THE PROFITABILITY OF THE GLITCH EX MACHINAJanuary 25, 2018
As you might have gathered, I've been watching the news this past week with an eye on financial and cyber-hacking stories. And this one came along courtesy of Mr. N., and it made me wonder about all those stories we've seen lately of major banks having "glitches", which glitches shut down people's accounts, charge them overdraft fees, and so on. Recall such a major incident has already occurred in major U.K. banks, and now it appears to have happened to Wells Fargo:
In this case, the story is a familiar one:
Many Wells Fargo customers got a terrifying shock after finding their checking accounts drained due to a series of errors by the embattled bank. The Jan. 17 glitch reportedly emptied several customers’ accounts after processing their online bill payments twice and doubling transaction fees. (Emphasis added)
Now, before we get to my high octane speculation of the day, it should be noted that Wells Fargo admitted the error, and has made it clear all transaction fees caused by the "glitch" will be refunded:
“We are aware of the online Bill Pay situation which was caused by an internal processing error. We are currently working to correct it, and there is no action required for impacted customers at this time. Any fees or charges that may have been incurred as a result of this error will be taken care of. We apologize for any inconvenience,” Wells Fargo’s Steve Carlson said, via KCCI.
The problem here is that Wells Fargo was one of those "too-big-too-jail" banks that has resorted to some fancy shenanigans to make things look better on paper, as the article points out:
The glitch is the latest black eye for the company, which was involved in a massive scandal in 2016 after it was discovered Wells Fargo employees opened millions of fake accounts to meet sales goals. Several high-level executives at the banking giant have lost their jobs since the scandal broke.
Which brings us to that ever-useful glitch ex machina that always seems to be used to explain these types of events, and thus brings me to a question at the heart of today's high octane speculation. Needless to say, when big mega-banks start talking about "glitches" that just happen to drain everyone's accounts for a period of time until the "problem" has been "fixed", I cannot help but think of Allen Dulles talking about magic bullets in Dallas, Texas; something shines and stinks like a mackerel on a moonlit beach. After all, this is the week that has also seen the story of crypto-currency hacking reach a new level, and, yes, part of me is wondering if somehow they're connected stories.
But that possible connection isn't the subject of my question and today's high octane speculation. My question is one which the major corporate controlled lamestream media never asks when these stories occur: what is that money doing during the period of the glitch? Or to put it differently, what may these banks be doing with that money during the period of the supposed "glitch"? I wouldn't normally even raise such questions, but in a climate where crony finance crapitalism saw the bank bailouts with insistence of "no oversight", derivatives in excessive of $10,000,000,000,000,000 (that's ten quadrillion dollars), and sub-prime mortgages being "robo-signed" by banks, I'd believe these people are capable of just about anything, particularly the bigger they are. So again: what was that money doing during the "glitch"? For it strikes me as oddly convenient that if one wanted to use someone else's money in demand (checking) accounts, and needed to use a lot of it, to execute quick trades while no one was looking, or to execute such trades to shore up "weak areas" in the "ledger", that the way to do it would be to create a cover story like a "glitch," in which case "we're fixing the problems" translates to "we'll give you your money back when we're done using it for our own covert and very shady purposes. Don't worry, all is well, and we apologize for any inconvenience." And glitches ex machina are very useful too, for one can always claim, when authorities or other people start snooping around, that all the records of what that money was doing during the glitch ex machina was wiped out by the very same glitch.
Of course, all of that is illegal. Banks would never do such an underhanded thing...
But then there's the robo-signed mortgages, fake accounts... You get the idea. So the question is, why is this rather obvious question never asked when we hear about these "glitches"?
See you on the flip side...