Bitcoin Forum
May 08, 2024, 12:32:54 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Robber Bank: Can America ever rid itself of Wells Fargo?  (Read 167 times)
Hydrogen (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2562
Merit: 1441



View Profile
March 11, 2020, 02:18:51 PM
 #1

Quote
Wells Fargo “collected millions of dollars in fees and interest to which [it] was not entitled, harmed the credit ratings of certain customers, and unlawfully misused customers’ sensitive personal information,” according to the Justice Department, which announced on Feb. 21 that the banking company has agreed to pay an additional $3 billion to settle potential charges stemming from its unauthorized creation of several million customer accounts between 2002–16. Fees and penalties in relation to this scam alone had already totaled more than half a billion dollars.

Good news, right? That looks like accountability, and $3 billion is a lot of dough. But that $3 billion represents only a small part of the bank’s takings from just this one scam—customer money to which, by its own admission, it “was not entitled.” From that perspective, the DOJ basically caught a gang of thieves and let them scoot right back to their den with most of the loot. Worse still, criminal prosecutions—for a bank that openly admits it stole money from its own customers—are off the table for now: “The criminal investigation into false bank records and identity theft is being resolved with a deferred prosecution agreement in which Wells Fargo will not be prosecuted during the three-year term of the agreement.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose incisive and relentless questioning led to the resignations of not one but two Wells Fargo CEOs in connection with the scam, was not impressed with the announcement.

“The Justice Dept & SEC’s settlement with Wells Fargo barely puts a dent in the bank’s $12 billion profits from the fake accounts scam,” she tweeted. “When big banks can break the law, pay a fine, consider it the cost of doing business, & go back to life as normal, nothing changes. Nothing.

“I got [former CEO John] Stumpf fired,” she concluded, “but he’s probably popping champagne tonight.”

It’s hard to believe that so much thieving has gone unpunished and unchecked for so long.
Warren has been fighting Wells Fargo’s misdeeds for more than a decade, as she reminded Nevadans at the Democratic primary debate on Feb. 19, harking back to a 2008 meeting with Las Vegans who’d lost their houses in the mortgage crisis.

“When Mayor Bloomberg was busy blaming African Americans and Latinos for the housing crash of 2008, I was right here in Las Vegas, literally just a few blocks down the street, holding hearings on the banks that were taking away homes from millions of families,” she said. “That’s when I met Mr. Estrada, one of your neighbors. … He thought he’d done everything right with Wells Fargo, but what happened? They took away his house in a matter of weeks.”

Wells Fargo paid $5.35 billion as its part of a five-bank, $26 billion settlement to provide relief to American homeowners harmed in the mortgage crisis. According to the New York Times, Mr. Estrada and 750,000 people like him would be compensated for the loss of their homes with checks for $2,000.

This struggle for accountability is not over. The New York Times reported Wednesday that the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee will hold hearings next week on the failure of Wells Fargo to comply with its existing regulatory settlements. [Update, March 9, 2020, at 8:20 a.m.: Wells Fargo announced Monday morning that its board chair, Elizabeth Duke, and another board member, James Quigley, had resigned from the company.]

It’s hard to believe that so much thieving has gone unpunished and unchecked for so long. But Wells Fargo has powerful and respected champions who have steadily turned a blind eye to criminal activity, perhaps because they have made a lot of money from it.

One of the bank’s chief champions is legendary investor Warren Buffett, whose conglomerate, Berkshire Hathaway, is Wells Fargo’s largest shareholder. The highlight of the annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholders’ meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, comes when Buffett and his vice chairman, Charlie Munger, take questions from their adoring fans, tens of thousands of whom attend the event each year.

The questions tend to be friendly, but at the most recent shareholders’ meeting last May, a retired police officer named Mike Hebel asked Buffett a question about Wells Fargo. Hebel wanted to know why Berkshire, the company he trusted with his own savings, was invested in a bank that has been helping itself to its customers’ money with persistent enthusiasm for the past 20 years or more.

Buffett is easily the most beloved figure in American business. The Sage of Omaha, as he is known, is the face of good capitalism in America, an exemplar of the old-fashioned values of foresight, integrity, leadership and success. His company has a market cap of more than half a trillion dollars and as of last November boasted the largest hoard of cash held by any U.S. corporation: $128 billion. Berkshire is also the biggest publicly traded financial services company in the country, and its 7.82 percent stake in Wells Fargo is currently worth just under $12 billion, a drop of 22 percent since Feb. 17.

Hebel’s question was:

The Star Performers Investment Club has 30 partners, all of whom are active or retired San Francisco police officers. Several of our members have worked in the fraud detail, and have often commented after the yearslong fraudulent behavior of Wells Fargo employees—should have warranted jail sentences for several dozen, yet Wells just pays civil penalties and changes management.

As proud shareholders of Berkshire, we cannot understand Mr. Buffett’s relative silence compared to his vigorous public pronouncement many years ago on Salomon’s misbehavior. Why so quiet?

Here was an ordinary investor, a cop, who—despite having made money on his Berkshire investment—noticed that something very wrong was happening at Wells Fargo, and demanded ethical and legal accountability from a couple of the country’s most famously admired and trusted, most apple-pie-American billionaires. Buffett responded at length, with several zingers:

Quote
At Berkshire … we have 390,000 employees, and I will guarantee you that some of them are doing things that are wrong right now.

And:

Quote
Wells has become, you know, exhibit one in recent years. But if you go back a few years, you know, you can almost go down—there’s quite a list of banks where people behaved badly.

And:

Quote
I don’t really have any inside information on it at all. … I don’t know the specifics at Wells.

That was interesting, because there were plenty to know. The House Financial Services Committee had held hearings about these very specifics only a few weeks before that shareholders meeting. The hearings, called “Holding Megabanks Accountable: An Examination of Wells Fargo’s Pattern of Consumer Abuses,” went poorly for the bank, and CEO Tim Sloan had stepped down shortly afterward.

The scandal would continue to snowball. Last month, banking regulators reported that John Stumpf—Sloan’s predecessor, whose nose Warren bloodied so effectively back in 2016—agreed to pay $17.5 million of his own money in fines for his part in the fake accounts scandal; he is barred for life from working for or even serving on the board of a bank. Multiple Wells executives are facing further investigation, fines, and potential criminal charges.

This fiasco is costing the bank far more than just fines and penalties. Last month the Wall Street Journal revealed that Wells’ wealth management division, which employs 13,000 financial advisers, has been hemorrhaging these valuable employees since the fake accounts scandal broke. Financial headhunter Brian Hamburger told the Journal, “Advisers tell me they don’t want to have to apologize for the firm they work for.” Yes, and maybe they also have little appetite for the task of persuading investors to entrust their funds to known swindlers.

But back at the shareholders meeting last May, Charlie Munger was saying: “I don’t think people ought to go to jail for honest errors of judgment. It’s bad enough to lose your job. And I don’t think that any of those top officers was deliberately malevolent in any way. … I don’t think Tim Sloan even committed honest errors of his judgment. … I wish Tim Sloan was still there.”

“Yeah, there’s no evidence that he did a thing,” said Buffett. “But he stepped up to take a job that—where he was going to be a piñata, basically, for all kinds of investigations.”

One might be forgiven for thinking that the head of a bank that has been stealing money from its customers might reasonably expected to take a whack or two. Or maybe the real piñatas were the thousands of Wells Fargo employees who wound up losing their jobs for doing exactly as their bosses asked.

The wildest part of Buffett’s answer to Hebel came at the end.

“I actually proposed … that if a bank gets to where it needs government assistance, that basically the responsible CEO should lose his net worth and his spouse’s net worth,” he said. But he failed to mention that this brain wave came in the context of being grilled by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on the 2008 banking crisis. He was proposing personal liability for CEOs as a preferable alternative to creating stronger banking regulations. “Maybe the spouse would do better policing than the regulator,” he cracked. Tee-hee.

But Hebel was not asking Buffett and Munger how Berkshire Hathaway felt about individual acts of wrongdoing at Wells Fargo. He was asking why its money—his money—was sustaining a bank whose misbehavior was clearly deeper, worse, and more ingrained than the crimes of a few people. The barrel is plainly rotten, in other words, not just a few apples. A better question than Mike Hebel’s is: Why hasn’t this bank been shut down?

In March of 2019, just before the House hearings, Yahoo Finance made a “complete timeline” of 19 Wells Fargo scandals going back to the fall of 2016. But LOL, no, Yahoo’s timeline was not remotely “complete.”

Here’s a selection of the misdeeds for which Wells Fargo has been penalized by various agencies over the past few years:

• overcharging service members for loans, and then

• illegally repossessing their cars

• failing to file reports on suspected money laundering activity

• failing to obey regulations for bankruptcy planning

• charging auto loan customers for duplicative insurance without their knowledge

• wage violations

• keeping conveniently mum to investors about the incipient fake account scandal

• encouraging retail investor churn in high-fee products

• deliberately originating mortgage loans with false income information

• taking punitive action against whistleblowers in its own company.


Good Jobs First’s Violation Tracker lists 136 separate fines and penalties paid by the bank since 2000, totaling about $17.3 billion.

What percentage of the loot illegally acquired by Wells Fargo in this 20-year crime spree does that $17.3 billion in penalties represent? Ten percent? A tenth of a percent? Who knows? Put it this way: The bank’s confessed 2019 Q2 profit, reported in July, rose to $6.21 billion, compared with $5.19 billion the previous year. Even with its retention problems, its wealth division recently reported $1.9 trillion in customer assets under management.

New and terrible details of the fake accounts scandal emerged in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s filings on Jan. 23 against former executive Carrie Tolstedt and others, documenting a work environment so toxic and hateful as to stun even those of us who had already understood its broad outlines. The filings quote many Wells Fargo employees’ written pleas to their deranged, abusive bosses:

Surely, you must be aware that you will reach a sales number to be achieved that will force the staff to cheat to obtain it.

The noose around our necks has tightened: we have been told we must achieve the required solutions goals or we will be terminated. This type of practice guarantees high turnover, a managerial staff of bullying taskmasters, [and] bankers who are really financial molesters [and] cheaters.

Wealth should not be so admired that it sanitizes the people who hold it, placing them beyond the reach of interrogation.
Despite this, nobody in charge has been indicted, let alone convicted, for the crimes of Wells Fargo, so there obviously hasn’t been much of a deterrent for committing them. Shareholders, all of them shielded from direct liability, also benefited, as millions of Wells Fargo’s own customers—and employees—were persistently fleeced and abused.

Unless you are one of them, it may seem to have nothing to do with you, what these kazillionaire bankers are up to. But what Wall Street and the banks are doing is deep in your life, through and through. It’s where you’re keeping your money! A little bit of the sweat of your brow goes in their pocket with your every paycheck.

“There are decisions about what we want not just our economy to look like, but also our broader world to look like, that come from what giant banks decide that they are going to finance.” Graham Steele, a former legislative assistant to Sen. Sherrod Brown, told me.

What is the true cost of accepting the aw-shucks evasions of people like Warren Buffett? Wealth should not be so admired that it automatically sanitizes the people who hold it, and their deeds, placing them beyond the reach of interrogation.

It bears mentioning that despite their protestations of executive innocence, Buffett and Munger quietly sold off 55.2 million shares of Wells Fargo in the fourth quarter, about 15 percent of their holdings. This move left Berkshire still the bank’s largest shareholder, but barely. A cynic might observe that dumping enough to drop behind second-place Vanguard’s stake might attract unwelcome notice in the market.

What would it take to stop a bank that refuses to stop itself?

Since the 2008 crisis, financial institutions have become punching bags to some, but most people are still perfectly happy to keep their money in big banks. Banks are convenient places in which to have your paycheck deposited, and it’s convenient, too, to have plenty of ATMs around; one is rarely invited to consider that the people running the place might be literal thieves and bad guys, or that you should keep your money elsewhere, or that a bank should just be shuttered.

“We have the tools to break up Wells Fargo or any miscreant bank right now,” David Dayen, executive editor of American Prospect, author of Chain of Title, and a longtime reporter on financial shenanigans, told me over email. “The Federal Reserve can do it, or the FDIC. Corporations are granted a public charter by governments with the implicit (and often explicit) intention that they act in the public interest. A bank that violates that charter repeatedly should simply lose it. Wells Fargo should have been given the corporate death penalty long ago.”

State attorneys general, too, have the power to revoke a corporation’s charter, as Dayen pointed out in the New Republic: In Delaware—where more than half of all publicly traded U.S. corporations are domiciled—if the state attorney general finds a corporation has “abused or misused” its charter, they can just mosey on over to the Court of Chancery and direct the court to shut it down.

And finally, if governments or regulators can’t or won’t compel a bad bank to stop stealing, people really can just get their money out and put it somewhere else. Banks can’t make loans without a certain percentage of deposits held by law as “reserve requirements.” Should deposits take a big enough hit, even the largest bank could be forced out of business by its own depositors. It’s a lot of trouble to change banks, no doubt; on the other hand it is also quite unpleasant to be ripped off incessantly by a load of Brioni-suited crooks.

After Sen. Elizabeth Warren mopped the floor with onetime Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf in a Banking Committee hearing in 2016 (“Have you returned one nickel of the millions of dollars that you were paid while this scam was going on?” she asked—and he hadn’t, until he was forced to, years later), Stumpf retired, as did Tolstedt, who had been head of the community banking division. Tolstedt, who is reportedly still fighting charges, has so far taken the brunt of the blame for running the fake accounts fraud scheme, and misleading the board, after an internal investigation. Five thousand three hundred Wells employees lost their jobs in the wreckage.

A lot of hay was made in the press over the $136 million eventually clawed back from Stumpf’s and Tolstedt’s golden parachutes, but Fortune reported that Stumpf still left the company with $105 million—the clawback amounted to a 40 percent hit on his retirement package—while Tolstedt’s took a 54 percent hit, leaving her with a $57 million exit. That is to say, even after his $17.5 million speeding ticket, Stumpf’s exit package alone was still worth $87.5 million.

The precedent for rewarding thieving bankers was fixed in the years after 2008, when, instead of being prosecuted, many of those responsible for the mortgage crisis were bailed out and made whole by the Obama administration, even as millions of ordinary Americans lost their houses, jobs, and pensions.

“The message in the crisis itself was you can crash the global economy, and you will get bailed out,” Steele told me. “So we’ll do some marginal reforms, and then you can take millions and millions of people’s homes away, mostly fraudulently. And there’ll be no accountability for that either.”

This pattern of showering people with money in exchange for corporate malfeasance repeated itself many times over the next decade at Wells Fargo.

Tim Sloan, Stumpf’s replacement, was a company veteran of nearly three decades who had served Wells as CFO and COO. With each new scandal, he publicly promised reforms and transparency. It’s unclear whom he thought he was kidding. The scandal machine rolled on unhindered throughout his tenure.

Instead of being prosecuted, many of those responsible for the mortgage crisis were bailed out and made whole.
In August of 2019—that is, just months ago—a new scandal emerged: Wells had been charging overdrafts to closed bank accounts. A single whistleblower reported having personally nabbed about $100,000 in such fees on behalf of the bank over an eight-month period. Sen. Warren demanded answers from the bank on Aug. 19. (Uh, looking into that we’ll get back to you, it replied, more or less).

Warren’s popularity grew in no small part because of the effectiveness and vim with which she socked it to Sloan in October 2017, as she had to Stumpf before him. “At best you were incompetent. At worst you were complicit. And either way, you should be fired,” she yelled, thrillingly. Even so, Sloan managed to hang on until last March. His compensation for 2018 was $18,426,734. Maybe he thought that wasn’t such a lot, given what his old boss walked away with. Remember, if you have a bank account at Wells Fargo, a bit of that is your money.

Wells’ new CEO, Charles Scharf, started work last October; he’s its fourth leader in three years. His job is to rehabilitate the bank’s tarnished reputation, but until quite recently, Scharf didn’t seem to think anything much needed fixing (and no wonder; the Washington Post reported that “in 2020, Scharf will have a target annual pay package of $23 million and receive a one-time make whole award of $26 million for money he lost by leaving Bank of New York Mellon,” and if you want to rewind for a moment over the phrase “money he lost,” I won’t blame you). Scharf “dismissed the notion that Wells needed a change in structure or strategy,” according to the FT in late September. “The business model is fundamentally sound,” he said.

Scharf’s tone changed dramatically after Stumpf was made to pay even a fraction of Wells Fargo’s ill-gotten gains out of his own pocket.

“The OCC’s actions are consistent with my belief that we should hold ourselves and individuals accountable,” he declared in a statement to employees. “They also are consistent with our belief that significant parts of the operating model of our Community Bank were flawed,” he added.

The altar-boy routine continued on Feb. 21, after the DOJ announced its settlement. “The conduct at the core of today’s settlements—and the past culture that gave rise to it—are reprehensible and wholly inconsistent with the values on which Wells Fargo was built,” Scharf said, in a thoroughly incoherent statement. “We are committing all necessary resources to ensure that nothing like this happens again, while also driving Wells Fargo forward.”

Scharf’s newfound chagrin makes a sound argument for relieving criminal executives of all their ill-gotten gains, as Warren Buffett once suggested, and also putting them in jail, even if the current administration has insufficient brains, integrity, or political will to shut the Wells Fargo supercrime bonanza down completely. But the real lesson of Wells Fargo is that punishing a lawless CEO or two is not enough. Sometimes criminal institutions just need to be annihilated.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/wells-fargo-fines-penalties-never-stop.html



....



Long and 100% excellent read for anyone interested in bitcoin, crypto currencies, finance, economics.

I hadn't realized Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is the largest majority stake owner of Wells Fargo. This explains why he would never be open minded about bitcoin or care to endorse anything related to crypto currencies. It goes directly against the grain of the banking industry he has billions of dollars invested in.

This piece also details numerous advantages bitcoin and crypto currencies enjoy over traditional banking institutions. In terms of crypto's trustless system not being applicable towards the type of abuse and fraud which banks like Wells Fargo have long been guilty of.

Its too bad news articles like this one aren't required reading in schools. Many of the principles and ideologies comprising school curriculum is obsolete and outdated by modern day standards.
1715128374
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715128374

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715128374
Reply with quote  #2

1715128374
Report to moderator
"With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1715128374
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715128374

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715128374
Reply with quote  #2

1715128374
Report to moderator
1715128374
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715128374

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715128374
Reply with quote  #2

1715128374
Report to moderator
avikz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1499



View Profile
March 11, 2020, 04:42:25 PM
 #2

It's absolutely wrong for banks to see cryptos as a threat to their business. Because we have heard wonderful news from banks in Germany in 2020, that they are going to accept crypto deposits in 2020. Read the news below,

https://news.bitcoin.com/german-banks-authorized-to-store-and-sell-cryptocurrency-in-2020/

This problem is mainly a war between the progressive and regressive mentality. Progressive people/entity will feel intrigued to know more about cryptos and regressive people/entity will see it as a threat from the very beginning. That's what is happening for Banks and an old school investor like Mr. Buffet!

dothebeats
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3640
Merit: 1352


Cashback 15%


View Profile
March 11, 2020, 06:02:30 PM
 #3

It's really fascinating to know that the perpetrators of most crimes against society are being done in the open by none other than the banks, and the governments seem to allow it or turn a blind eye against such cases. That is not surprising in itself anymore but it's really grinding my gears that governments aren't doing anything about it. In the case of Wells Fargo, no matter how much leadership changes they have in a short span of time, for as long as there are rotten apples within the board, the end result would them doing the same thing in a more discreet fashion, though.

As for Mr. Buffett's involvement within the bank, it's no wonder that he wants nothing to do with cryptocurrency even if it offers a lot in the financial system. He just wants to keep his baby fatter and fatter, without any regard to changes that could possibly happen in the society or the economy.

.
.HUGE.
▄██████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄█████████████████████▄
▄███████████████████████▄
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████▌██▌▐██▐██▐████▄███
████▐██▐████▌██▌██▌██▌██
█████▀███▀███▀▐██▐██▐█████

▀█████████████████████████▀

▀███████████████████████▀

▀█████████████████████▀

▀█████████████████▀

▀██████████▀▀
█▀▀▀▀











█▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.
CASINSPORTSBOOK
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀█











▄▄▄▄█
NotATether
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 6730


bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org


View Profile WWW
March 11, 2020, 09:54:55 PM
Merited by avikz (2)
 #4

Its too bad news articles like this one aren't required reading in schools. Many of the principles and ideologies comprising school curriculum is obsolete and outdated by modern day standards.

This article looks like an essay assignment for university students, but to actually make use of it in real life they would need to remember it, something students are notoriously bad at. Do you remember anything you studied about for your chemistry test?



Warren Buffet is not the kind of guy who attempts to use business activities to prove economic theories, so at least he's not a crank and his views can be changed by others. He does participate in investments on stuff that are biologically or environmentally dangerous (tobacco, coal) but the other investors should be held responsible too because they try to make money off of these products, so the companies making those things are incentivized to make more pollution and make cigarettes more addicting to make more revenue for them.

Which leads me back to banks like Wells Fargo. Let's make a TL;DR of what profits they made from illicit and harmful activities:

  • Took away homes from thousands of people, a fine forced Wells Fargo to give them $2000 checks. Still profited off of the recession because they got bailouts from the Fed like any too-big-to-fail company.
  • Made lots of fraudulent accounts for real customers, funded with their own money, ended up getting unexpected fees or credit cards. Why? To sell as many finance packages as possible. Think about paying for something you didn't order.
  • Soliciting elderly people to buy products they don't understand i.e. technical support scamming. Altering their phone numbers on wells fargo systems so nobody can reply to customer complaints. Scanning signatures of customers who don't want to buy their stuff, to pretend that the customer authorized it.
  • Encouraged customers to take loans and repay part of it so the banker would earn (monetary) credit.
  • charging overdrafts to closed bank accounts (as you stated)
  • All of the above ultimately hurting their credit scores reducing the maximum amount of money that the bank can loan to them.

And then there's also the stuff you quoted:

Quote
• overcharging service members for loans, and then

• illegally repossessing their cars

• failing to obey regulations for bankruptcy planning

• charging auto loan customers for duplicative insurance without their knowledge

• deliberately originating mortgage loans with false income information

All this bankers have to do or they get fired by their bosses, who then enjoy the lions share of the profits. The amount of sales they have to do is very difficult to achieve.

I think part of the problem understanding the amount of fraud they committed is that hardly any of us understand their financial-babble products. This is what I mean:



At first glance do you understand what most of these products are supposed to do? They're much more difficult to understand than, say, services a car mechanic offers.

As for Mr. Buffett's involvement within the bank, it's no wonder that he wants nothing to do with cryptocurrency even if it offers a lot in the financial system. He just wants to keep his baby fatter and fatter, without any regard to changes that could possibly happen in the society or the economy.

We all know he will only invest in brands that are low risk and maintain a steady profit.  He even said in an interview:

Quote
In terms of cryptocurrencies, generally, I can say with almost certainty that they will come to a bad ending.

This was in the context of speculations and he was talking about buying bitcoin futures. Granted futures are risky especially for bitcoin where most (wannabe) traders have little more than a moving average to hint them on future prices. Personally I don't think that bitcoin will crash like 2017 in the near future since buyers and sellers learned a thing or two from that event, and even if something similar does happen after many years (say bitcoin suddenly becomes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and then drops to 1/5th of that in a couple months) then a similar fraction of bitcoin was lost in 2017, so it's not like people will lose larger proportions of BTC than they lost then.



But I don't see how switching to cryptocurrencies will stop banks from selling unwanted products to customers. Look at the products list above. There are more services being offered than just credit cards. They'd just sell them to you for BTC instead of dollars.

Actually the concept of credit doesn't even exist in bitcoin, you can't own a debt of bitcoin, because that's immediately taken away from your bitcoin balance, and paid to whoever you owe it to. And if the money isn't there the transaction doesn't happen in the first place.

How would you lease a car for bitcoin, especially since MSRP (list price) can't be measured with a volatile asset such as bitcoin? This has been explained many times in the forum. Now, what about getting student loans for bitcoin? Same logic as above. Basically we can't sell anything in the real world with bitcoin until the price stabilizes in the long term. The BTC price isn't doubling every year anymore so we have a good start.

Personal bankruptcy filings involving bitcoin? (Lots of services still only take cash payments so you'll still have fiat debt) Retirement with bitcoin as your savings account instead? These haven't been designed yet, because of bitcoin's volatile nature.

For all of these to be possible it's necessary that BTC finishes going "to the moon" and hover around one price. And it can't keep rising forever. No company's stock is rising infinitely either, they have high bounds and low bounds. And then we can start working on bitcoin-enabled services that society can use. Directly conflicts with Warren Buffet's hypothesis of a bad ending for speculation.


.
.BLACKJACK ♠ FUN.
█████████
██████████████
████████████
█████████████████
████████████████▄▄
░█████████████▀░▀▀
██████████████████
░██████████████
████████████████
░██████████████
████████████
███████████████░██
██████████
CRYPTO CASINO &
SPORTS BETTING
▄▄███████▄▄
▄███████████████▄
███████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████
▀███████████████▀
█████████
.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!