Jump to content

Talk:Wachovia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial comments

[edit]

WACHOVIA If you pronounce WACH as WATCH and you say WACHOVIA quickly over and over you'll hear yourself say "Watch over ya". Doesn't that make sense for a lending company?

Yes, if that's how you pronounced it. --Golbez 06:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- Perhaps more pertinently, it seems like we should mention something about Wachovia's admission that their "predecessor companies" profited from slavery. Here's a link off their site [1] Brodo 06:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hint- Everyone profited from slavery prior to the mid 1800, especially in the south (but also in the north) It's not worth mentioning. 71.63.105.172 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Slang Pronunciation of the Name (wondering about names origins in business practices)

[edit]

My mother had a loan from them when my parents were younger (they are in their 70s now, this was in the 60s), and did not give a care about the success of the deal, and would not give them a break on a loan she took out. So my father says the accurate name (like a bostonian talking) is Walk Over You, or Walk Ovee Yuh. My brother had a similar experience with them when they bought out the savings and loan he was working for, they fired all the employees without a rehire.. Considering the recent events, he's proud they didn't hire him, even though he spearheaded a new legal division of one of the largest savings and loans in the country, World Savings and Loan. For the record, he got a job with Meryl Lynch, which happened before the mortgage fallout.. My father also says that the banks threatening foreclosure on homes is a sin, call usury which described in the bible as a serious sin, Jesus even talks about such injustices as contrary to the debt believers owe to him. I wonder if any of these banks have Christian executives. - KH

What exactly do you want to edit? The so called slag name is obscure and not notable enough to mention. The comment about foreclosure and usury is ridiculous, and the relationship between the two is shady at best... not to mention Merrill Lynch does exactly the same thing as Wachovia with regard to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.81.59 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wachovia supporters use the slang pronunciation Watch Over Ya. If you are inventive enough, virtually any company name can be twisted for better or worse.199.90.28.194 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Customer Service Difficulties

[edit]

Anyone can pay business schools to conduct surveys, Jimmy. If the references were in a field requiring hard research, I would understand. But the included text is simply expressing the opinions of customers and former customers, and is expressing such. (Who better to determine "customer service" than customers?) It doesn't say "difficulties abound," it says "reported difficulties abound." Wikipedia entries are to be no one's corporate mouthpiece, but to represent a genuine populist voice, reflecting the range of opinions on a subject, taking the bad with the good. Citations were requested and have been provided. Please be advised to retain said text as written.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.116.119 (talk) (transfered from hidden text in article)

I think this section should be altered to include only reliable references as defined in WP:A. If no reliable references may be found, the section should be deleted or altered to remove questionable material. Current references 3 through 6 all meet the definition of self-published sources under the Reliable sources section of Wikipedia:Attribution and do not meet the exceptions for their inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Attribution is official policy of Wikipedia and should not be violated lightly.
Ultimately, this section is not encyclopedic and should not be in the Wachovia article. Compare it to the Bank of America article, which has an extensive Controversy and Criticism section, most of which is well written and documented using <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>major news sources and press releases. If you have to resort to anonymous bloggers to find complaints about Wachovia, then these complaints are not worth mentioning.
The first paragraph on WP:A says it all: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." Wikipedia is neither a "corporate mouthpiece" nor a "genuine populist voice".
JKeene 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the section. One of the references was by a so-called "wachoviabank-sucks" website. That is not NPOV, nor is it from a trusted site. Does not belong here, at all. --wpktsfs 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overdraft fees

[edit]

Seems to me Wachovia has alot of hidden fees in the checking account area. They hold their check card holds too long and put holds on deposits for more than 5 days at a time without notifying the person depositing the money. These practicing cause more overdrafts that do not help the working class people get ahead. For instance I had an Overdraft of $.86 and a direct deposit within four hours of $1,000...Well $5.00 for Over protection, automatic $100.00 transferred from that. Not to mention $35.00 NSF fee. That is the most I have ever paid for $.86. I have written congress regarding Consumer Checking Account fairness Act (H.R. 799) and I would like to encourage others like me to do it as well. Not to mention the OCC to check into the practices of Wachovis in general. There needs to be some kind of help for the little people who seem to never get ahead if there are always ridiculous fees to knock you back down.

Kernersville, NC

Merge Golden West Financial article

[edit]

The entire "Business Model" section of Golden West Financial appears to be original research. See WP:OR for more info about what qualifies as original research.

I propose:

  1. that the "Business Model" section be deleted.
  2. that the remainder of Golden West Financial be merged into Wachovia#Golden West Financial with citations.

I will proceed with these changes within two weeks, depending on any feedback or the addition of verifiable references to Golden West Financial.
--JKeene 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completed.
--JKeene 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Market Capitalization

[edit]

I have removed the reference to Wachovia having the fourth largest market capitalization of any US Bank. This has never been the case as Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo have always had larger market caps. As of today, US Bank also has a larger market cap. I didn't replace this with its ranking as this changes frequently, especially with the banking market as it is now. Burke27 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Controversies section

[edit]

The following article would appear to follow-up on the activities noted in the Talk:Wachovia#Controversies section. Provided for your consideration:

Charles Duhigg (2008-04-26). "Big Fine Set for Wachovia to End Case" (HTML). The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-04-27.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've added an update.
--JKeene (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Founding date

[edit]

I just changed the founding date to 1781. I've been personally doing some research on it, and this is what I can find: The article already cites that wachovia has continusously operated a branch since 1781. If you research Bank of North America it was clearly created back in 1781 as well. The office of the comptroller of the currancy does have a list of all national banks listing bank charter numbers, (which are cronological), and Wachovia Bank, N.A. holds charter #1. The second oldest bank, Bank of new york was founded in 1784. So, again, more adding to me being on the right track here. However, the company itself doesn't cite 1781 anywhere on their website or otherwise, rather prefering to only talk about the founding of the bank wachovia, whom the current encarnation derives its name, and First Union, who technically bought wachovia about 10 years ago. KenBest (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takeover

[edit]

I've just added a brief section on Wachovia's takeover by Citigroup. This is breaking news, and will doubtless need to be updated and expanded as more details emerge. Mikeplokta (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a takeover. Purchase of Banking subsidiaries; Wachovia holding company retains brokerage units. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wachovia

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}I'm a registered user, why can't I edit the Wachovia article? Can somebody add fr:Wachovia please? TxGreenski (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by an interwiki bot before I got here. For your information only autoconfirmed users can edit semiprotected pages like this one - registered users with accounts older than 4 days with at least 10 edits. ~ mazca t | c 17:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that was good, but I'm just at 11 edits on this local wikipedia. Tx you very much for your help! Greenski (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Definitive agreement

[edit]

It's POV to say "However, while Wachovia had not signed a definitive agreement with Citigroup, it has a signed agreement with Wells Fargo." What "definitive" means is subjective, but Citigroup undoubtedly has a signed agreement with Wachovia, and just got a favorable court injunction based on that agreement. [2] I'll try to make this part more neutral. Superm401 - Talk 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, a federal judge has already overturned Justice Ramos' injunction. This is turning into a wallstreet soap opera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.195.238 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another New York Times article summarizes the maneuvering somewhat coherently. Superm401 - Talk 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People accounts from Wells Fargo nad Wachovia are deleted the customer account does exist in there credit , The company porceeds to to be the best , but from research and other people , the payments for their vehicle were lost and embezzeled into someones pocket . the new account is issued but the customer is still lost in the shuffle and there is no way out . The Accounts that are opened and closed or now deleted , The cunstomer is blinded and there is no way to repair the damage the bank has done. customers of wells fargo and Wachovia are now being from all sides . Due tom this no one can win. but the comes out on with profits over a $200 Billion to Trillion . The CEO is rich and customers lsss there vehicles and personal loans . There is a no win situation . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.136.21 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen

[edit]

I cannot edit this article, but the very first sentence contains a punctuation error. "Wholly owned" should not have a hyphen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.89 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You should consider creating an account. When you have an account, you can edit semi-locked articles. Dman727 (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Wachovia

[edit]

I think there should be some debate as to the current legal status of Wachovia. Due to the consolidation/merger of Wachovia's bank charters with Wells Fargo, it is no longer a free-standing division or wholly owned entity. Technically, Wachovia is just a brand of Wells Fargo until integration is complete. So in order to be completely factual it should be reflected in Wachovia's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapkoski (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fees!

[edit]

Why do we not inform the public of their fees? This is what people need and want to know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi15 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not intended for selling or diverting potential customers; it is an encyclopedia article on a corporation. If their fees are somehow of encyclopedic significance and can be backed by reputable sources, then they can be incorporated into this article. Dmarquard (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies Section

[edit]

The last paragraph of the current version of the article is very subjective and undermines the reliability of the article as a whole. It should be deleted if it cannot be sourced. In the meantime, it would be better to remove the subjective adjective "ridiculous", the attributive motive (in the clause beginning "when really it was just a ploy..", and the unsourced quote. Ltlaw (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammer: verb tense

[edit]

It seems to me that one could improve the verb tense of the statement, "Starting in 2009, the Wachovia brand is being absorbed into the Wells Fargo brand in a process that was initially estimated to last three years." by replacing it with, "Starting in 2009, the absorpion of the Wachovia brand into the Wells Fargo brand began in a process that was initially estimated to last three years." 209.242.151.82 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debate: Should Wachovia be listed as a defunct bank and not a subsidiary of Wells Fargo?

[edit]

Now that Wells Fargo has fully intergrated and officially stopped using the Wachovia name as of this month (July 2011). I know that here in the State of Florida all of former Wachovia branches have been merged into the Wells Fargo brand using new Wells Fargo account numbers, Also Wachovia's Certifications of Incorporation issued in their home state of North Carolina have been officially merged out (see here, here and here) which means that legally Wachovia can no longer operate as a corporation either in a stand-alone or subsidiary capacity since the office of the North Carolina Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall has officially rescinded their right to operate as a corporation in the State of North Carolina. Also according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Institution Database (See here) Wachovia Bank, N.A. has been an inactive member of the FDIC since March 20, 2010 which pretty much to me like a defunct bank. Input and opinions on this subject would be appreciate. Thanks. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a reverse merger - ie Wachovia bought out Wells Fargo and took on Wells Fargo's name. Another reverse merger: America West buying US Airways and keeping the US Airways name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.242.14 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Sparse information on Wachovia as it was, in the Wachovia article

[edit]

It seems strange that such a large bank with over 120 years of history has an article that focuses almost exclusively on the merger and end of the Wachovia name. The article should END with the transformation to Wells Fargo. It would be more encyclopedic to keep some of Wachovia's history. Was this lost with edits during the merger, I wonder? --Bridgecross (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wachovia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

supreme court case

[edit]

From NYT a few days ago:

In the mid-2000s, when subprime lenders started appearing in certain low-income neighborhoods, many of them majority black and Latino, several state banking regulators took note. In Michigan, the state insurance regulator tried to enforce its consumer-protection laws on Wachovia Mortgage, a subsidiary of Wachovia Bank. In response, Wachovia’s national regulator, the O.C.C., stepped in, claiming that banks with a national charter did not have to comply with state law. The Supreme Court agreed with the O.C.C., and Wachovia continued to engage in risky subprime activity.[3]

The case was Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. 550 U.S. 1 (2007). It should probably be mentioned in the article. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wachovia&oldid=1209019907"