Article Image
IPFS News Link • Housing

Bank Exec "Borrows" Foreclosed Home

Another day, another story of a banking executive making a boneheaded move. And this one seems too unbelievable to be true.  Pepper with some Madoff sandal as well.

3 Comments in Response to

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:

Yup.  As more comes out on this, it's class-warfare claptrap cloaked in faux moral outrage.

The former tenants, who were apparently relying on Madoff to supply them with current income are the "poor former owners." 

The exec who runs what is probably a very busy shop right now is a "squatter".

Wells, which has an "internal policy" prohibiting personal use of bank-owned property (which is different from a policy prohibiting employer-provided housing), has a "PR nightmare" on their hands agitated by a liar's agent who has been separated from her due commission by the niggling lack of sale detail.

Oh, and the liar's agent has offers in hand, but hasn't shown the house.  Last I heard, site unseen offers were running 25% of comps.

This would actually be an interesting story (to people interested in CA real estate) if they would spare the moral outrage segment.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

If the exec used it as a primary resident, it's a benefit and needs to be claimed on taxes.  If she didn't, she broke the law.  I know you'll want to dispute that because you don't agree with that law.  Further, there are several ethical questions with regards to the proper disposal of shareholder equity.  There's no libertarian dispute against that.

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:

I might be missing something, but I don't seen anything boneheaded at all about a company providing housing for an employee.  

If the outrage is the price tag on the house, that would be all the more reason to put someone in it.  Vacant properties go downhill quickly and it's not like Wells Fargo has a reasonable expectation of selling it for a decent price right now.