I'd been banking with them for over 20 years and am staying put.

OP. Of course the fraudulent accounts don't threaten the viability of the bank.
But if people pull out their money and close their accounts, then their viability will be threatened and FDIC will have to take over. FDIC doesn't just shell out deposit insurance money, no questions asked of the leadership.

Congress on the other hand loves to hold "hearings" where they read the CEO the Riot Act to give a gullible public the impression they're doing something, and the moment the cameras are off they're having a drink with the CEO and asking him for money.

This is one extremely rare opportunity for the public to have a voice by voting with dollars, instead of just casting a vote like bleating sheep every few years for whoever the latest industry shill happens to be.

I don't understand the thread title. The deposits are FDIC insured, why would I worry about my deposits there. Why would there be a run on the bank?

Sure, they may be bleeding deposits as people write checks to themselves to transfer the funds out. This must be impacting their reserve ratio, limiting their ability to write new loans.

I like Wells Fargo on the whole, I feel bad for the guys at my local branches who bust their ass trying to make me happy.

Anonymous wrote:I would have closed my account now if I hadn't already done it a couple of years ago.

They could end up in receivership, FDIC could take over, fire the top brass (that Congress won't do anything about other than have a bunch of indignant hearings with as usual to pretend they're doing something) and sell the assets to other banks.
Seems like the only downside would be even more bank concentration but since these b____ are even more too big to fail than they were before the financial collapse, what's the difference?
Or is it that they expect so many lawsuits that no other bank wants to touch it now? Might be a great case study in nationalizing a bank in that case.

Government ownership? You're out of your god damn mind. Have you heard to Freddie and Fannie? We've seen what happens when the government is in charge of financials.

I don't get the OP. What they did was very bad, but it doesn't threaten the viability of the bank. So the notion of receivership is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:Hillary admires Merkel, so this should be good.

Are you under the impression that Wells Fargo is German?

Hillary admires Merkel, so this should be good.

Wells Fargo was not "convinced" to take bailout money. They were threatened. Paulson and Geitner explained that auction and window life would be unpleasant if the bailout monry was refused.

No. This isn't even a balance sheet blip for Wells Fargo. Now, Deutsche and Commerzbank are in a world of hurt. Let's see what Merkel and the EU will do.

Seems like the only downside would be even more bank concentration but since these b____ are even more too big to fail than they were before the financial collapse, what's the difference?

I think what Wells Fargo has done is completely terrible and inexcusable, but I must correct you on your point above. Wells Fargo was absolutely fine after the financial collapse and actually had to be convinced by the Department of the Treasury to accept bailout money that they did not need, and IIRC paid it back immediately.

I would have closed my account now if I hadn't already done it a couple of years ago.

They could end up in receivership, FDIC could take over, fire the top brass (that Congress won't do anything about other than have a bunch of indignant hearings with as usual to pretend they're doing something) and sell the assets to other banks.
Seems like the only downside would be even more bank concentration but since these b____ are even more too big to fail than they were before the financial collapse, what's the difference?
Or is it that they expect so many lawsuits that no other bank wants to touch it now? Might be a great case study in nationalizing a bank in that case.