Presenting How Wells Fargo Nickel And Dimes Clients To (Account) Death
Despite the recent humiliating defeat for the TBTF bank proposal to establish debit fees, the bailed out banks are still somehow supposed to make money now that their prop trading desks can no longer mimic hedge funds and trade ahead of flow or on "expert network" inside information (and old school revenue generation like advisory and underwriting is just too much work). So what do they do? Why nickel and dime clients to death. As the following interactive graphic from the Pew Trust demonstrates, in a recent example where it was caught red-handed, Wells Fargo literally tried to nickel and dime a client (who subsequently sued) to death, by shifting the order of debit transactions in a way that maximized the penalty fee, ignoring the actual chronological order. In other words, banks have a "malicious" algorithm designed to maximize client pain, while ignoring actual sequence of events. The net result an overdraft balance that is 4 times higher than what it would have been if proper temporal sequence had been followed. And that is why banks are desperate to pickpocket their clients: because once news of such practices is made public, everyone should pull their money. That they still don't is quite incomprehensible.
As Pew notes:
The Transaction Infraction graphic demonstrates how banks can post debits and withdrawals in non-chronological order – a practice that can greatly impact the number of overdraft fees charged to a customer. Pew is encouraging an end to this practice and for banks to post transactions in a fully disclosed, objective and neutral manner that does not maximize overdraft fees.
To interact with this tool, the user should compare the customer’s order to how the bank processed them by toggling between the two tabs.
The actual example of chronological vs Well Fargo's sequence of events is presented below. Raping clients or self defense against an evil environment that no longer allows money to grow on trees? You decide.