Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › Wells Fargo Exec Parties in Bank-Owned Foreclosure

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
1 2 3 4
  • Author
    Posts
  • September 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM #16325
    Sandiagon
    Participant

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/32800279/site/14081545?__source=yahoo%7Cheadline%7Cquote%7Ctext%7C&par=yahoo

    —–Is this possible?—————
    The bank stated that it had some kind of agreement with the prior owner to keep it off the market for “a period of time.”
    ————————————————

    September 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM #455550
    dbapig
    Participant

    http://piggington.com/greed_stupidity_a_wells_fargo_senior_vice_president

    What’s described in the article is wrong.

    September 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM #455744
    dbapig
    Participant

    http://piggington.com/greed_stupidity_a_wells_fargo_senior_vice_president

    What’s described in the article is wrong.

    September 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM #456084
    dbapig
    Participant

    http://piggington.com/greed_stupidity_a_wells_fargo_senior_vice_president

    What’s described in the article is wrong.

    September 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM #456155
    dbapig
    Participant

    http://piggington.com/greed_stupidity_a_wells_fargo_senior_vice_president

    What’s described in the article is wrong.

    September 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM #456346
    dbapig
    Participant

    http://piggington.com/greed_stupidity_a_wells_fargo_senior_vice_president

    What’s described in the article is wrong.

    September 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM #455615
    Sandiagon
    Participant

    I read the link. Some pigs supported the behavior of bank and bank employee. How anybody can support that kind of behavior? Foreclosed house is property of bank not bank employee. It is that simple. These kinds of employees are dangerous to the bank and bank customers. These kinds of employees can do day trading with your check in account money.

    September 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM #455809
    Sandiagon
    Participant

    I read the link. Some pigs supported the behavior of bank and bank employee. How anybody can support that kind of behavior? Foreclosed house is property of bank not bank employee. It is that simple. These kinds of employees are dangerous to the bank and bank customers. These kinds of employees can do day trading with your check in account money.

    September 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM #456148
    Sandiagon
    Participant

    I read the link. Some pigs supported the behavior of bank and bank employee. How anybody can support that kind of behavior? Foreclosed house is property of bank not bank employee. It is that simple. These kinds of employees are dangerous to the bank and bank customers. These kinds of employees can do day trading with your check in account money.

    September 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM #456218
    Sandiagon
    Participant

    I read the link. Some pigs supported the behavior of bank and bank employee. How anybody can support that kind of behavior? Foreclosed house is property of bank not bank employee. It is that simple. These kinds of employees are dangerous to the bank and bank customers. These kinds of employees can do day trading with your check in account money.

    September 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM #456410
    Sandiagon
    Participant

    I read the link. Some pigs supported the behavior of bank and bank employee. How anybody can support that kind of behavior? Foreclosed house is property of bank not bank employee. It is that simple. These kinds of employees are dangerous to the bank and bank customers. These kinds of employees can do day trading with your check in account money.

    September 11, 2009 at 5:10 PM #455620
    davelj
    Participant

    The questions are why was she staying there and what approvals, if any, did she receive?

    If she just decided that she could stay there because it was empty, then she should be fired. That’s probably the case. However…

    If she got approval from higher-ups… then the issue is why they granted her approval. Could an argument be made that there was some value to the bank in having her living there? It’s conceivable. But it’s a stretch.

    September 11, 2009 at 5:10 PM #455814
    davelj
    Participant

    The questions are why was she staying there and what approvals, if any, did she receive?

    If she just decided that she could stay there because it was empty, then she should be fired. That’s probably the case. However…

    If she got approval from higher-ups… then the issue is why they granted her approval. Could an argument be made that there was some value to the bank in having her living there? It’s conceivable. But it’s a stretch.

    September 11, 2009 at 5:10 PM #456153
    davelj
    Participant

    The questions are why was she staying there and what approvals, if any, did she receive?

    If she just decided that she could stay there because it was empty, then she should be fired. That’s probably the case. However…

    If she got approval from higher-ups… then the issue is why they granted her approval. Could an argument be made that there was some value to the bank in having her living there? It’s conceivable. But it’s a stretch.

    September 11, 2009 at 5:10 PM #456223
    davelj
    Participant

    The questions are why was she staying there and what approvals, if any, did she receive?

    If she just decided that she could stay there because it was empty, then she should be fired. That’s probably the case. However…

    If she got approval from higher-ups… then the issue is why they granted her approval. Could an argument be made that there was some value to the bank in having her living there? It’s conceivable. But it’s a stretch.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
1 2 3 4
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.