Hacker News Reader

Comment by twblalock | Hacker News Reader

On the contrary, I wish the media would not present Wells Fargo as a uniquely bad actor. The only difference between them and the other big banks is that Wells Fargo got caught.

Reading an article like this, you might think you would be better off with BofA or Citibank or Chase, but that’s not the case. They are all the same — constrained by a banking culture and a regulatory regime that forces them to all be the same.

View on HN

I didn't take it that way, I just thought when they were describing WF they didn't mince words, which I appreciate. I didn't see any implication that others are better. In some way, saying they all do it would dilute the criticism more.

Everyone in the media knows that when you single out a particular company, or person, or politician for criticism it makes their competitors look better. Nobody who works at a major news organization is unaware of this.

This is an absurd take. What would you have them do aside from call out a publicly bad actor explicitly? Seems like you are bending over backwards for a bad take.

In the media you don't get to "just" call someone or a company out. It inevitably makes the readers imagine comparisons in their mind. It is a status play: by lowering the status of one player in an industry, you implicitly raise the the status of the others.

Everyone who works in the media industry knows that will happen -- and I know some people who work in that industry. Even teenagers do this on social media all the time, based on an instinctive understanding of social status.

Take it or leave it, or even better, provide a rebuttal with real evidence rather than a childish emotional response!

> by lowering the status of one player in an industry, you implicitly raise the the status of the others.

The relative status ye. But the absolute status of banks as a group decline.

E.g. used cars salesmen. A honest one's reputation are ruined from the moment they open the store due to bad actors.

You didn’t provide any real evidence in your comments, you just made some potentially specious claims, multiple times.

I have to disagree. The failure of ones peers does not make a person wise.

> a regulatory regime

Yet somehow smaller banks and credit unions don't have this problem. I've not had any issues like this with my Schwab checking account.

I didn’t have any issues like that with my Wells Fargo checking account either. But apparently they happened, so one person’s experience is not exactly useful here.

What an absurd retort. No one can prove a negative (prove your bank hasn't scammed other people), but you can prove that Wells Fargo was scamming people. You can assert anything you like, but it is not the onus of others to prove you wrong.

that was not absurd. It’s pointing out that an anecdote doesn’t really say much.

> No one can prove a negative

I can prove it didn’t rain yesterday where I live.

I’ve had experience with three credit unions and all nickel-and-dined me with ridiculous fees. I’ve been with Bank of America for twenty years and never had any problems. I figured that if there’s a risk of BS fees at the credit union, I might as well use the bank and watch my back. At least the bank has more locations.

Having banked with Wells Fargo and been cheated by them in various ways, I'd say they are in fact a uniquely bad actor - far worse than any other comparable large bank - and that's taking into account that such a baseline is quite a bad one.

In what way does the regulatory regime force them to defraud customers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com