Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Tom Skerritt

I LOVE Elizabeth Warren: All aboard - WOO WOO!!!

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Slapdash said:

@Shutout :  I think you are drastically overstating the efficiency of information in large, bureaucratic organizations

Not at these banks...that's the thing...these CEO's at banks know where every freaking dime is going and where it's coming from and have the technological capability to pull up this information at a moments notice.  They all have systems (some better than others) in place that tracks this information and at a minimum, the CFO, CIO, CTO, etc can get that information.  If you don't think Dimon, Blankfein, etc know this information in this day, you don't understand the technological capabilities and information flow in these companies these days.   

Further, the cross-selling and account opening numbers were a big investor selling point (they were the "best" at doing so).  It's one of the reasons they so readily had access to capital and continued to grow.

 

Edited by Sammy3469

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working for a rival bank, we all knew what was going on at WF.  But I will tell you that people are not voting with their feet and coming into our branch in droves saying that they are leaving WF because of this.  Quite frankly we have not had a single person walk in coming over from them where I am since this happened.  That is why I know this will add up to a huge meh moment and as long as the CEO keeps saying a lot of random talking points and saying blah blah back at her this will go away shortly and it will be back to business as usual for them.  And you can take that to the bank brohans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Treynwreck3 said:

My wife is an officer at a Fortune 100 company, with 13,000 employees under her charge (compensation). At the level of this corruption, she says that undeniably EVERYONE  knows it's happening, and doing nothing about it because they are all making MILLIONS as a result. WF dude could have fired himself, resigned, or retired. But to think he will/would ever give a penny back is ridiculous.

At large corporations the layers can get so thick upper management gets very disconnected. There is literally nothing that everybody at a corporation knows about. We were just acquired by a large company and I am constantly amazed by how disconnected some of these people are. My wife is a PR director for her third fortune 500 company. I know some juicy details that I assure you 99% of the employees are clueless about. 

Thats how things like this happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mario Kart said:

Ultimately, we the people do have some power here. If you don't like what Wells Fargo did/does... don't bank with them. Take your money and go.

Footnote - I have never nor will I ever bank with them. Use your dollars as your voice here people.

My exact thought. Many things the public cant control. This is pretty simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, scorchy said:

Rick Scott was in charge of a company that had to pay the largest fine ever for Medicare fraud.  Then he got elected governor of Florida.  Until we start imprisoning execs for these things, nothing will ever change.  Fines are just a slap on the wrist.

Exactly.  When fines become an expected cost of doing business, they are no longer serving as a deterrent.

If a bank can make $5B in profit doing something illegal, knowing they will likely have to pay $500M in fines later, along with $250M in attorney fees, that's still a $4.25B profit.  If there are no criminal penalties for those authorizing the illegal activities, there's no reason to stop behaving in such a manner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dondante said:

Agree in principle, insofar as the corruption is life-altering punishment worthy. However, I'm not sure I want a system in place where private companies are in essence controlled by the government. This is where we vote with our dollars. If people were removing their money from WF in droves (as I have), in this particular example, I believe the appropriate people would lose their jobs. But just like most similar incidents in this country, people are lazy and as a result uninformed. We can't hope to legislate in an effort to overcome our apathetic nature. 

I don't think prosecuting illegal activities is the same thing as "controlled by the government".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I don't think prosecuting illegal activities is the same thing as "controlled by the government".

Maybe not, but it's quite the slippery slope in my opinion. I'd just as soon, as a customer with choices, options and free will, move my money elsewhere before the government or in this case the bank decides one way or another to rectify the situation. In this case I believe both government oversight and personal action are equally as important, to be honest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

Not at these banks...that's the thing...these CEO's at banks know where every freaking dime is going and where it's coming from and have the technological capability to pull up this information at a moments notice.  They all have systems (some better than others) in place that tracks this information and at a minimum, the CFO, CIO, CTO, etc can get that information.  If you don't think Dimon, Blankfein, etc know this information in this day, you don't understand the technological capabilities and information flow in these companies these days.   

Further, the cross-selling and account opening numbers were a big investor selling point (they were the "best" at doing so).  It's one of the reasons they so readily had access to capital and continued to grow.

 

I think this is somewhat wishful thinking.  I really doubt that above the regional manager level anyone gives two rips what is going on at the account level.  From that point up it's mostly leverage and carry type decisions, and then you have the private trust department, and IBanking.  

I really doubt the CEO had even a whiff of what was going on.  Someone pushing a bunch of nickel accounts for metrics, BFD.  He probably got a report on account volume quarterly and just shoved it down the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dondante said:

Maybe not, but it's quite the slippery slope in my opinion. I'd just as soon, as a customer with choices, options and free will, move my money elsewhere before the government or in this case the bank decides one way or another to rectify the situation. In this case I believe both government oversight and personal action are equally as important, to be honest. 

Sure you can move your money to another bank. And that is precisely what I would do if I were a WF customer. And I hope that is what most will do (though I doubt it will happen).

 

But what if you were assessed fees and fines on accounts that were opened in your name illegally? Don't you think that more should be done than simply moving your money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tom Skerritt said:

Sure you can move your money to another bank. And that is precisely what I would do if I were a WF customer. And I hope that is what most will do (though I doubt it will happen).

 

But what if you were assessed fees and fines on accounts that were opened in your name illegally? Don't you think that more should be done than simply moving your money?

I don't think there is much of that which is going on.  The way I understand it they would 

 

  • Open an account
  • Move someone's 25 bucks over or whatever
  • Hold it there for a period of time
  • Move the 25 bucks back once the account qualified
  • Close it down

The only way people were seeing fees is if they were overdrawn on their main account by that 25 bucks or whatever they used to open the account.  Now this might be a very oversimplification of what was going on, but there wasn't widespread "theft" in the sense of money going away from someone's pocket forever unless you account for the half of a penny in interest they stood to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, culdeus said:

I don't think there is much of that which is going on.  The way I understand it they would 

 

  • Open an account
  • Move someone's 25 bucks over or whatever
  • Hold it there for a period of time
  • Move the 25 bucks back once the account qualified
  • Close it down

The only way people were seeing fees is if they were overdrawn on their main account by that 25 bucks or whatever they used to open the account.  Now this might be a very oversimplification of what was going on, but there wasn't widespread "theft" in the sense of money going away from someone's pocket forever unless you account for the half of a penny in interest they stood to lose.

Not true. Customers were charged for insufficient funds and overdraft fees after WF employees created "ghost" accounts without customer consent. Funds were transferred from original accounts to these unauthorized accounts, thus creating the fees on the original accounts. 

 

Also, over 500,000 credit card accounts were submitted without consent. And thousands of those accounts incurred over $400K in credit card fees. 

 

I would assume that these fees will either be deleted or reimbursed. But this is criminal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Dondante said:

Maybe not, but it's quite the slippery slope in my opinion. I'd just as soon, as a customer with choices, options and free will, move my money elsewhere before the government or in this case the bank decides one way or another to rectify the situation. In this case I believe both government oversight and personal action are equally as important, to be honest. 

I agree that consumers should vote with their money, but that has nothing to do with whether or not government should prosecute illegal actions.  I'm hard pressed to think of a more proper role for government than enforcing our laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so, but the CEO is to blame for instilling a culture of fear that extended down to the individual branch locations in such a way that employees believed that they needed to break the law to keep their jobs. Also, the way Wells Fargo handled internal whistleblowers (by firing them) violates Federal law as well:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/21/investing/wells-fargo-fired-workers-retaliation-fake-accounts/index.html

I'm planning on moving my WF account by the end of the week. I won't support this crap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Tom Skerritt said:

Not true. Customers were charged for insufficient funds and overdraft fees after WF employees created "ghost" accounts without customer consent. Funds were transferred from original accounts to these unauthorized accounts, thus creating the fees on the original accounts. 

 

Also, over 500,000 credit card accounts were submitted without consent. And thousands of those accounts incurred over $400K in credit card fees. 

 

I would assume that these fees will either be deleted or reimbursed. But this is criminal. 

I think these fees went uncollected in the vast majority of cases.  The reporting on the aspects of this might be a little light and I may have skimmed, but I don't think there was widesperead "theft" of funds such that bankers were pocketing money.  This was simply ways for people to open accounts and get account opening bonuses on these ghost accounts.  Whether they stayed active or not was not an issue and the amount of fees that were collected were small.  The scam as it were was designed to make the WF balance sheet look stronger because they opened XXXXXX accounts in this month suggesting growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I agree that consumers should vote with their money, but that has nothing to do with whether or not government should prosecute illegal actions.  I'm hard pressed to think of a more proper role for government than enforcing our laws.

I guess the point I was trying to make, and what seems to be the disconnect in the conversation (mostly because I'm a complete moron when it comes to this kind of stuff) is that I don't believe the government should seek to prosecute the CEO for the collective actions of his employees. Did it happen on his watch, yes. Should the individuals who were involved in illegal activities be prosecuted? Absolutely. I think the CEO should step down, personally, but enjoy the fact that he's not being forced out by the government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sammy3469 said:

Not at these banks...that's the thing...these CEO's at banks know where every freaking dime is going and where it's coming from and have the technological capability to pull up this information at a moments notice.  They all have systems (some better than others) in place that tracks this information and at a minimum, the CFO, CIO, CTO, etc can get that information.  If you don't think Dimon, Blankfein, etc know this information in this day, you don't understand the technological capabilities and information flow in these companies these days.   

Further, the cross-selling and account opening numbers were a big investor selling point (they were the "best" at doing so).  It's one of the reasons they so readily had access to capital and continued to grow.

 

Yeah, I'm going to have to strongly agree to disagree with you on this one given my experience with how the C-suite gets reporting at one of "these banks".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, culdeus said:

I think these fees went uncollected in the vast majority of cases.  The reporting on the aspects of this might be a little light and I may have skimmed, but I don't think there was widesperead "theft" of funds such that bankers were pocketing money.  This was simply ways for people to open accounts and get account opening bonuses on these ghost accounts.  Whether they stayed active or not was not an issue and the amount of fees that were collected were small.  The scam as it were was designed to make the WF balance sheet look stronger because they opened XXXXXX accounts in this month suggesting growth.

We know what the revenue on these was because it was reimbursed. Somewhere between $3MM and $5MM I believe.  Opening rarely used accounts is not profitable for a bank and it really wouldn't make a balance sheet look stronger.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jonessed said:

We know what the revenue on these was because it was reimbursed. Somewhere between $3MM and $5MM I believe.  Opening rarely used accounts is not profitable for a bank and it really wouldn't make a balance sheet look stronger.

3 million is nothing. One trust account brings that in a day.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Slapdash said:

Liz Warren essentially created the CFPB, which uncovered this fraud in the first place.  That is the definition of doing something and trying to fix things.  The only reason she is a Senator instead of running the agency is because Republicans would not confirm her. 

Actually Obama didn't want her there either. There is a reason she isn't the VP. It's one of the worst kept secrets in DC that Hillary isn't really a fan. None of these corporate shills want her anywhere near the ability to do anything they are scared ####less of her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, culdeus said:

I think this is somewhat wishful thinking.  I really doubt that above the regional manager level anyone gives two rips what is going on at the account level.  From that point up it's mostly leverage and carry type decisions, and then you have the private trust department, and IBanking.  

I really doubt the CEO had even a whiff of what was going on.  Someone pushing a bunch of nickel accounts for metrics, BFD.  He probably got a report on account volume quarterly and just shoved it down the table. 

His company was cross selling at over twice the average rate of other banks. How many people need 6 accounts with one bank? Not this many and he knew it. There is no way to look at that number and not know something was up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Political grandstanding at its best. Politicians using this as an excuse for soundbites because we are in an election year. The "fraud" involved was miniscule in macro terms, and nothing compared to prior frauds that all received slaps on the wrist. HSBC illegally laundered nearly a billion dollars of drug money, JPMorgan had "rogue" traders blow billions in a few days. Many investment banks and private investment houses helped defraud investors of billions of dollars with bad CDO's and credit default swaps and basically nothing came of it. Citi, JPM, BofA all paid BILLIONS in settlements for selling fraudulent mortgages and for improper foreclosure practices (Wells paid some fines for this too.)

 

But this is the one scandal that all the politicians (both Republican and Democrat) are soooo outraged about? Because less than 1% of the retail employees opened up fake checking accounts and credit cards so they could hit their quarterly bonuses? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Commish said:

Do you have a link to the questioning?  Seems weird to be asking Comey about FBI actions before he was director of the FBI :oldunsure: 

Here :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dondante said:

I guess the point I was trying to make, and what seems to be the disconnect in the conversation (mostly because I'm a complete moron when it comes to this kind of stuff) is that I don't believe the government should seek to prosecute the CEO for the collective actions of his employees. Did it happen on his watch, yes. Should the individuals who were involved in illegal activities be prosecuted? Absolutely. I think the CEO should step down, personally, but enjoy the fact that he's not being forced out by the government. 

If thats what the solution is to this issue, then it would stand to reason that CEO compensation needs to come way down.  Cant have it both ways, make the big salary and then claim you cant know everything that goes on in the company.  In this particular case the CEO had to know just by the facts of the earnings calls.  I agree with Warren, the justice department and the SEC need to begin a criminal investigation and hold this guy criminally responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Buckna said:

Political grandstanding at its best. Politicians using this as an excuse for soundbites because we are in an election year. The "fraud" involved was miniscule in macro terms, and nothing compared to prior frauds that all received slaps on the wrist. HSBC illegally laundered nearly a billion dollars of drug money, JPMorgan had "rogue" traders blow billions in a few days. Many investment banks and private investment houses helped defraud investors of billions of dollars with bad CDO's and credit default swaps and basically nothing came of it. Citi, JPM, BofA all paid BILLIONS in settlements for selling fraudulent mortgages and for improper foreclosure practices (Wells paid some fines for this too.)

 

But this is the one scandal that all the politicians (both Republican and Democrat) are soooo outraged about? Because less than 1% of the retail employees opened up fake checking accounts and credit cards so they could hit their quarterly bonuses? :rolleyes:

So just sweep this under the rug because it's not a big enough fraud?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's worth doing this stunt because it casts a negative light on WF and causes people to leave them, or not consider them in the future.  This loss of brand reputation craters the stock price which does go to hurt the executives.  It's really the largest recourse the public has in this type of event.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Slapdash said:
5 hours ago, Sammy3469 said:

Not at these banks...that's the thing...these CEO's at banks know where every freaking dime is going and where it's coming from and have the technological capability to pull up this information at a moments notice.  They all have systems (some better than others) in place that tracks this information and at a minimum, the CFO, CIO, CTO, etc can get that information.  If you don't think Dimon, Blankfein, etc know this information in this day, you don't understand the technological capabilities and information flow in these companies these days.   

Further, the cross-selling and account opening numbers were a big investor selling point (they were the "best" at doing so).  It's one of the reasons they so readily had access to capital and continued to grow.

 

Yeah, I'm going to have to strongly agree to disagree with you on this one given my experience with how the C-suite gets reporting at one of "these banks".

It's really hard to say one way or the other.  I do reporting all the time for the C-suite and they could get their hands on this stuff if they wanted.  Did Stumpf? :shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, bananafish said:
6 hours ago, The Commish said:

Do you have a link to the questioning?  Seems weird to be asking Comey about FBI actions before he was director of the FBI :oldunsure: 

Here :shrug:

Oh....that makes better sense...thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Slapdash said:

I viewed her comments differently.  Compensation schemes that overly rewarded employees for risky/fraudulent behavior also had a large role in the mortgage crisis.  Then, like now, we do not see the firms assigning responsibility or accountability to those that created these schemes or the control partners who did not catch it.  Getting rid of lower level employees who were responding to incentives seems like addressing the symptom rather than the problem.  :2cents:

Maybe I'm missing some pieces of the response though.

People at the regional levels make excellent low to mid 6 figure incomes and they are being axed. A lot of higher level employees are rightfully getting their walking papers. I don't disagree with the vile garbage big banks have done over the last 10-15 years. The big retail banks like Well's and BofA etc all have turned their consumer banking centers into giant widget factories. But I can tell you with the utmost certainty that they are not encouraging a culture of employees opening accounts without client consent. That is a by product of pure greed by individuals looking to hit incentives. The goals are the goals. But reaching them unethically is on the person...not the company.  If they prove CEO's of these large banks are handing down executive orders to reach goals at all costs.....then Warrens ridiculous grand standing diatribe is welcomed. 

But that is not what is going on. And her display yesterday was idiotic. As a CEO you are paid to take that sort of abuse...so deal with it. But she was acting like a mis-informed idiot yesterday. Pure political theater at it's worst.

 

If you can't hit your goals consistently and ethically then look for a new line of work. That's sales. You either can take the heat or you need to leave the kitchen. If you are attaining your sales goals unethically....you should be fired. I used to work at Bank of America (was a VP for over a decade there). I can't tell you how much internal fraud I used to uncover. It is everywhere in the banks. Wells just had a massive amount and thankfully got caught. The hiring practices of big banks have also been awful over the last decade. They are hiring too many unqualified people, who then come in, figure out the system and exploit it for personal gain.

CEO's should be held accountable of course. But this is a massive failure from the bottom up. Internal controls need to be better. Fines should be levied against the bank for damages to their customers and clients. All of it should happen. The only ones who should be looking at any criminal charges are those employees who actually committed the act of opening accounts without client consent.

 

The CEO? GTFOH. Warren is out of her mind. No one held a gun to any employees head to open accounts without consent. Goals are too high? Get a new job. It is not an excuse to commit fraud.

Edited by Todem
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Warren is a moron. 

Wells Fargo deserves everything coming its way and probably more.

I hate politicians.

Well said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ned said:

It's really hard to say one way or the other.  I do reporting all the time for the C-suite and they could get their hands on this stuff if they wanted.  Did Stumpf? :shrug:

 

You said it much better than I did.  At least at the large banks where I know high-level tech managers, any of this information is available if the business/front of office wants it.  If WFC didn't, well then, that's on them as well for not spending the money to implement systems.  This is basic personnel and account information.  We aren't talking about a complex financial instrument which might be out of their league, but basic, fundamental business information.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can honestly say that the majority of the people opening those bad accounts were doing it less for their bonus and more to get the next two levels of managementoff of their back.

Not enough checking accounts today...stay late and have a punishment call night.  Having to update people and get your balls broken every two hours on results is what drove people to do this nonsense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, chet said:

She's goofy.  Everything she did today was for soundbite purposes IMO.  I'm not saying Stumpf didn't deserve to be skewered--he did IMO--but constantly blaming Wall Street only for the 2008 crisis shows how misinformed she is.

Disagree. It shows that big banks are continuing to bend rules at the expense of the general public. This is more evidence for the need to regulate big banks, and renew Glass-Steagall. These suits cannot be trusted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 32 Counter Pass said:

Disagree. It shows that big banks are continuing to bend rules at the expense of the general public. This is more evidence for the need to regulate big banks, and renew Glass-Steagall. These suits cannot be trusted. 

Glass Steagall is about the commercial banks and securities firms....fyi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sammy3469 said:

Not at these banks...that's the thing...these CEO's at banks know where every freaking dime is going and where it's coming from and have the technological capability to pull up this information at a moments notice.  They all have systems (some better than others) in place that tracks this information and at a minimum, the CFO, CIO, CTO, etc can get that information.  If you don't think Dimon, Blankfein, etc know this information in this day, you don't understand the technological capabilities and information flow in these companies these days.   

Further, the cross-selling and account opening numbers were a big investor selling point (they were the "best" at doing so).  It's one of the reasons they so readily had access to capital and continued to grow.

 

 

5 hours ago, Slapdash said:

Yeah, I'm going to have to strongly agree to disagree with you on this one given my experience with how the C-suite gets reporting at one of "these banks".

Former national bank regulator here, worked in-house at one of these named banks. CEOs are getting way, way, way too much credit for "what they see" in this thread.

Doesn't excuse it. They should know what is going on in their shop and are ultimately responsible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RUSF18 said:

 

Former national bank regulator here, worked in-house at one of these named banks. CEOs are getting way, way, way too much credit for "what they see" in this thread.

Doesn't excuse it. They should know what is going on in their shop and are ultimately responsible. 

It may be the difference in a entity that started as a broker-dealer versus one that started as a pure bank then.  I'm more familiar with the former than the latter.  The former definitely has access to this type of information if they want it.  The B/Ds definitely can (and do) micromanage if they want to since the structures are still relatively flat. 

In any case, I'm sure more stories like these will be cropping up.  

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/21/investing/wells-fargo-fired-workers-retaliation-fake-accounts/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Glass Steagall is about the commercial banks and securities firms....fyi

My understanding is that when Congress did away with Glass-Steagall it allowed banks like Wells Fargo and such to enter into more speculative investments. This gave these clowns the ability to make risky investments and still have the comfort of federally guaranteed deposits. The best of both world at the expense of the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Johnnymac said:

So just sweep this under the rug because it's not a big enough fraud?

No, it means I roll my eyes at the political outrage over a few million dollars being crowed about in an election year when the politicians have done basically nothing the last 8 years over which billions upon billions were defrauded/wasted/squandered and the global economy was almost destroyed.

 

Words are wind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 32 Counter Pass said:

My understanding is that when Congress did away with Glass-Steagall it allowed banks like Wells Fargo and such to enter into more speculative investments. This gave these clowns the ability to make risky investments and still have the comfort of federally guaranteed deposits. The best of both world at the expense of the general public.

That's correct...well, part of it.  Putting it back would have no affect on the retail banks where this stuff happened.  That was my point.  It also remains to be seen that Dodd-Frank would have an impact on something like this either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2016 at 2:38 PM, Zigg said:

So a CEO was scolded, but will anything come of it?  I wish that was a real question.

Nope. I'm not leaving Wells Fargo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TripItUp said:

Warren is a moron. 

Wells Fargo deserves everything coming its way and probably more.

I hate politicians.

:goodposting:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buckna said:

No, it means I roll my eyes at the political outrage over a few million dollars being crowed about in an election year when the politicians have done basically nothing the last 8 years over which billions upon billions were defrauded/wasted/squandered and the global economy was almost destroyed.

Words are wind...

 

Warren has been trying for years.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2016 at 6:54 PM, St. Louis Bob said:

I wish Stumph would have interrupted her with "whoa, whoa, Sacagawea!  Take a sip of firewater and become one with nature."

Really should have gone with "How about I give you a million beads and we settle this?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, because they're both scumbags since she lied too about being Native American.

 

 

 

 

I'll see myself out.

Edited by St. Louis Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, St. Louis Bob said:

See, because they're both scumbags since she lied too about being Native American.

 

 

 

 

I'll see myself out.

don't forget about the house flipping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now being reported that Wells Fargo fired employees who submitted complaints to HR and the ethics hotline. One guy was fired for excessive tardiness 8 days after he filed his complaint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tom Skerritt said:

Now being reported that Wells Fargo fired employees who submitted complaints to HR and the ethics hotline. One guy was fired for excessive tardiness 8 days after he filed his complaint. 

Read that last night - unreal, if true.

I've always been skeptical about those hotlines, "anonymous" engagement surveys, etc that they force on us. :tinfoilhat:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Big Guy said:

I can honestly say that the majority of the people opening those bad accounts were doing it less for their bonus and more to get the next two levels of managementoff of their back.

Not enough checking accounts today...stay late and have a punishment call night.  Having to update people and get your balls broken every two hours on results is what drove people to do this nonsense.

How can you honestly say this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.