Talk:Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo article

In the Info Box it is stated, that the company has 70 million members. This is not correct, I guess. I think, "customers" should be correct, not "members". I think the article should be amended in this regard. — Preceding

Contradiction between history and info box

The info box says it was founded in 1929 when the history in the article clearly says it was founded in 1852. How can the date of 1929 be justified as it's start date as it already existed prior to that? BenW (talk)

unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:9C0:5784:5C38:7A6A:4D7F:4405 (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC) 

Wells Fargo National Bank West

I'm not sure I've ever added anything to a talk page before, so please excuse any procedural error.

I came to the page to learn about the subject subsidiary, which came to my attention because Wells Fargo Home Mortgage "sold" my mortgage to Wells Fargo National Bank West ...which has the same URL as the main bank, and I wanted to understand what the difference was. There is no mention of the subsidiary on the page. Thus, I'd like to encourage anyone with expertise in WF to add a section on this, and perhaps any other subsidiaries to WF that aren't mentioned, and hopefully "why" they would want to shuffle things around like this. I did my refi with WFHM with the assurance that "Wells Fargo does not sell its mortgages," so the disclaimer in their letter to me that "It's a very common practice for mortgage lenders to sell mortgages...." pissed me right off!

The Bloomberg profile is very sketchy: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/412504Z:US

Thanks much.

RCassingham (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguity under Environmental Record

I suggest clarifying this statement, as it current communicates ambiguity, inaccuracy, and misinterpretation:

Wells Fargo has provided more than $10 billion in financing for environmentally beneficial business opportunities, including supporting commercial-scale solar photovoltaic projects and utility-scale wind projects nationwide.[87]

[87] footnote links to "Wells Fargo surpasses $10 billion in tax-equity financing of renewable energy projects". Wells Fargo. February 25, 2021.

Wells Fargo & Company does not clarify their tax-equity financing mechanism. Per "The term tax equity investment describes transactions that pair the tax credits or other tax benefits generated by a qualifying physical investment with the capital financing associated with that investment...... A tax equity investor's return depends on the price paid per credit and associated benefits the investor secures in exchange. In the simplest case, the only benefit the investor receives from the credits is the ability to reduce their tax liability. For example, consider a project that will cost $1.5 million to complete and that will generate $1 million in federal tax credits that its owner is seeking to sell to finance the upfront cost of the project. An outside investor has agreed to contribute 90 cents in equity financing in exchange for each $1.00 of tax credit. Thus, the investor pays (contributes in capital) $900,000 in exchange for $1 million in tax credits. The net return to the investor is $100,000 (in reduced taxes), or 11.1% ($100,000 divided by $900,000)"

In this scenario, and without company details on the structures of the agreements, Wells Fargo & Company could be gaining more than $10 billion in tax credits, which would save the company revenue versus the misconstrued statement that the company has provided financing without any benefit. The original statement is accurate, but connotes a non-reciprocal action taken by a benefactor. Laraku05 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

References

June 25, 2022 content deletions

Large content deletions performed today need a serious look. Perhaps some of the information needs reorganizing. (Noted here due to not having time to do so myself today.) Lindenfall (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Lindenfall. These deletion were performed by me and backed up by policy. Not every deletion of negative material from a firm's page by an IP editor is a "PR clean-up". I appreciate you adding a secondary source to the African-American discrimination issue. I do not understand why you reinstated the September 2021 fine to the lead. Can you please explain what makes this event so important that it has to be in the lead (see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE)? I also do not understand why a Wells Fargo employee settling with the SEC for alleged insider trading has to be covered in this article. The charge was settled for relatively little and the degree of coverage is not such that it makes up for the little intrinsic relevance of the event to Wells Fargo. Cheers, 129.67.116.120 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe the pop culture section could be expanded a lot 2620:160:EB08:0:0:0:0:C (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Air India urination incident

I removed the "Air India urination incident" as being non-notable for an encyclopedia article about an organization of this size and really has nothing with Wells Fargo itself. I also think it does not belong per WP:NOTNEWS. I would like to hear from other editors on this. Bahooka (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have removed the section again, after it being readded by ‎Castncoot. --Zac67 (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

And I vehemently disagree with the above two opinions, which almost seem to be a de facto cover-up of an embarrassing or unflattering situation, or alternatively seen another way, a flattering scenario to the company, in that they fired the perpetrator as well as publicly made a statement condemning such behavior as not reflecting the company’s values, a statement which many of their stockholders as well as present and/or potential clients would have been exposed to, given such widespread international news coverage of the incident. It also potentially speaks volumes about the company’s hiring protocols and practices and their thresholds for hiring or promoting such individuals to executive positions, who collectively have contributed to all of the issues noted in the lead section. I’m shocked that anyone would consider this to be a non-notable incident, when it obviously meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria, and is certainly no less notable than many of the other incidents described in the body of the article.

As I also noted in my edit summaries, this was a felony allegedly committed by one the company’s employees de facto representing the company itself by flying business class, and manifested by the company cooperating with Indian law enforcement, likely by giving info regarding his role and location in the company to help find him on the run, and he was ultimately arrested. This incident has received worldwide coverage including by the BBC and Deutsche Welle, and has been detailed on the Air India page as well, specifically mentioning Wells Fargo. Castncoot (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Check this out: Castncoot (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur. It should be mentioned.123.103.210.114 (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Castncoot:&@IP/123.103.210.114: That incident is notable news. It's not notable for an encyclopedic entry about Wells Fargo in my opinion. Currently, there no consensus for including this (requires some more time for interested editors to take part). Please indicate whether you are different individuals or this might be WP:SOCK. --Zac67 (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zac67:: That is so incredibly insulting and really almost ad hominem for you to even ask if two people who might have common sense but disagree with you (for good reason I might add) are socks. Of course I’m not that other (IP) individual. So now let me return the favor- are you and User:Bahooka socks? Or are you two separate individuals?

You also couldn’t be more wrong to suggest that this entry is not encyclopedic, and it actually defies common sense to state that. Of course a huge proportion of encyclopedic entries on Wikipedia comprise factual events that constituted news at one point or another, especially at the onset. It’s absolutely fallacious for you to even suggest that encyclopedic entries cannot be news as well, as they are not mutually exclusive. I’ve stated in incredible detail above (which perhaps you never bothered to read) why this incident is indeed a reflective canary in the coal mine of a much larger picture at Wells Fargo, and it is that context which renders this incident encyclopedic. This is an incredibly notable incident that wouldn’t surprise me if over 2 billion people in the world have heard of by now, and there are memes all over the internet, including “Wells-far-to-go”. It would be frankly absurd to turn a blind eye and pretend that this never happened. Instead of trying to implement (even inadvertently) a de facto cover-up of something so notably significant, it would be more productive for you to help achieve a compromise in terms of how much and what type of mention this deserves in the article. It simply cannot be obfuscated. Castncoot (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Castncoot, you may want to use the Request for Comment process or another approach that complies with the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy to resolve the issue. Bahooka (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Economy,_trade,_and_companies Castncoot (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Castncoot Sorry if you feel offended. I don't, even though Bahooka and me have literally thousands of edits with over 25 years of combined editing under our belts and are clearly no socks. If you'd cared to check. --Zac67 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Zac67 As I have similar experience to yours. If you’d have cared to check. Castncoot (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC

• “To what extent, in what manner, or if at all, should the Air India urination incident be mentioned on the Wells Fargo article page, as Wells Fargo is mentioned on the Air India page in the context of that incident”:
  • Keep as a full subsection under the ‘Lawsuits, fines and controversies’ section, as just the latest of a long string of entries, many of which this incident supersedes in WP:NOTABILITY. As stated above: this incident can be viewed from two different lenses, either an embarrassing or unflattering situation for Wells Fargo, or alternatively seen another way, a flattering scenario to the company, in that they fired the perpetrator as well as publicly made a statement condemning such behavior as not reflecting the company’s values, a statement which many of their stockholders as well as present and/or potential clients would have been exposed to, given such widespread international news coverage of the incident. It also potentially speaks volumes about the company’s hiring protocols and practices and their thresholds for hiring or promoting such individuals to executive positions, who collectively have contributed to all of the issues noted in the lead section. I’m shocked that anyone would consider this to be a non-notable incident, when it obviously meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria, and is certainly no less notable than many of the other incidents described in the body of the article.

As I also noted in my edit summaries, this was a felony allegedly committed by one the company’s employees de facto representing the company itself by flying business class, and manifested by the company cooperating with Indian law enforcement, likely by giving info regarding his role and location in the company to help find him on the run, and he was ultimately arrested. This incident has received worldwide coverage including by the BBC and Deutsche Welle, and has been detailed on the Air India page as well, specifically mentioning Wells Fargo.

Of course a huge proportion of encyclopedic entries on Wikipedia comprise factual events that constituted news at one point or another, especially at the onset. It’s absolutely fallacious for one to even suggest that encyclopedic entries cannot be news as well, as they are not mutually exclusive. I’ve stated in extensive detail above why this incident is indeed a reflective canary in the coal mine of a much larger picture at Wells Fargo, and it is that context which renders this incident encyclopedic. This is an incredibly notable incident that wouldn’t surprise me if over 2 billion people in the world have heard of by now, and there are memes all over the internet, including “Wells-far-to-go”. It would be be subterfuge and frankly absurd to turn a blind eye and pretend that this very telling incident never happened. Castncoot (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• • Remove. Inclusion is strongly discouraged by WP:NOTNEWS. Not a notable incident for the company as such. Who'll care about that incident in, say five years' time? The manager involved doesn't even have a pre-incident mention in the article. --Zac67 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Who will remember the Air India urination incident in 5 years? Or even 20 years? Everybody, that’s who. This incident has likely been immortalized in both Wells Fargo and Air India lore. But allow me to return the favor- on the other hand, who even now remembers the specific “Failure to comply with document security requirements” (one obscure subsection title, of many such) incident from 2016? Nobody. But that does not mean that particular detail is insignificant or non-notable. And that subsection doesn’t even mention a single name- an individual executive’s name is not a prerequisite indicator of WP: NOTABILITY by any means. The issue here is in fact the collective culture, primarily brought upon by executives and their respective teams, which encourages and spawns these types of incidents. Castncoot (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove. As I and another editor have already mentioned, this one bizarre event by a single Wells Fargo employee is not appropriate or notable for an encyclopedia article about a large corporation per WP:NOTNEWS. It will have no long-term legal or financial impact on the organization. Bahooka (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

$160 million fine for aggressive freezing and closing of bank accounts.

I couldn't find this in the Article, so I'm adding it to the Talk page.

In 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered Wells Fargo to pay $160 million in remediation to over one million people for the "substantial injury" it caused through its aggressive freezing and closing of bank accounts from 2011 to 2016.

Source: https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_wells-fargo-na-2022_consent-order_2022-12.pdf

I could add this information to the article myself, but I only have a few edits. Furthermore, Wells Fargo's meticulous attention to detail in monitoring and promptly removing any potentially embarrassing content far outweighs the level of care they offer their customers.

Update: I edited the page myself.

Accusations of missing deposits

According to various news outlets, some deposits were reported missing by Wells Fargo customers due to a glitch according to company representatives: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/05/business/wells-fargo-says-bank-deposit-glitch-is-resolved/index.html 172.79.200.224 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect MERS link

The Article section "Settlement and fines regarding mortgage servicing practices" contains the following sentence:

"On February 9, 2012, it was announced that the five largest mortgage servicers (Ally Financial, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo) agreed to a settlement with the US Federal Government and 49 states over improper foreclosure practices in the 2010 United States foreclosure crisis, including "robo-signing" (having someone fraudulently sign that they know the contents of a document they do not in fact know) and foreclosing without standing via MERS.[121]"

The link from MERS is to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome). Maybe the link should be to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_Electronic_Registration_Systems. I will not change the link; someone else could, if appropriate.

(The reference to https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_wells-fargo-na-2022_consent-order_2022-12.pdf is from the Talk section "$160 million fine for aggressive freezing and closing of bank accounts." Could someone please make that reference stay with its section? Maybe < ref > is the wrong tag.)Mecanoge (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I corrected the wikilink. Nice catch. As for the CFPB reference (#172 looks like), not sure if someone changed it already, but it looks to me to be in the right place? 23impartial (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect branches quantity

Article states "It has 8,050 branches and 13,000 automated teller machines", sourced from 2022 Wells Fargo & Co. Annual Report. The 2 quantities are not in the report. The report says "nearly 4,600 retail bank branches" but no ATM qty. 2600:1702:3790:1520:2574:E811:D774:4308 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"While Norwest was the nominal survivor..."

nom·i·nal /ˈnämən(ə)l/ adjective

(of a role or status) existing in name only.

Though the article text claims that Norwest was the nominal survivor, the actual description of the relationship makes it clear that Wells Fargo is the nominal survivor, Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

No response, so I've removed the misstatement of "Norwest was the nominal survivor". If the intention was to indicate that the apparent merger was actually acquisition of Wells Fargo by Norwest, that can be stated clearly, as it is in text lower in the article. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove unnecessary ,

ther is a komma where no , should be! 87.139.184.193 (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)