Glad those banks are under control now!!!

[newtothegame]

LOL......Bad business...shame shame....

Wells Fargo’s Stumpf: Customers Will Pay Dearly for Financial Reform


Thursday, 29 Jul 2010 04:31 PM
By: Dan Weil

Critics of the new financial reform law have said that additional costs it imposes on banks will simply be passed on to customers.

A growing number of bank executives are now confirming that view, with Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf the latest.

Customers will have to share in the new costs the bill created for a wide range of services, he told Bloomberg in an interview.

“I can’t guarantee that we won’t pass on some of those costs,” Stumpf said.

“We’ll try to tighten our belt and absorb some of the costs of compliance, but some costs may change, and customers might pay for their financial services in new ways.”

Indeed, Wells Fargo already has acted by slapping fees on checking accounts and increasing interest rates for loans and credit cards, notes Dick Bove, bank analyst for Rochdale Securities.

“This bank does not intend to sit there and get nailed,” he told Bloomberg. “Wells Fargo has moved well ahead of the crowd, and everyone will follow.”

At JPMorgan Chase, CEO Jamie Dimon says the new law may force higher fees and credit card rates.

Another area of the law that has drawn strong criticism is a provision allowing the SEC to avoid releasing information about its regulatory work to the public.

“It allows the SEC to block the public’s access to virtually all SEC records,” Gary Aguirre, a former SEC staff attorney told FoxBusiness.com.

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Wells-Fargo-Stumpf-Customers-Pay--Financial--Reform/2010/07/29/id/366050

WOW...so now as a consumer...in essence the government has made me just pay more....:bang:

And I also thought this was about being more "transparent"??? Now the SEC can avoid releasing information about its regulatory work??? :bang:

Who said Obama was against wall street???? lol

Bolding by me!

[Robert Goren]

Why are you banking with Wells Fargo? I had an account with them years ago when they took over my bank. It took me about 6 months of dealing with them before I moved to another bank. It was well worth the trouble.

[rastajenk]

That was one of your more scintillating contributions. :sleeping:

[Robert Goren]

Both JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo took huge amounts of government bailout money and huge amounts of money from AIG which they would not have gotten if the government hadn't bailed them out. It is safe to say neither of the CEOs quoted in the article would even have a company to work for if it weren't for the US government. They were stating publicly that they did not need the money, but took it and still haven't paid it back. They have zero creditability.

[boxcar]

Both JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo took huge amounts of government bailout money and huge amounts of money from AIG which they would not have gotten if the government hadn't bailed them out. It is safe to say neither of the CEOs quoted in the article would even have a company to work for if it weren't for the US government. They were stating publicly that they did not need the money, but took it and still haven't paid it back. They have zero creditability.

Since they were forced to take it by the government, I can't say I blame them for dragging their feet on repayment.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

That was one of your more scintillating contributions. :sleeping:

The thrust to NTG's post flew right over his head. Talk about the willfully ignorant... :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[GaryG]

Who among us actually expected the banks to absorb the additional costs? Maybe the beneficiaries of this "reform" are those with no bank account.

[Robert Goren]

The thrust Of NTG post was that 2 "too big to fail" banks publicly stated that they are going try to try find another way to rip off their customers. Only the the admitting it is new, not the actual doing it. So that in itself is progress.

[GameTheory]

Both JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo took huge amounts of government bailout money and huge amounts of money from AIG which they would not have gotten if the government hadn't bailed them out. It is safe to say neither of the CEOs quoted in the article would even have a company to work for if it weren't for the US government. They were stating publicly that they did not need the money, but took it and still haven't paid it back. They have zero creditability. The heads of the nine (I think it was nine) big banks were all forced into a room and told they were gonna sign this piece of paper by the end of the day, period. Wells Fargo in particular said no way and initially refused. Then it was made clear to them that they had no choice.

First Paulson threatened them with bad publicity, i.e. sign or I'm gonna get on TV and say things that will cause your stock to drop like a rock; and then it was noted that if they still didn't go voluntarily that he was gonna pull some sort of regulatory authority crap and force it upon them anyway.

If that isn't coercion, I don't know what is. This was a government hostile takeover of the banks, period. Maybe if all them refused and stuck together it would have gone differently, but some of them wanted the money.

As far as new regulations passing on new costs to the customer, what else is new? EVERY regulation for anything passes on new costs to the customer. On the other hand, they should probably welcome this.

What did earlier such reforms do? The previous Wall Street reforms pretty much stopped all IPO activity we were having 10 years ago and virtually guaranteed monopoly-like market share for the players that were already big & established (Google, Microsoft, Adobe, etc.) because now the barriers to entry are too high because of all the new regulatory requirements of "going public". So no one is going public anymore, but are being bought out instead by the established big companies, which just get larger.

And the reforms to give the FDA control over the tobacco industry which did the same thing. That measure was backed heavily by Philip Morris, the largest tobacco company -- what does that tell you? It tells you they are getting ready to enjoy their government locked-in position in the top spot.

And so now we have the banks bill -- which will guarantee you'll be stuck with Wells Fargo and a handful of others because smaller banks will be locked out of growth.

I thought liberals didn't like big monolithic companies, but their every move crowds out the little guy and makes the big guys bigger.

Thanks government!

[Mike at A+]

Glad I do my banking at a small local bank that proudly states on a big sign "WE TOOK NO FEDERAL MONEY!" Every service I get is free including online banking, printed checks and overdraft protection.

[Robert Goren]

They all need the money, the only difference was that some admitted it publicly. Wells Fargo was once a well respected bank. It was taken over by Norwest in 1998, but they kept the name. They changed the way the old Wells Fargo did business.

[GameTheory]

They all need the money, the only difference was that some admitted it publicly. Wells Fargo was once a well respected bank. It was taken over by Norwest in 1998, but they kept the name. They changed the way the old Wells Fargo did business.It doesn't matter if they did or they didn't. They said they didn't, and they didn't want it, and were forced into it anyway. Some of might have failed, but probably not all.

In any case, we're now stuck with propped-up failed companies instead of the ones that were run better. Does that make sense?

[Robert Goren]

Glad I do my banking at a small local bank that proudly states on a big sign "WE TOOK NO FEDERAL MONEY!" Every service I get is free including online banking, printed checks and overdraft protection. I do too except they don't have the sign. I think anybody who deals with these big banks is a fool. There is no political will to bail them out again, when their high stakes gambling gets them in trouble again. It is only a matter of time.

[Black Ruby]

So Wells Fargo has raised fees before the regs take effect? There's a surprise.

[Robert Goren]

It doesn't matter if they did or they didn't. They said they didn't, and they didn't want it, and were forced into it anyway. Some of might have failed, but probably not all.

In any case, we're now stuck with propped-up failed companies instead of the ones that were run better. Does that make sense? You right, we are right stuck with them. If the government had let them fail, a lot of small businesses would gone with them because they could not have gotten the loans they needed to continue operate when their bank failed. Almost all of the banks were stretched to the limit and were no position to take on new loans from the companies who banks failed. I saw this happen on small scale in a farm community in 1981. Several business that had positive balance sheets went under because no bank would/could lend money against their hard assets.

[boxcar]

They all need the money, the only difference was that some admitted it publicly. Wells Fargo was once a well respected bank. It was taken over by Norwest in 1998, but they kept the name. They changed the way the old Wells Fargo did business.

Says who? There were banks who did not want the money. This is a fact. Just as it is also factual that other banks wanted the money.

Boxcar