but willingly eat the $35 consequence of that mistake.

        Where was it my fault that they erased and reordered 10 days worth of transactions to turn it into almost $400 in fees? HOW is that my fault? HOW is that ok morally or legally?

        Where is my terms of service does it say a single overdraft of $12.50 will cost me $400

        You can blather on all you want about managing your money does not change that this is wrong immoral and illegal.
    • billybillyboy, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2You were in no way ripped off. I am certain that in your contract, all stipulations and consequences of overdrafts and associated fees were laid out in a neat and informative matter. The fact that you either did not read, read and did not understand, or read and disregarded is your fault and your fault alone. I can see that you learned from the experience, which is probably the best thing that could have happened. Look out for yourself, no one is going to do it for you.
    • Y0tsuya, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1The problem with banks is even if you don't have the money they will "lend" it to you, for a fee, something without you knowing. It's almost as profitable as pay-day loans. That said, if you're chronically short on money, then it's probably better to keep the few measly dollars you have under the mattress.
  • theNazz, on 07/23/2008, -14/+9Why is it that every time a Bush is in the White House there are major bank failures?
    • diggrnumber1, on 07/23/2008, -4/+7chance. correlation does not = causation.
      • brentinkc, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7Correct, correlation does not equal causation. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it happened by chance.
      • diggrnumber1, on 07/23/2008, -6/+1yes. but this time it did happen by chance.
    • zyklon, on 07/23/2008, -4/+5I was too young for Senior to remember, but I know that in Dubya's case, it's because every business he's ever been affiliated with has tanked. Look at all the oil companies he was involved in with his dad's money.
    • CrazedLeper, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3New World Order. That's why.
    • billybillyboy, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3correlation proves causation, obviously
  • sloo, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9I bank at Wachovia, Im glad I dont have any investment to them. Ill just go to Bank of America when they go under since they own most of my city and have more locations (Charlotte, NC)
    • rizla420, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6I'm a BoA customer and Im not a fan of some of their crappy policies. Specifically ATM surcharges and overdraft protection.

      Get this. I have enough loot in my savings account and I have my savings linked to my checking in case i ***** up and over draft. You'd think that if I overdrafted and they wire money from my savings to cover my checking it would be a free service since after all they're not fronting me anything. NOPE! They still charge you 10 bucks.

      Also, they way they "prioritize" the order in which debits clear is just plain *****. People who live on tight budgets, like my gf, get screwed big time by their 35 dollar overdraft fees. They got her for like 500 bucks in overdraft a few months ago. How can you TAKE 500 bucks from someone who doesnt even have the money otherwise they clearly wouldnt have overdrafted.... Of course the Bank of Me had to bail her out as usual.
      • ElSnuggles, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Fees are where the banks have moved over the last decade to drive profits. Every time that lawmakers start to become interested due to complaints from customers, the banks write out big checks. Its really a sad cycle.
    • dimebonics, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6Why support big banking cartels? Just open a savings/checking account with a local credit union.
      • drlha, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Indeed. Most credit unions didn't get into the business of giving people sub-prime loans. They either use a third party company to service their mortgage needs (e.g. PHH) or only gave mortgages to their most "safe" customers. I feel pretty safe with my 2 branch credit union, I hope that is not misplaced!
  • majortom1981, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3ITs funny they just opened a branch here by where I work and its had very few customers at all sinc eits opened and they spent 2 years building it . lol
    • gquaglia, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Perhaps you've heard of on-line banking. Lots of people are doing it now a days. I haven't been to my bank in years.
  • JCH897, on 07/23/2008, -11/+5Bank of America ftw!
    • Conwaysb0718, on 07/23/2008, -2/+8Ha, you probably have to pay a fee just to say "bank of america". That place sucks.
    • funkyloki, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1My mom has had an account at BofA since the early 80's. She recently passed away, leaving some debt to be dealt with. She was married, but the BofA account was not a joint account. Now here comes the fun part. BofA has been charging a $20.00 Monthly Maintenance fee on her account, and are still doing it to this day. We have called, we have had our lawyer call them, we have visited the branch closet to us several times. It is AGAINST THE LAW for them to even touch the account, since it is now in Probate. They have even admitted to such, yet they still take the fee, and I still have to go in there and get them to rescind it, which they do, but it usually takes an hour or two to get it resolved.
      Doing this once would be acceptable, but doing it every month even when you know it is illegal to do so is just plain greedy. I mean aside from the fact that they were charging the fee ($20.00?!?) on a basic checking account in the first place, which in and of itself was outrageous, to continue to do so even when the account is "frozen" as ordered by the courts is a dirty game, especially since I have to take the time myself to resolve it EVERY MONTH.
  • MiamiRox, on 07/23/2008, -1/+25My guy works there in the home loan department, he was just laid off this week :(
    Things there were so dismal. No business, basically they had nothing to do.
    • Y0tsuya, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Why don't they transfer him to the short-sale or foreclosure division? I heard they're swamped with work.
    • JrtD, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1If I needed a home loan, I wouldn't go to Wachovia, Indymac or any of the other major players who have messed up our economy with their subprime loans. Many credit unions offer mortgage loans; they seem to do a better job all the way around.
  • jimmies, on 07/23/2008, -1/+13A couple years ago they were America's darlings. How the mighty have fallen.
  • DyceFreak, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7I think its about time I switch back from direct deposit
  • craighoxton, on 07/23/2008, -9/+2I always used to call this bank "Jack-ovia" - now we know why...
    • skyshock1, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2They could have pronounced their name like "Watch-ova-ya". I think the pronunciation of "Walk-ova-ya" is more befitting however.
  • SouthernGuy118, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6the title should read "Wachovia in danger of becoming a singularity"
    • zyklon, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4Forget CERN, Wachovia poses new threat for black hole generation!
  • NakedSchmooz, on 07/23/2008, -12/+1Wall Street has some problems.
    Read more about at www.deepcapture.com
    Stop Naked Short Selling
  • relic180, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9That's funny. The little stock ticker has them up by almost a full point since this morning. I bet word got out already on wall street that the government has already set aside the funds to bail them out too.
    • jmpeagle, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2stock prices are just priced expectations. It's why a stock can tank after reporting a stellar quarter where profits doubled or a stock can soar after going from profit to loss. It all depends on the changes in expectations.
  • dogatemypron, on 07/23/2008, -6/+12I fell in to a burning ring of fire
    I went down,down,down
    and the flames went higher.
    And it burns,burns,burns
    the ring of fire,
    the ring of fire.

    I bet this is what their singing right now...
    • ExRe, on 07/23/2008, -2/+8Never gonna give you up
      Never gonna let you down
      Never gonna run around and desert you
      Never gonna make you cry
      Never gonna say goodbye
      Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you
    • kaelyiesta, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3"Some say the end is near.
      some say we'll see Armageddon soon.
      I certainly hope we will.
      I sure could use a vacation from this *****..."

      Thats what plays in my head any time I hear about the financial woes of another exploitative company going under. Too bad it won't actually happen. These ***** get to fall back on our tax money most the time, and the ones who actually perpetrated this *****(I'm talking about the banking corruption in general here, housing was just one facet of it thats come up recently) will be just fine while all the average workers will be the ones looking for new jobs. Even if they don't get special dispensation from our dear government, the execs will enjoy their fat severance packages.

      The system is still running as it was intended. The people making all the actual decisions are doing just fine at our expense.
  • zyklon, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Here we go...
  • brainscab, on 07/23/2008, -11/+15I'm getting a 2 years worth of canned beans, a camper and a shotgun. I'll be in Wyoming, Come get me if Obama wins.
    • datastorageguy, on 07/23/2008, -12/+29Oh they will come get you when Obama wins. Kiss your shotgun goodbye.
      • obsolite, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9Well played.
      • JrtD, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1The Republicans say they are for gun ownership, but they don't really mean it. They only want the votes that gun owners will give them. Remember how the federal government took guns away from people in New Orleans after Katrina? What's the point of having guns for self protection if the government is going to take them from you when your town is in chaos?



      • Hangly, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1That was my first out-loud laugh today.
    • rizla420, on 07/23/2008, -6/+8You cant be serious to think that he will be the savior of the US... man thats just ignorant. In order to be president of the US you have to cotow to the political machinery. He plays a good game, but ultimately he is a product of that which is Washington. Once you decide to play the game, you're in too deep. THose that try to stay true, think of Joe Biden, Ron Paul, Kucinich you get flamed by the corp media and you fizzle off into the distance.

      If you wnat to play the game and make it to they top you follow the rules. You start in your respective Red or Blue corner for the primaries to gather your base. Then once you've locked in the nomination for your party you move towards the middle to scoop up that large pool of undecideds. You basically sell out your base to covet that golden pie of undecided voters.

      once your in the Oval office you then payback all the people who helped you get there. Dont give me the BS that all of Obama's money is from Joe Everybody. He's got hookups he needs to repay just like every other politician.
      • natedawgg52, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1That's the spirit!
      • theutopian, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1You know, the title of his bestselling book is 'The Audacity of Hope.'

        Hope is not in vogue and usually never is.

        God forbid some of us have hope than one man can change things for the good.

        One man has certainly changed things for the worse.
  • Conwaysb0718, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5no one is safe.
    • gbates31, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4sure, we are. we're not lemmings. the more knowledge you stock up on, the better off you'll be. the better off we'll all be.
      • Conwaysb0718, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Say my lending institution holding my mortgage goes ***** up... what happens then? (im not being an ass, im honestly asking)
      • brettg102, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2your mortgage will be bought by someone else. Chances are your mortgage has actually changed hands many times already.
      • gbates31, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1odds are that your mortgage has already been bought up by someone else. that someone else might be overseas.
    • Hangly, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I'm safe. My money isn't in some criminal bank.
  • Lucas123, on 07/23/2008, -3/+11What chaps my hide are the autopilot layoffs. Lose money, lay 'em off. There's no loyalty in business anymore. Obvious, but sad.
    • jmpeagle, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3it's better than the alternative of going under and then firing 50,000 people and having even more taxpayer money being used to rescue them and god nows how many people's pension plans.
      • Lucas123, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5The workers weren't the ones who made the bad decisions that left the company in ruin. It was the executives. Fire them.
      • Amazetbm, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Unfortunately the execs who made the bad decisions leave the company with hefty severance packages in hand.
      • jmpeagle, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1that's up to shareholders
    • ElSnuggles, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2They could be laying off all the people that they hired during the mortgage boom, people who probably aren't writing very many mortgages anyways.
    • richmomz, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2It's a mercenary job market, and it's not going to change anytime soon.
  • lanzemurdok, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2damn it.. i work at the gallup poll. This bank supplies 75 percent of my work for its surveys!
    • DeFex, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3oh so i guess most of the surveys never said anything bad about banks.
    • WiretapStudios, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3So you're the ***** that critiqued our calls!
  • skoles, on 07/23/2008, -1/+28Project Mayhem is a success!
  • gcnaddict, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8This might be the only bank whose collapse I'd actually be happy about.

    I doubt I'm alone either.
  • skyshock1, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8AWESOME! I can't tell you how many times I was ***** over by Wachovia. I couldn't leave their banking services fast enough.
  • mufasa, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4Is'nt this the fourth american bank going bankrupt in less than six months or so ?
    • jmpeagle, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8it hasn't gone bankrupt
    • rhill285, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3who said they are filing for bankruptcy? honestly the idiotic things people post....
    • crapmatic, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4They're $9 billion in the hole... how can there NOT be bankruptcy proceedings?
      • ExSlashdotter, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5You must be new here.

        And by 'here', i mean america.
  • dethl, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Well *****, my student loan is through them. I'm not too enthused about A) Having my current loan moved to another company and B) looking for a different lender.

    Any recommendations for a student loan lender?
    • logicalnoise, on 07/23/2008, -0/+15buy jar of vasoline, lube up real nice, get ready to bleed out your ass.
    • dethl, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9Well then, let me refine my question: Any recommendations for a lender that doesn't involve my ass being brutalized in some way?
      • wilhoitm, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Hopefully they will lose your records in the collapse and you will not have to pay your loan back!
    • Chuu, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1For your current loans, you don't have much to worry about. It doesn't really matter whose hands they end up in, by law the terms are guaranteed. You're just going to be putting a different name on the "Pay To" line.

      As for getting more money, if you're on a 4-year degree track, you're probably not going to have any trouble. Student Loans are starting to be hit, especially if you're in community college, but they're still by far the easiest loans to get with reasonable terms. Just shop around and avoid adjustable rate loans like the plague.

      If for some reason you like Wachovia though, I would be shocked if you couldn't get a loan right now. They got into this mess by giving bad loans -- but they're a bank -- giving out loans is what they do. Either they start giving out good loans (which student loans are definitely under) or they go under. If you seriously can't get more money from them, they're in a lot more trouble than people think.
      • pantone286, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1They got in this mess by buying companies who gave bad loans.
    • airwalkery2k, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7Isn't it funny how when a bank fails, they'll have no trouble losing your money, but losing your debt isn't so easy?
    • Hangly, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Flee the country. For a lot of reasons, actually.
  • Balath, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I was just sitting here, thinking about this news and wondering if it will collapse, wondering if the bankers of Wachovia will take out their money or not. A bank run would kill it. What if my money was in there? I wouldn't trust other people not to screw things up with their misunderstanding, and I'd be on my way out the door right now to withdraw all my savings.

    Our economy is doomed if a high profile commercial bank like Wachovia collapses. Everyone will begin withdrawing, regardless of where they're money is deposited. And I think there's precious little the government can do to stop a huge financial collapse at that point.
    • tremor_tj, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5You've got nothing to worry about. You're one of the 12 Americans that have any savings if reports of savings rates are to be believed.
    • rizla420, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I'd agree that there isnt too large percentage of the poplulation that saves, but how much does it suck to be part of that minority and have done the things correctly. Gone to school, got the job, started the biz, climed the ladder only to have all your effort swiped from underneath you.

      Those that make out in these siutiaotn are those that borrowed up to their neck cuz they got a ton of free *****.
  • purkel, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3what happens if you have your home mortgage with wachovia and they go under? will another bank just buy the debt?
    • logicalnoise, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9yep and I'm sure there's something in your contaract that will raise your rate accordingly.
  • oracle202, on 07/23/2008, -8/+20Title is misleading, poster is biased. Yes, banks are in big trouble. That doesn't mean Wachovia is imploding. Please keep your hard earned opinions out of the titles and descriptions and into the comments.
    • salomejones, on 07/23/2008, -7/+6This is digg, *****. If you want facts, talk to a physicist.
      • skinnyskittles, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Well, didn't quite need to call him an ***** but yeah digg headlines aren't the place to find cold hard facts.
      • salomejones, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3Thats enough outta you, knucklehead.
  • snotrokit, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2They closed a branch near my office that was open for less than 6 mos. in a very high traffic area. I was wondering what was going on there. I wonder how many will fall.
  • CrazedLeper, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6Burn, baby. Burn.
  • FrancoisLyon, on 07/23/2008, -0/+22PBS did a whole hour show about all the schemes Wachovia used to avoid paying corporate income taxes when they were doing well, now if they fail, you can bet that tax dollars will bail them out.
    http://redirx.com/?04aj


  • captainslack, on 07/23/2008, -0/+11If they go under, do I still have to repay my credit card debt to them?
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8Just send your payments to me, I'll make sure it's all taken care of. I'll send you my Paypal info.
    • buddyw, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6It will likely be transferred to another bank (who will buy it at bargain prices). I think they have to keep the same terms as long as you are paying on time.
    • PacketScan, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2yes cause the good ole FDIC would step in and take it over.
      All debts the customers owe are still due... However what is due the customer.is another story.
    • crapmatic, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Learn from Wall Street. Just wrap a congressman around your finger and you'll be offered a bailout in a few weeks.
  • dafragsta, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9It's gonna be Road Warriors before you know it.
    • blacktriangle, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5You know Cheney wants to play the part of Lord Humongous.
    • Hangly, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1The Road Warriors could afford gas.

      Also Cheney is Baron Harkonen.
  • Bloodwine, on 07/23/2008, -0/+18The sad reality is that we'll all end up holding the bag for all these failed banks. Just let them fail.

    I'd rather get a 10-20 year depression out of the way if it means hitting the reset switch.
    • rizla420, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5In a bit of a sadistic tone. Wouldnt it be interesting if the "me" generation was the generation that experiences another depression. How about that for a hard core reality slap? THose who've had it so easy end up being those who end up experiencing the other end of the pendulum. BTW, i'm part of the me generation also, but I got mine myself without the help of the 'rents.
      • Hangly, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Historically speaking, the "me" generations cause all the major crises.
  • drstulsa, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3I have some cash in WB, so I've been keeping up with the stock price and the related news articles. Say what you will, the company reported a record loss and ended the day UP almost 30%. This fact is largely ignored in these articles. Even as this was being posted, WB was in the midst of a major rally. Granted, this is after a very large decline, but none-the-less it does show either extreme ignorance on the part of investors or is a reflection that the market has already priced in these losses and then some.

    Enjoy your speculation.
    • ponyboy96, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2That was Wachovia running up the price by buying their own stock. Watch for the stock to fall later this week or next when reality sets in.
  • RomeyRome, on 07/23/2008, -3/+7I almost doubled my money on them this week, so I could care less what happens to them now. There is currently no pattern or logic in the financial sector right now on Wall St. Wachovia post 10 billion loss and stock doubles. WaMu posts 3 billion loss & trickles down. If you take the speculators out of the game, the market will crumble, and that's just the way the ball bounces. Still a good time to make some money; even for first timers.

    Move your accounts to Wells Fargo if you're concerned about you money. WF seems to be the only one who didn't jump on the high-risk bandwagon. I have $80k with them & they still won't give me a credit card because of a couple of dings on my credit.
    • gbates31, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2True that on the illogical part. I'm betting on Fannie Mae right now and it's like riding lightning!
      • muckemuck, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2just don't be the last one holding onto that lightening rod..
    • staffa, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3This is the pattern that is being repeated.

      Financial evidence appears that causes people to question whether or not some institution can remain sound. As a result, their stock price plummets.

      The institution and/or government officials announce that the institution core fundamentals are sound and that there is nothing to worry about.

      Stock price recovers much of the previous losses, meanwhile many people with investments in the company decide to play it safe and withdraw their assets. The credit institutions downgrade their borrowing ability into the junk rating, making it almost impossible for them to borrow money.

      The loss of liquidity causes the institution to be unable to cover its reoccurring debt obligations forcing it to consider declaring bankruptcy.

      Stock tumbles until the government bails them out at tax payer expense,


    • ummagummas08, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1So, which part of the pattern is Wachovia at right now?
  • JFreedomseed, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6This is just the beginning. Adjustable rate mortgages will be adjusting between now and the end of the year putting tens of billions of dollars more strain on the banks because of their books being filled up with forclosed homes. This will cause several more banks to collapse which will bring in the FDIC. Problem is, the FDIC doesn't have anywhere near enough money to insure all the depositers, so depositers will lose much of their money which will further erode the economy.

    Everyone better start paying off debt (including mortgages if you can). Staying out of debt is always a good plan anyway. You might also consider having some other forms of investment and money such as gold, silver or foreign currencies. Our dollar is becoming worth less and less almost daily, so it's time to start looking at other options.

    Visit the Freedom Force International website to learn more about our banking system, the Federal Reserve and the terrible mess that's about to happen.
    • rizla420, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1You know, i totally forgot about that. I remember seeing a graph sometime last year associated with an article that showed the percentage of loans that would be readjusting and they're about to start coming due soon and the proportion of them in comparison to the ones that have already adjusted was something along the lines of double.

      offtopic:
      Man i'm posting a lot today after a long absence.
    • ponyboy96, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Don't worry, the FED will just print more money.
    • crapmatic, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Recession, meet Inflation! Please give Inflation a cup of coffee and he'll explain how he makes currency more and more worthless, thus making it easy to pay off your household debts.
    • Y0tsuya, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I have the ARM reset chart hanging on the wall in my cubicle. Since 2005 I've been explaining the situation to anyone who cares to listen. Some don't and still goes out and buy overpriced houses. But I have a few converts who will wait for my signal before buying.
  • theelectricafro, on 07/23/2008, -10/+8Economy is fine...conspiracy theory...all in your head...tin foil hat...etc etc
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
      "Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. [1] The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference). The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction. The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality."
    • skinnyskittles, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4digg doesn't handle sarcasm well
  • stealthc, on 07/23/2008, -3/+12This isn't a banking crisis, or a credit crisis. It's a monetary crisis, and the whole world will feel it eventually.

    Fiat money is about to come back and kick us all right square in the balls.
  • ovset, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Dammit, I just opened my checking account a week ago. Thanks for a ***** load of nothing, Wachovia.
    • KurtangleTN, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3*Stewie Voice* Yeah you want your nothing back that you put in? Hmm? Your $20 you borrowed from your parents to play World of Warcraft every month? Gonnaaaaaaaaa makes you get that 2.59 cents remaining to buy a bit of gold? Hmm??!?!?

      Nah just kidding
  • TymonBrown, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5I deposited a check in Wachovia today. All the while, a TV on the wall was assuring me that Wachovia is on "extremely sound footing."

    ***** footing. I want my money.
  • gbates31, on 07/23/2008, -10/+3The banks are failing! *FAP FAP FAP!* Cascading on themselves! *FAP FAP FAP!*

    Wait... what?
    • crapmatic, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Let me guess... you have Digg on one monitor and One Click Chicks on the other.
  • grneye53, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2BUSH will not have to wait for history to write his legacy, his legacy was already written just check the archives for the day markets crashed and banks failed somewhere around the 30's.
    • Jektal, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Are you implying that Bush caused the Great Depression?
      • geobay, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Bush has caused a lot of depression...
  • aquafire, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2does that mean i'm off the hook for my student loans? yessssssssssss
    • thegreatgazoo, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4No, the debt will just be sold to another entity (ie you get to write your checks out to someone else) so that depositors can get paid back.

      Your debt to them is an asset on their books.
    • Hetman, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Unfortunatly you still owe them money. But guess what you get to also help them stay a float with your tax money. Its win win for them. But it is lose lose for you.
    • atbnet, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2No.
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Hey....The first rule is we don't talk about Project Mayhem......
    • Matt2k, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Pay your bills, *****
    • Hangly, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1If the dollar slides as much as I think it will... yeah, you're pretty much debt-free. Congrats bro.
  • DeFex, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4how many other huge irresponsible greedy high risk mortgage lenders do you have down there?
  • SexyFarts, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5Tyler Durden is at it again...
  • kingp, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2good. they can take all of their stupid fees with them. If only BB&T and Bank of America were next...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.