wells_fargo   53

« earlier    

Wells Fargo admits it ripped off its customers, creates low-response-rate opt-in system for its victims to get paid back / Boing Boing
Wells Fargo has admitted wrongdoing in defrauding 110,000 mortgage borrowers, and to make good on it, they're sending out letters that look like junk-mail, containing a form that customers have to fill in to confirm that they want their stolen money back; if Wells doesn't get a reply, it will assume that those customers are donating their settlements back to the bank's shareholders.

Wells Fargo made its fraudulent deductions directly from its depositors' accounts, but the refunds will come by check, and only to the estimated 50% of customers who open bulk mailouts from their banks.

Wells Fargo also admits defrauding 800,000 car-loan borrowers and those suckers are also getting checks -- but only if they're owed less than $100. The people who were ripped off for more than a c-note will have to wait for the 'first phase" of payments to be processed to the small-dollar victims.
Wells_Fargo  mortgage  car  loan  fraud  bank 
february 2018 by Quercki
Judge questions Wells Fargo's $142-million class-action settlement over sham accounts - LA Times
In a filing Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria asked attorneys on both sides for more information about claims made last week by plaintiffs’ attorneys that as many as 3.5 million bogus checking, savings and credit card accounts may have been created by the bank.
....
Chhabria has other issues with the proposed settlement too, suggesting that some terms will have to be changed.

For instance, attorneys representing clients in a separate class-action lawsuit over improper bank overdraft practices argued in a filing this week that the terms of the unauthorized accounts settlement could force their clients to give up their claims against the bank.

Chhabria said he thinks the settlement agreement should be rewritten to make clear that the overdraft claims are separate and not covered by the unauthorized accounts settlement.

That figure is far more than the 2.1 million accounts the bank had estimated when it reached a $185-million settlement with regulators in September.

Chhabria, in a request for additional information, questioned whether the parties have the ability to accurately estimate the number of bank customers who may be eligible to participate in the settlement.
Wells_Fargo  fraud 
may 2017 by Quercki
The Department of Labor's Wells Fargo whistleblower site has disappeared / Boing Boing
Shortly after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, the Department of Labor's whistleblower site -- for Wells Fargo employees who wanted to report fraud in the ongoing scandal affecting millions of Americans -- disappeared.

Donald Trump owes Wells Fargo more than $500,000,000.

The findings have not been made public, but a person familiar with the review said that OSHA’s San Francisco office, which handled the bulk of the Wells Fargo complaints, faced a particularly high caseload-to-staff ratio.

The review also found that OSHA does not have an effective case management system to track what is going on in the field, the person added.

Warren’s concerns could become an issue on Feb. 7, when fast-food executive Andrew Puzder is expected to appear for his confirmation hearing to become the next labor secretary.

Wells Fargo whistleblower site vanishes [New York Post/Reuters]
Trump  Wells_Fargo  conflict_of_interest  whistleblower 
january 2017 by Quercki
Your tax dollars subsidized $125m executive bonus for Wells Fargo exec who led massive fraud / Boing Boing
Normally, companies that give "performance pay" to their execs can only write off the first $1M: but when Wells Fargo gave $125M to Carrie Tolstedt (shown above receiving American Banker's 2010 award for being "the most powerful woman in banking") as she "retired" after overseeing a 5-year period in which Wells Fargo's top brass were aware that their employees were opening 2 million fake accounts in their customers' names, Wells structured the payment as a "bonus," meaning that the company took a $78 million off its taxes, pocketing $27m in savings.

This taxpayer-funded subsidy went to an executive who watched as the company fired multiple whistleblowers who reported the fraud, which ripped off and lowered credit ratings for millions of Wells Fargo customers. Under Wells's own rules, the company is entitled to claw back some of Tolstedt's bonus, but they have signalled that they will not do this.
Wells_Fargo  bank  fraud  taxes 
september 2016 by Quercki
Consumer-Friendly Checking Account Practices Vary Wildly From Bank To Bank
This chart (click to read at full size) shows the overall best/good practices scores for the surveyed banks. As you can see, no one is even close to perfect.
Unless you’ve been hiding under a bed for the last six years, you probably know that the banking industry isn’t exactly beloved by many American consumers. As a reaction to public sentiment (and threats of regulation), a number of banks have begun phasing in some more consumer-friendly practices, but a new study shows these changes are not industry-wide and that several banks are still years behind.

In the latest Safe Checking report [PDF] from the folks at the Pew Charitable Trust, researchers looked at disclosure, overdraft, and dispute resolution policies for the nation’s largest banks to determine if these institutions are being upfront, fair, and honest (or as upfront, fair, and honest as banks can be expected to be) with their customers about the ins and outs of their checking accounts.

Surprisingly, some of the most publicly reviled names in banking, including Bank of America and Citi, were among the institutions with the highest number of best and good practices. But let’s not go patting anyone on the back yet.

DISCLOSURES
Click on the image to see how each of the surveyed banks fared in the Disclosures categories.
For decades, reading and understanding all of the terms and disclosures for a basic checking account has required a magnifying glass, a dictionary, and several hours of time to spare.

For example, in 2011, Pew developed a model summary disclosure box that shows banks how they can concisely list the key fees and terms of a checking account in an easy-to-understand format. While 18 banks have since adopted a form based on the Pew model, only eight of the 50 largest banks — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, TD Bank, Capital One, Fifth Third Bank, Webster Bank — have instituted this level of transparency on disclosures.

The rest of the banks are hit and miss in this category. For example, PNC is transparent about its overdraft transfer and penalty fees, but does not clearly disclose the opt-in policy for overdrafts. Meanwhile, Pew says that First Niagara Bank is not transparent in any of these categories.

Given the lack of standardization in the industry, Pew is asking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to require that banks provide information about checking account terms, conditions, and fees in a “uniform, concise, easy-to-read format that would be available online and in financial institutions’ branches.”

OVERDRAFTS
Click on the image to see how each of the surveyed banks fared in the Overdraft categories.
When it comes to actually overdrafting, Pew has several standards that fall under its best practices umbrella.

First, there are the banks that do not allow checking account customers to overdraft (or don’t charge a fee for overdrafting) at the ATM. Only six banks — Citibank, Charles Schwab, USAA, Ally, First Republic, and City National Bank — get a star here.

These same six banks plus Bank of America also have policies that keep basic checking account holders from overdrafting when they use debit cards to make purchases at the point-of-sale.

An even bigger concern — and one that is the subject of pending legislation — is the order in which banks process customers’ transactions. Many banks will process transactions in order from largest dollar amount to smallest.

For example: Say I have $125 in my checking account and the bank has three transactions — for $90, $15, and $50 — to process. If the bank processes these transactions in descending order, I will have overdrafted after the second transaction, incurring a $35 twice (for the $50 purchase and the $15 purchase) in addition to the $30 in actual overdrafts I will have incurred. So I’m now $100 in the hole to the bank.

If those transactions are processed in ascending order, I won’t overdraft until the third transaction. I’ll still have overdrafted $30, but will only incur one overdraft fee for $35, and thus only be $65 in debt to the bank.

According to Pew, the following banks do not engage in the practice of processing transactions from highest to lowest: Citibank, U.S. Bank, HSBC, BB&T, Charles Schwab, USAA, Bank of the West, Ally, First Republic, City National Bank, Frost Bank, OneWest Bank, Associated Bank, Zions First National, Signature Bank, Susquehanna Bank, and Bank of Hawaii.

Some banks — JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, First Niagara, Fifth Third, TCF National, Comerica, Union Bank — only engage in limited reordering of transactions, a practice the Pew folks admit is better than nothing, but still not as consumer-friendly as it could be.

Other not-bad practices at some banks include set a threshold before charging the full overdraft penalty. Thus, overdrafting your account by a dollar or two at the following banks may not result in a whopping $35 fee: JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, PNC, HSBC, BB&T, SunTrust, Capital One, Fifth Third, Charles Schwab, USAA, Bank of the West, Ally, City National Bank, Frost Bank, First Tennessee, OneWest, Zions First National, Webster Bank, TCF National, and Bank of Hawaii.

And the following few banks give customers a grace period to cover overdrafts, so that the customer might not get dinged for a fee if a transaction is processed the day before his paycheck is deposited: Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, PNC, HSBC, Capital One, Fifth Third, Charles Schwab, Bank of the West, Webster Bank, and Bank of Hawaii.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Click on the image to see how each of the surveyed banks fared in the Dispute Resolution categories.
How banks handle complaints and disputes is one of the reasons many consumers have a distaste for the industry, which has a long history of staring blankly at customers with valid issues to resolve.

And it’s only gotten more complicated in recent years with the rush by all big companies to slap mandatory binding arbitration clauses in their contracts, stripping consumers of their right to challenge a dispute in the courtroom.

So it’s not surprising that only a handful of banks — Bank of America, PNC, TD Bank, HSBC, Capital One, Fifth Third Bank, RBS Citizens, Comerica, Bank of the West, Ally, First Republic, Commerce Bank, Signature Bank, Susquehanna Bank, and Bank of Hawaii — don’t currently have forced-arbitration clauses in their terms for checking account customers.

There are two additional banks — Charles Schwab and Associated Bank — that have arbitration clauses but don’t use these clauses to ban class-action lawsuits. However, it’s worth noting that Schwab’s decision to not ban class-action suits may be temporary, as the bank appeals its right to do so.

Of the banks that do have forced-arbitration clauses, there are six that do allow customers to opt out by notifying the institution in writing — JPMorgan Chase, SunTrust, KeyBank, Sovereign, First Niagara, and TCF National.

Additionally, 26 of the surveyed banks (see above chart for names) do not include a clause in their account agreements requiring consumers to pay the bank’s loss, costs, and expenses no matter the outcome of a dispute. And 34 of the banks have an arbitration exception that allows for certain disputes to be handled in small claims court.
Uncategorized  all_over_the_place  banks  overdrafts  overdraft_fees  jpmorgan_chase  bank_of_america  citibank  td_bank  capital_one  fifth_third_bank  Webster_Bank  wells_fargo  cfpb  from google
may 2013 by gingernormal
Your Retirement Plan – Wells Fargo
This site works best with Internet Explorer. [111912]
RETIREMENT  WELLS_FARGO 
november 2012 by jack33
Уровень зарплат в банках
Недавно я показывал средний уровень зарплаты в Citi. В продолжение темы рассмотрим оставшиеся банки. Глядя на Голдман, у вас должен произойти разрыв шаблона )) Бытует мнение, что банкиры сейчас одни из самых несчастных людей на планете. 350-360 тыс баксов в год говорят об обратном. Это средняя зарплата за год с учетом всех типов сотрудников. Трейдинговое подразделение может и по миллиону легко брать. В лучшие времена средняя зарплата была под 700 штук баксов! Так что есть резерв для экономии )) Горевать можно будет, если зарплаты упадут до среднего уровня по экономике, который составляет чуть выше 40 тыс в год.Даже с учетом резкого падения бонусов в GS, уровень оклада все равно сильно выше, чем в Morgan Stanley. . Там же номинальные бонусы с 2007 года не изменились. В Morgan Stanley получают в среднем около 250-270 штук баксов. Здесь правда стоит учитывать то, что в инвест.подразделениях сотрудники получают не только наличность, но и акции банка или опционыВот, сколько получают в JPM, BAC и WFC. Здесь на несколько порядков меньше, чем в инвестбанках.То, что так сильно подскочили доходы сотрудников в Bank of America связано во многом с тем, что было объединение с «элитными» и дорогостоящими сотрудниками из Merrill Lynch в 2008, что отразилось на конечных доходах. У Wells Fargo было слияние с Wachovia, хотя сотрудники этого банка никогда не отличались высокими доходами. Тем не менее, по факту выходит, что номинальные зарплаты с 2007 выросли более, чем на 20%. В JPM сотрудников особо не балуют.Далее покажу интересное соотношение – эффективность сотрудников.Допустим, Голдман платит сотрудникам по 350 тыс, но этого бы никогда не было, если бы они не приносили кратную пользу.Следующий коэффициент показывает соотношение доходов банка на одного сотрудника к расходам на зарплату на одного сотрудника. Если коэффициент равен трем, то на каждый доллар бонусов/зарплаты, сотрудники приносят банку 3 доллара. Т.е. приносят банку в 3 раза больше, чем банк им платит за работу (Голдман заплатил по 350 тыс, а каждый сотрудник в среднем принес Голдману чуть более 1 млн) Наиболее вменяемая кадровая политика сейчас в Citi. Они отжимают от каждого сотрудника почти по 4 бакса. Наиболее неадекватная кадровая политика в Morgan Stanley. В этом банке доходы сильно упали, а расходы на зарплату выросли – вот и результат. Раньше на каждый уплаченный доллар на зарплату, банк получал по 5 баксов, а сейчас чуть более двух баксов. Примерно аналогичная ситуация в Bank of America.В принципе, в последние 3 года есть прямая зависимость. Если сотрудники хотят увеличить свои бонусы на 20%, то они должны увеличить доходы банка примерно на 20%. Если доходы банка сократятся на 10%, то на аналогичную величину сократятся зарплаты сотрудникам. Особо четко это прослеживается в Голдмане. Там бонусы прямо привязаны к эффективности работы.Так же стоит отметить, что несмотря на "тяжелые времена" у бангстеров, бонусы по факту не сократились и кризис на сотрудниках практически никак не отразился (не считая инвестподразделений, которые понесли наибольшие потери и некоторых трейдеров). разумеется это относится к тем, кто сохранил работу. Нагрузка, ответственность выросла, но кто говорил, что будет легко?
morgan_stanley  citigroup  boa  goldman_sachs  зарплаты  jpmorgan  wells_fargo  from google
august 2012 by ktoeto
Wells Fargo shutting down vSafe document-storage service - San Francisco Business Times
Wells Fargo is discontinuing vSafe due to low customer interest and adoption,” said Wells spokesman Ruben Pulido. “When the company introduced the vSafe service in 2008, we were addressing a trend that more electronic documents were becoming available and people wanted a way to organize and store electronic information. Now many more options exist.
customer_service  customer  technology  documents  personal_storage  banks  bank  vault  Wells_Fargo  personal_data 
march 2012 by Ctrl-Shift
Guest Post: Welcome To The Predatory State of California--Even If You Don't Live There
Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

Welcome To The Predatory State of California--Even If You Don't Live There

Theft has been "legalized" for governments and banks in America.

Every once in a while an event crystallizes the stark reality behind the lacy curtain of propaganda and artifice. Here is one such event.

Correspondent R.T. is a retired accountant who has resided in Arizona since 2001. Prior to 2001, he resided in California.

On March 14, he received a letter from the California Franchise Tax Board (the agency that collects income taxes) claiming that he owed $1,343 for the tax year 2006. This was the first notification he'd ever received of this claim. This was an interesting claim given that R.T.:

-- Did not reside in California in 2006

-- Did not file a State income tax return in California in 2006

-- Did not have any outstanding tax issues with California in 2006

-- Did no business in California in 2006

-- Owned no property in California in 2006

The number $1,343 is also interesting, as R.T.'s total Federal tax liability in 2006 was $650. Since the top income tax rate in California is about 9%, and that only kicks in at relatively high income levels above $100,000 annually, then it's difficult to see how anyone could owe double their Federal tax in California state tax.

But the truly interesting part of the story is that the state took $1,343 out of R.T.'s Wells Fargo bank account on March 2, prior to notifying him of the claim. Wells Fargo charged R.T. $100 for handling the removal of his $1,343.

As R.T. observed: "If I had filed a 2006 California tax return the statute of limitations would have run out, but since I did not file a 2006 tax return there is no statute of limitations. This is the classic catch 22."

I do not have copies of the correspondence so I cannot verify this sequence of events, but I have corresponded with R.T. for many years and have found him to be a credible witness to national events. While some might claim he invented this story of state theft out of whole cloth, there is no basis in our years of correspondence to support that claim.

What is entirely believable is that the state of California, desperate for revenue, is churning out dubious income tax claims stretching back years and collecting the money without due process. This is theft, pure and simple, and charging the account owner $100 for transacting the theft is also theft.

Welcome to the predatory State of California--even if you don't live there. If any mainstream media journalist wants to pursue this story, email me and I will put you in touch with R.T.

Somehow I doubt this is a unique story. R.T. said he immediately tried to call the California Franchise Tax Board and was on hold for some time before his call was dropped. As of yesterday his attempts to contact the agency via phone were unsuccessful. Why are we not surprised by any of this? Perhaps it's because government/bank thievery and Catch-22 incompetence is now the backdrop of our culture.
Federal_Tax  Guest_Post  Reality  Wells_Fargo  from google
march 2012 by takshimada
The Triumvirate of Wall Street/ The Fed/ and the White House is Beginning to Crumble
The Obama administration, as it pursues re-election in 2012, is doing all it can to claim that the US economy is in fact not quite as bad as previously thought. One of the tactics is to massage GDP and jobs data. True, this practice has been in place for over a decade, but the recent January jobs report from the BLS has set, shall we say, a new high-water mark for “adjustments.”

 

According to the BLS, we ADDED 243,00 jobs that month. That’s an odd claim given that the BLS admits, in the very same report, that without adjustments, the US actually LOST 2.69 MILLION jobs in January.

 

This is roughly a discrepancy of 3 MILLION jobs. And this 243,000 jobs number for January also comes along with revisions that saw roughly 50,000 jobs added in both October and November.

 

So according to the BLS, the US is on the upswing again, maybe not in a HUGE way, but overall things are improving: we’re adding jobs and unemployment is falling (from 8.5% to 8.3%).

 

These numbers make the Obama administration look good, at least relative to how it’s looked in the previous 12 months. However, they’re not reflecting as positively on two of Obama’s primary support groups: Wall Street and the US Federal Reserve.

 

As a brief refresher, let’s take a look at Obama’s top campaign contributors in 2008:

 

 

Altogether, the finance industry ponied up $24 million for Obama in 2008. And Wall Street has not only been cutting their growth forecasts but has actually been firing people based on the fact the economy is so rough.

 

N.Y. faces 10,000 Wall St. cuts through 2012

            (From October 2011)

 

Bank of America Corp. plans to cut 30,000 jobs over the next few years, while UBS AG intends to shave 3,500 jobs and Goldman Sachs Group expects to eliminate 1,000 jobs.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ny-faces-10000-wall-st-cuts-through-2012-2011-10-11

 

As for the forecasting component:

 

            Wall Street banks curb economic growth forecasts

            (From January 2012)

 

Wall Street banks lowered their outlook for U.S. economic growth due to concerns over the European debt crisis, oil prices, regulatory uncertainties and "continued disarray in Washington," according to a financial industry survey released on Tuesday.

 

The survey, which included bankers from Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo Securities and Citigroup, forecast that the U.S. economy will grow at a rate of 2.2 percent this year, down from a previous forecast of 3.1 percent.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wall-street-banks-curb-economic-180224475.html

 

The January jobs report not only makes these guys look like they can’t forecast anything…  but that they don’t even know how to run their own businesses. It also adds to the image that they’re heartless and will lay people off to maintain profits (if the economy is improving, why are they firing people?)

 

This is not exactly the best policy to maintain for constituents who have put up some big money for Obama’s campaigns in the past. One wonders if Obama’s campaign managers considered this.

 

The January jobs report also reflects poorly on the White House’s monetary buddy, the Obama’s administration’s “go to” guy for any kind of uptick in economic data: Ben Bernanke. After all, the Fed has also been cutting its growth forecasts and expecting higher unemployment.

 

US Fed cuts growth forecasts for 2012

(From November 2011) 

 

The Federal Reserve said it now expects US growth to be weaker and unemployment higher than it thought in its last set of forecasts, as the central bank left the door open to fresh measures to help the world's biggest economy.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8866407/US-Fed-cuts-growth-forecasts-for-2012.html

 

Fed foresees weak US growth through 2014

(From January 2012)

 

The Federal Reserve cut its US growth forecast Wednesday and said that with business investment and the housing sector depressed, it expected to keep interest rates near zero for another three years.

 

Despite an upturn late last year, the Fed said ongoing economic weaknesses and strains in global financial markets mandated continued easy-money policies…

 

"I don't think we're ready to declare that we have entered a strong phase at this point.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilJPZ-WxGiniRvvsHbHdUZXEOq9Q?docId=CNG.84bbac5e7752374be11d2c4ab994076e.1d1

 

So add the Fed to the group of people Obama’s jobs report leaves looking less than on top of things. On a side note, it also makes the likelihood of more QE or monetary easing from the Fed more remote (if the economy is improving, they have no reason to announce more policies… which is not positive for asset prices… or Wall Street).

 

This all returns to two primary themes I’ve been expounding on for months now: that the political environment has changed dramatically in the US and that we are going to see escalating tension between Wall Street, the Fed, and the White House.

 

The reason for this is simple: the public is growing more outraged by the minute. That anger will have to be directed somewhere. And when push comes to shove, it’s likely we’re going to see some actual real litigation relating to what happened in 2008-2009.

 

When this happens, the whole Fed/ Wall Street/ Politician triumvirate will begin to change dramatically. Some of these groups will try to portray themselves as “men of the people” (Obama is doing this, and so is the Fed with its recent town-hall meetings and Bernanke’s efforts to appear like a average joe who reads his kindle).

Others will prepare for battle (Goldman Sachs’ CEO has hired a defense attorney).

 

How this will all play out remains to be seen. But the debt markets are going to speed this process up dramatically as Europe implodes and the great debt implosion comes to the US. With 48% of US citizens living in a house in which at least one person receives Government aid, you can imagine the impact that the sort of large cuts in social welfare programs that a debt restructuring in the US would have on the political process in here.

 

My assessment, this January jobs report is the tip of the iceberg. Tensions will be rising in the US over the next 12 months. How exactly this will play out remains to be seen (there are too many factors), but changes are coming to the political arena as well as the monetary balance between Wall Street and the Fed (remember, the Fed actually sued Goldman Sachs last year).  These changes will be dramatic.

 

Swing by www.gainspainscapital.com for more market commentary, investment strategies, and several FREE reports devoted to help you navigate the coming economic and capital market changes safely.

 

Best Regards,

 

Graham Summers

 

 

 

 

 

 
Bank_of_America  Bank_of_America  Ben_Bernanke  Ben_Bernanke  BLS  Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics  Citigroup  Federal_Reserve  Finance_Industry  Goldman_Sachs  Google  Gross_Domestic_Product  HIGHER_UNEMPLOYMENT  Morgan_Stanley  Obama_Administration  Unemployment  United_Kingdom  Wells_Fargo  White_House  from google
february 2012 by takshimada
Spin The Wheel, Get A Different Story About Why Wells Fargo Flagged Your Card
Craig's Wells Fargo debit card was flagged for fraud because he was trying to buy a speaker at a high-traffic Apple Store. A merchant he made a recent purchase from has been hacked, and he will receive a new debit card soon. He's finally receiving an "upgraded" Wells Fargo card for his former Wachovia account, even though the account changed over more than a year ago.

Each of these stories has been told to Craig on separate interactions with Wells Fargo. The problem is, he doesn't know which one is true. And neither does the bank.

On Sunday January 29, I went to the Apple store in Grand Central Station to buy a speaker. When I went to pay, my Wells Fargo debit card was declined. I called the number on the back of the card and spoke to a representative. The representative said that the attempted transaction had raised a fraud flag, most likely due to the high rate of fraudulent purchases at the Apple store. After confirming my recent transactions, he said that I was all set. I hung up and went to pay, but my card was again declined. I called the number on the back of the card again and spoke with a different representative who then transferred me to the fraud department.

The fraud department said that a merchant had been hacked, and as a precautionary measure, the merchant had self-reported the possible compromise of my card. The representative said that a new card was sent to me on Friday, two days prior. This was news to me because I received no notification that my card had been compromised or that a new card had been issued. No unauthorized transactions showed up in my online banking. I was upset that I hadn't been kept in the loop, but the fraud department representative said that she would remove the fraud flag from my card so that I could complete the transaction and continue to use my card.

That was 9 days ago. My card has not arrived, but my old card still works. This morning, I received a robo-call from Wells Fargo requesting that I activate my card. Despite not having the card, I called the number, got through to a representative, and told her the back story.

This time I got a completely different story. The representative said that my card had been "upgraded" from a Wachovia card to a Wells Fargo card with new limits, and that it had been issued and sent out last Thursday (5 days ago) and not the Friday before (9 days ago) as I had been previously told. She denied that I had been issued a new card because my old card had been compromised.

None of this makes any sense because my current card is a Wells Fargo card and it doesn't expire until 2014. Was this an attempt by Wells Fargo to generate new fees by getting me to agree to use a different card? I asked the representative, but she insisted that it was due to the conversion of my account from Wachovia to Wells Fargo. (My account was issued in Alabama by a bank that was gobbled up by Wachovia; my account was converted to Wells Fargo more than a year ago.)

The representative then said that the computer was prompting her to verify my recent transactions. I told her there was no need because I was looking any my online banking and did not see any unauthorized transactions. She insisted, so we verified each transaction. Then she noticed that I had two transactions, one posted and one pending, both for $104 for the Metro card that I purchased yesterday. I told her that I had tried to purchase a Metro card yesterday, but the transaction did not go through when running my card as "credit." I ran the card again as an ATM transaction, input my PIN, and the transaction went through.

While I noticed the pending $104 transaction prior to the call, I was not inclined to dispute it until it actually posted. Having worked as a teller at the gobbled-up bank a decade ago, I know that these pending transactions usually go away after a few days if no transaction actually goes through. I told the representative that I would just dispute it if it posted, but she insisted on creating a claim and transferring me to the claims department. After waiting on hold for 10 minutes, the claims department told me that I should monitor my account and call back if it actually posts--the same plan I had before I called.

Was my card compromised? Is Wells Fargo trying to push a new product on me? Or was my only sin shopping at the Apple store? I'm afraid to ever call back, lest I get one more different story.

You could keep calling in, and whatever story you hear twice just might be the correct one. Or maybe someone in one of the fancier stagecoaches at Wells Fargo can put you in touch with someone who has enough power to know what's actually going on.
Wachovia  Wells_Fargo  banks  wellsfargo  from google
february 2012 by gingernormal

« earlier    

related tags

1979  2010s  2012  @latimes  aig  all_over_the_place  american_international_group  ancient_history  architecture  atm  bac  bank  bank_of_america  bank_of_new_york  bankerrornotinyourfavor  banking  banks  battle_for_wachovia  bear_stearns  ben_bernanke  berkshire_hathaway  blackrock  blog/center_well  bls  boa  bond  bureau_of_labor_statistics  business  california  capital_one  car  cash  cds  cfpb  cftc  china  chris_whalen  citibank  citigroup  class  cnn_big_tech  commentary  commercial_real_estate  conflict_of_interest  corporate  corruption  counterparties  countrywide  credit_card  credit_crisis  crime  customer  customer_service  dcist  deal_professor  debit_cards  debtwire  default  democrats  deposit  design  diebold  discrimination  documents  dusktodawn  economic_stimulus  economics  economy/finance  economy  email  enterprise2.0  envelope  fail  fannie_mae  federal_deposit_insurance_corporation  federal_reserve  federal_reserve_bank  federal_reserve_bank_of_new_york  federal_tax  fees  fifth_third_bank  finance  finance_industry  financial_derivatives  financial_regulation  financial_services  finra  fitch  florida  forclosure_scandal  fraud  freddie_mac  funny  germany  goldman_sachs  google  greece  gross_domestic_product  guest_post  henry_paulson  higher_unemployment  history  housing_bubble  housing_market  international_monetary_fund  investing  ipad  italy  john_maynard_keynes  john_mccain  jpmorgan  jpmorgan_chase  lehman  loan  lobbying  main_topics  mask  maynard_keynes  meltdown  mergers_&_acquisitions  merrill  merrill_lynch  mf_global  miogiro  mitt_romney  money  moral_hazard  morgan_stanley  mortgage  mortgage_backed_securities  mortgage_loans  naked_short_selling  nbc  ncr  new_century  new_mexico  new_york_times  news  non-accrual  notional_value  nyt_enterprise  obama_administration  obamacare  option_equilibrium_price  overdraft_fees  overdrafts  ows  pac2000  pat_collins  performance_reports  personal_data  personal_storage  phone_number  photography  photos  pimco  poverty  racism  ratings  rdm  real_estate  reality  regulation  remittances  reporting  repossessed  retirement  robbery  rollin  sap  scanning  sec  secured_credit_card  sharepoint  skywatch_friday  source_control  sourcegear  supreme_court  swipe_fees  syn_analysis  tableau  tarp  taxes  td_bank  technology  too_big_to_fail  transfers  trump  trustee  tv  uncategorized  unemployment  united_kingdom  usa  ux  vault  video  vintage  virginia  visualization  vpn  wachovia  warren_buffett  washington  weather  web2.0  webster_bank  wellsfargo  whistleblower  white_house  wincor_nixdorf  wincornixdorf  зарплаты 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: