Mortgage Professional America forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

$2.6bn lawsuit alleges Wells Fargo fired employees who wouldn’t break law

Notify me of new replies via email
Mortgage Professional America | 26 Sep 2016, 12:44 PM Agree 0
A class action lawsuit against the banking giant alleges it fired employees who refused to break the law to meet unrealistic sales quotas
  • Joe Wehage | | 26 Sep 2016, 01:04 PM Agree 0
    Why was the Federal Government paid the recent $185 million fine on Wells Fargo? Why didn't it go to the clients whom fraud was perpetrated on?
  • TL | | 26 Sep 2016, 01:37 PM Agree 0
    Great Question- I've often wondered that myself when the government benefits from all of the fines they impose. It seems to me that it is just all the more incentive for the hungry wolves in government to use their authority, not that Wells Fargo did right by their employees. But they should certainly be the ones benefitting, not the government itself taking advantage of the situation. That also seems fraudulent in itself
  • | | 26 Sep 2016, 01:54 PM Agree 0
    ABsolutley! It is common in municipalities that no profit can be made from fines and fees. The payments must serve to pay the actual costs only. Of course, the method of figuring the costs are wrought with more bureaucracy which further amps up the cost. for example, the cost of providing a service may be the cost of ten minutes of an employee's time, plus a bit for the cost of the facility and the administration. Well, the assigned cost can be based on the marginal cost or it can be based on the entire prorata cost. The incidental services should cost the citizen only the incidental, additional cost. These costs are estimated and then a rate is set. However, if a department has a lot of fluff or unproductive employees then that cost to the citizen for the incidental service is going to be unfairly high. Imagine if you were required to have the city crew mow your lawn. Think of the crews you have witnessed along the road where one is clearly a supervisor, a few are floundering and a few are productive. What would you have to pay for this type of crew to mow your lawn? Probably triple or more than your lawn service provider. Point being, that fine should be paid mostly to the victims and a minor part to the administration handling it.

  • gh | | 26 Sep 2016, 01:55 PM Agree 0
    That is because the CFPB is an instrument concocted by high officials yes even OBAMA to get money that is not TRACEABLE and accountable. Much like the ransom paid in cash by OBAMA. Thank goodness we have the chance to get rid of him. Let's not all make a mistake and pout him in for a third term through Hillary. Middle class and hard working people that assets to sustain are still around no thanks to current administration. AMAZING HOW BANKS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OPERATE BY NOT SHOWING PUBLIC WHAT THEY TRULY MADE YET LOWERED THE BROKERS TO 2.75% AND DROVE THEM TO BECOME BANKERS. Fines should never go back to the pig's coffers. Again why did the appraisal costs double??. The banks can own up to 49.9% of the AMC, and oh yes the Sponsor of the bill Dodd Frank -- BARNEY FRANK OWNS AN AMC!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM SURE HE HAS MADE MILLIONS!! America get's it!!
  • Disappointed citizen | | 28 Sep 2016, 10:10 AM Agree 0
    Dodd Frank is a costly goals perpetrated on the backs of lenders and consumers under the guise of protecting the public.
    As to AMC's, they are nothing more than a hoax. They began thanks to Governor of NY Cuomo when he was the state's AG.

    We now have appraiser's being assigned out side of their market areas. Appraisers are being paid less because mystical AMC's assign them and take a fee.

    Barney Frank is again living off the government due to benefitting from a bill he concocted.
  • Andrew Lattanzi | | 04 Oct 2016, 03:07 PM Agree 0
    Please clarify my understanding of the following:

    The CEO of Wells Fargo claims he will forfeit $41 million of his "unvested" portfolio.

    My understanding is if he is not vested in that amount, he doesn't own it, therefore he is giving up nothing. Am I correct in this understanding?
Post a reply