Savings accounts for US citizens at Wells Fargo

Just a hypothetical question here...

What would actually happen in a scenario where everyone—or almost everyone—who holds accounts, savings, or loans at foreign-owned banks decided to move everything over to Wells Fargo? (As far as I know, Wells Fargo is a domestic bank, though please feel free to correct me if I have that wrong.)

If foreign banks were to collapse, Wells Fargo wouldn't be rescued, nor would they see any improvement in their business operations.

Why wouldn't you want to scale up the business?

If we’re looking at this through the lens of basic logic—I mean, wouldn't there be significantly larger and more lucrative opportunities if you were actually 'moving' a higher volume of capital?

The real issue here—if we're being honest—is that banks in general just don't have nearly enough liquidity sitting in their vaults. 😁

Wells Fargo is essentially a government-run entity at this point. Once something falls under state control, you can practically guarantee disastrous management—it’s almost a rule. Executives just shovel money into their own pockets while the company sinks. Just look at Duke Energy, Amtrak, or even the federal highway system; it's the same story. Even at our Wells Fargo, where Protege (that little spy 😁) ended up getting sidelined for creating a "hole" in the books, all while private banks are out there actually turning a profit.

It’s just common sense, really—you want your capital sitting in a bank that actually turns a profit rather than one bleeding out through losses. 🧐

I simply cannot disagree.

Exactly. I’d much rather have some outsiders taking their cut than our own local corrupt politicians at the state level 😁

How exactly are they pulling off these thefts? 😕

To get the full picture, you really need to go back and read post number 5 in this thread; that’s basically the playbook for how our domestic banks try to pull a fast one on us.

When it comes to the big international players, the most recent offender is Chase. They’ve been completely ignoring standard regulations lately by taking standing orders for fixed amounts and—without asking a single soul for permission (which they absolutely should be doing under US consumer protection laws)—flipping them into flexible withdrawal orders. In plain English? They’re just pulling money out of accounts whenever they feel like it without actual authorization, which is nothing short of theft.

And look, I’m not even talking about them covering a matured credit card balance right now; I’m talking about the fundamental contractual relationship here. A standing order is a contract governed by specific legal standards, yet Chase just unilaterally rewrites the terms whenever it suits their bottom line, all while spinning some nonsense fairy tale about how it’s actually for the customer's own good.

Sue the bank. That's what the courts are there for in the first place.

Nicholas Turner said:Wells Fargo is essentially a government-run entity at this point. Once something falls under state control, you can practically guarantee disastrous management—it’s almost a rule. Executives just shovel money into their own pockets while the company sinks. Just look at Duke Energy, Amtrak, or even the federal highway system; it's the same story. Even at our Wells Fargo, where Protege (that little spy 😁) ended up getting sidelined for creating a "hole" in the books, all while private banks are out there actually turning a profit.

I find myself in agreement with the bulk of what has been said here, though I would add that even the most brilliant leadership can be neutralized when dealing with government-linked corporations, as they are often forced to follow nonsensical mandates handed down from the top. In this specific instance, it strikes me that Protege wasn't necessarily a poor banker, but rather someone who simply had a very poor boss.

The gentleman was perfectly free to hand in his resignation if he found himself at odds with how things were being run—he could have walked away. Since he chose not to, I’m going to assume he was actually fine with the status quo.

I certainly see your point, and I find myself in complete agreement. However, that approach effectively leaves them without any incentive to earn their management salary. It essentially suggests that one should simply collect a paycheck regardless of merit or performance. Why bother striving for excellence or implementing intelligent solutions when someone "from above" is inevitably going to derail everything anyway? It seems like a pervasive issue within many large American government agencies and state-run corporations.
Međutim Protega se trudio dokapitalizirati HPB i napraviti je dobrom i profitabilnom bankom, bar po potezima koje znam da je povlačio ili pokušao napraviti, međutim ne možeš uspjeti ako vlasnik čini sve da to ne uspije. Da je otišao, došao bi neki drugi poslušnik i bilo bi isto za HPB. To samo potvrđuje ono što sam rekao.

Look, let’s be real—when you step into a role, you're taking on the full weight of the responsibility that comes with it. Period. If you genuinely feel like someone is actively standing in your way or sabotaging your ability to do the job? Then you quit. It really is that simple...

Of course, things seem much simpler from your perspective, but for me, it’s far easier to just keep collecting my manager's salary.

It’s your call, but don't come crying to me later saying you weren't given a choice. Once you've committed—once you've gone all in—there's no room for regrets. 😁
As far as his performance as a manager goes? He failed to deliver anything of substance. Period.

I honestly don't even want to know what kind of mess that bank is hiding on its balance sheet. 🙂

Alright, you clearly have all the answers. Would you actually hire him to run your Wells Fargo branch?

Not a chance. I have zero interest in some manager who claims to be against corruption but doesn't actually have the backbone to do anything about it.