Savings accounts for US citizens at Wells Fargo

I have a friend who holds a pretty high-level position over at Wells Fargo. One time, after I got worked up about the Fed hiking interest rates on mortgages, I vented my frustrations to her. Her reaction was basically like 😲😲😲 shut up, you're insane! 😬

I think they’d find it incredibly distasteful, but honestly, the chances of Americans actually pulling something like that off are slim to none.

Fair enough. I suspect we'll get a clear picture quite soon, once those who actually hold accounts at Bank of America weigh in with their thoughts.

Andrew Booth29 said:Sue the bank. That's what the courts are there for in the first place.

You really think that works here in America? 🤣

So, at that point, the issue isn't actually with the bank...
It lies squarely with the court system.

Carl Morales9 said: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.

I'm with you on that—it’s a catch-22! You either follow the rules and ignore those shady directives from above, becoming a hero and a martyr just to get kicked out, or you simply "come over to the dark side."

Carl Morales9 said:Of course, things seem much simpler from your perspective, but for me, it’s far easier to just keep collecting my manager's salary.

That's my take too—opportunity makes a thief.

Andrew Booth29 said:So, at that point, the issue isn't actually with the bank...
It lies squarely with the court system.

It is indeed the courts—that's exactly what I tell everyone! If the legal system functioned with actual authority, remained unbribable, and actually moved things along quickly, nobody would even think about pulling these stunts because they'd know they'd end up in serious trouble.

@Mark Sullivan62
Regarding one-sided actions and failing to honor the Contract Corp.

The same thing happened to me at RBA about five or six years ago—they went ahead and opened a credit card in my name without asking! My only business there was a signed agreement for a fixed-term savings account. When the term ended, I went in to renew it (since their rates were some of the best around), sat down, everything seemed fine while the clerk processed the paperwork, and then suddenly she says: "Well, Mr. Nicholas Turner, we set up a credit card for you—we sent a notice, which you obviously didn't receive, but it's been sitting here in our system for two years." First, I'm just standing there looking confused, and then I ask her to bring it out so I can see if it's some kind of mistake. She brings it out, and sure enough, it's in my name. I asked for some scissors, cut it right in front of her, and told her to stop all this paperwork nonsense, cancel the account, pay out my savings, and give me a confirmation that as of today, I don't owe them a single cent. There was quite a scene since I hadn't called ahead, but it never crossed my mind to keep money in a bank that doesn't just ignore its contracts, but actively invents them—opening cards in my name without my knowledge, consent, or signature.👎

The core of my question was actually a bit different from how it came across.

Setting aside the specifics of the protege's career for a moment—Wells Fargo was really just being used as an example of what a 'domestic bank' looks like.

So, given all the complaining about how our banking system is essentially owned by foreign interests, I was wondering—what would we actually gain if we shifted everything over to a single institution under domestic ownership (let's say some imaginary XYZ Bank)? Would there be any tangible benefit—for the government, for individuals, for society at large, or for the economy as a whole—and if so, what exactly would that look like?

Andrew Booth29 said:So, at that point, the issue isn't actually with the bank...
It lies squarely with the court system.

But who exactly is the one breaking the Law?

Is it the bank or the courts?

As far as I can tell, there isn't even a specific statute that dictates how effective or efficient the courts are supposed to be.

Here’s what I’m actually wondering about:
You seem absolutely livid at the bank for messing with the amount on your transfer—which, fine, that's annoying—but you're completely glossing over the fact that the judicial system in this country is fundamentally broken. Which one should actually be driving your anger? Because, my friend, maybe you haven't quite grasped the gravity here: the courts are the final line of defense for the law and our basic rights. Once that fails, nothing else matters.

So, let me get this straight—you actually expect me to file a lawsuit against the bank over a measly $5 that I’d have to pay anyway?

The bank holds my promissory note, and they could have easily just presented it for collection to cover that $5, but of course, it’s much easier for them to just breach their own Contract Corp agreement, since there are zero consequences for them, all while hiding behind the excuse that "the majority of customers" requested such an amendment.

It makes absolutely no sense to me how they even arrived at the data regarding this supposed majority—was there some sort of national referendum, some massive survey, or what? Besides, I didn't sign a contract with "the majority," I signed a contract with the bank.

And honestly, I think the San Diego Zoo is clear enough about when, under what specific conditions, and through what exact procedures a contract can be modified.

Nobody ever bothered to ask me, so I’m dying to know which federal law dictates that I’m bound by the whims of some dubious majority determined through such shady means?

The bottom line is that the bank is knowingly violating the law because they know there's no remedy for it.

In my view, the whole essence of banking should be trust and security, and to echo what Nicholas Turner wrote, I simply don't trust a bank that refuses to respect the very contracts it proposed and signed itself, changing them whenever they feel like messing around just because they know they won't face any repercussions.

Even if we had a perfectly efficient judicial system, would you really sue over $5? I wouldn't.

But what I *will* do is gradually liquidate both my assets and my liabilities at Wells Fargo, and I'll file formal complaints with the IRS and the Federal Reserve, even though I know deep down it probably won't change a thing.

And if you haven't caught my drift yet, I am talking about principles here; the $5 isn't the point.

Today it's $5, but tomorrow, who knows how much will be gone?

We are talking about pure theft here, regardless of the amount or what that amount is tied to.

We're talking about a debt that is due. Just imagine if every creditor could collect money today just like the bank does—just reaching into your account and pulling funds out whenever they feel like it.

Imagine how much trouble that would cause for our completely illiquid economy...

Mark Nguyen6 said: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.)

I've always wondered why that doesn't just happen. But honestly, Wells Fargo's future is a total wildcard:
- the government could sell it off like anything else,
- or it could go bust (especially with the government holding the reins).

So, the scenario you're talking about might actually work if a competent administration stepped up and stopped selling everything out to foreign interests. But hey, that’s also your answer as to why those kinds of leaders never get elected!

Kenneth Rodriguez2 said:I've always wondered why that doesn't just happen. But honestly, Wells Fargo's future is a total wildcard:
- the government could sell it off like anything else,
- or it could go bust (especially with the government holding the reins).

So, the scenario you're talking about might actually work if a competent administration stepped up and stopped selling everything out to foreign interests. But hey, that’s also your answer as to why those kinds of leaders never get elected!

Anyway, let’s move past Wells Fargo. I only brought them up as a representative example of a domestic bank—I didn't mean to drag us into a deep dive regarding their specific current management issues.
Rather, looking at it more broadly, assuming we have a stable domestic bank in place—what would be the actual advantage of such a move? I mean, what's the upside for the bank itself, and potentially for the country—both directly and indirectly?

Mark Nguyen6 said:The core of my question was actually a bit different from how it came across.

Setting aside the specifics of the protege's career for a moment—Wells Fargo was really just being used as an example of what a 'domestic bank' looks like.

So, given all the complaining about how our banking system is essentially owned by foreign interests, I was wondering—what would we actually gain if we shifted everything over to a single institution under domestic ownership (let's say some imaginary XYZ Bank)? Would there be any tangible benefit—for the government, for individuals, for society at large, or for the economy as a whole—and if so, what exactly would that look like?

The real question isn't about what we might gain, but rather about what we stand to lose. It’s much like looking back at the era of socialism; we had banks that were entirely state-owned, which ultimately failed because there was always someone willing to ignore basic economic principles just to hit some short-term political target. When you centralize every decision—from setting interest rates to deciding who qualifies for a loan—you invite instability.
If we were to revert to that old model by essentially funneling all our capital back into a single government-run institution, we would effectively kill off the competitive spirit that the banking sector has worked so hard to build over recent years. While the current landscape isn't perfect or flawless, competition still exists. I don't necessarily oppose having at least one state-backed bank, provided it is given clear, achievable goals that aren't subject to constant political whims.

Mark Nguyen6 said:Anyway, let’s move past Wells Fargo. I only brought them up as a representative example of a domestic bank—I didn't mean to drag us into a deep dive regarding their specific current management issues.
Rather, looking at it more broadly, assuming we have a stable domestic bank in place—what would be the actual advantage of such a move? I mean, what's the upside for the bank itself, and potentially for the country—both directly and indirectly?

The advantage, assuming the government isn't completely unstable or drowning in debt, might be things like providing solid credit to fuel economic growth—where the state could step in with some subsidies—or maybe offering different lending terms, like letting a company use private property as collateral... plus, the government could route its own accounts through there, avoiding all those pesky service fees and whatnot.

But honestly, given how the current administration is running things, I don't think I'd ever fully trust a "nationalized" bank...
And then you have JPMorgan Chase, though from what I gather, they mostly just act as intermediaries...

I mean, even if a bank is technically owned by foreign investors, if the leadership feels local, I often find myself thinking of it as one of ours...😉

Mark Nguyen6 said:Anyway, let’s move past Wells Fargo. I only brought them up as a representative example of a domestic bank—I didn't mean to drag us into a deep dive regarding their specific current management issues.
Rather, looking at it more broadly, assuming we have a stable domestic bank in place—what would be the actual advantage of such a move? I mean, what's the upside for the bank itself, and potentially for the country—both directly and indirectly?

The only real perk of having a local bank is that there's no way to move those profits out of America.
Any other government interference in the banking market is just bad business.

Nicole Collins13 said:The only real perk of having a local bank is that there's no way to move those profits out of America.
Any other government interference in the banking market is just bad business.

Because there wouldn't be any profit to speak of in the first place.
At this point, foreign institutions are performing quite effectively; they generate significant returns and certainly have the means to repatriate those funds abroad. It seems everyone tends to overlook the historical precedent set by Bank of America. After all, what did Bank of America actually siphon away from America during that period?

Mark Nguyen6 said:The core of my question was actually a bit different from how it came across.

Setting aside the specifics of the protege's career for a moment—Wells Fargo was really just being used as an example of what a 'domestic bank' looks like.

So, given all the complaining about how our banking system is essentially owned by foreign interests, I was wondering—what would we actually gain if we shifted everything over to a single institution under domestic ownership (let's say some imaginary XYZ Bank)? Would there be any tangible benefit—for the government, for individuals, for society at large, or for the economy as a whole—and if so, what exactly would that look like?

In a perfect world, the government would reap benefits and it would serve everyone better; for instance, they could mandate that Wells Fargo prioritize lending to businesses rather than just consumer debt or the state itself 😬. In the real world? I wouldn't touch a state-run bank with a ten-foot pole unless I was already deep in the red.

EDIT: Just realized I basically said the same thing as Killerdog.