Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Given this bank's operating environment, the fed, the government et all I can only do one thing. "Bet" that this bank's stock will get into the 20's before it gets into the 50's.

Why would anyone want to invest in Wells Fargo when other bank returns are much greater? Or maybe stupid is as stupid does.

In summary. Wells Fargo continues to be the greatest shitshow on Earth.

Here is a summary. What strikes me is that this bank has paid 11.4 Billion dollars in fines. Must have a huge legal department.
During Wells Fargo & Co.'s fourth-quarter conference call, CFO Mike Santomassimo stated that the bank's $1.93 trillion asset cap, imposed by the Federal Reserve in 2018, is likely to extend into a seventh year. The assumption is based on modeling used for net interest income guidance for 2023. CEO Charlie Scharf also emphasized that it could take several more years for the bank to resolve legal and regulatory issues and obtain approval to expand its total assets.

The article mentions that Wells Fargo was recently ordered to pay fines of $1.7 billion and over $2 billion in redress and compensation to customers by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The bank still has consent orders to address, of which the asset cap is one component. Scharf expressed that the bank is making progress in building a proper control environment to satisfy the consent orders.

Wells Fargo has lowered its accruals by $2.3 billion, setting aside $1.4 billion for potential losses from legal actions. The bank has faced multiple regulatory fines, with total penalties amounting to at least $11.14 billion. Despite the elevated level of operating losses, the bank sees the past two quarters as significant steps in resolving historical issues.

Regarding share repurchases, Wells Fargo expects to resume them in the first quarter of the year. The bank has spent $353 million on severance expenses related to job cuts, primarily in its Home Lending unit. The workforce has reduced by 4.3% year-over-year, and the branch count has also decreased as the bank focuses on branch rationalization and digital adoption.

In summary, Wells Fargo expects its asset cap to continue for another year, as it continues to address legal and regulatory issues. The bank has incurred substantial fines and is working towards satisfying consent orders. It has reduced accruals and is considering share repurchases while optimizing its workforce and branch network.

Our Board of Directors has to be the worst in the industry for letting Scharf keep his position. I hope major shareholders speak up before the damage to the bank is irreversible, though it might already be too far gone.

Post ID: @emb+1n6mqp58

“I make far more from gains in my 401K and dividends than I make in raises and bonuses.”

Wells Fargo paying you peanuts??

Uneducated? Is this that idi&t troll again? Ir Charlie on the bottle? The only uneducated person is you posting that comment! Go crawl back in your basement.

RTO is the antithesis of saving money. Housing people for no reason costs this company billions and we get nothing in return.

Post ID: @emb+1n6mqp58

Sadly, you sound under-educated. I don’t think there is anything you can say at this point to make yourself sound any less educated. But if you are happy, I’m happy for you.

@emb+1n6mqp58 Cutting employees rarely results in a material income statement impact. Executives make moves like layoffs to protect their own bonuses by arguing they are “doing something” because layoffs are the easier button. Regarding your impact assessment of layoffs, have you even looked at the last issued WF 10-K or 10-Q? Clearly not. For example, removing costs associated with physical locations would result in a much larger IS impact, but that would require a shift in mentality and an actual strategy. My advice: keep your 401k investments in a retirement date target fund, because if you can’t grasp which costs have a larger impact on bottom-line, you’ll need all the help you can get.

@emb isn't fun at parties

Only people with little to nothing in WF stock want to suspend buybacks and reduce dividends. I would rather we pour every cent possible into both activities. I make far more from gains in my 401K and dividends than I make in raises and bonuses.

There is so much deadwood still left on the tree. Pretty much 90% of the people that post on this board talk about how much they hate their job and brag about who little work they do. I say keep cutting. Become more efficient. Pump the stock price up. I would much rather the company have 150,000 employees and generate $8B/quarter in net income than have 250,000 employees and generate $2B/quarter in net income.

Oh yes, OP, by all means let’s get another CEO like John Stumpf - clueless to criminal activity right under his nose. Now there’s a concept.

Charlie is a one trick pony. His time at Visa, BNY Mellon and WFC has proven it. All he knows how to do is cut employees.

Even Dimon demoted him due to failures at Chase.

Schart needs to go. If the BOD won't take action, the employees need to put all the pressure on Schart they can, and if that requires leaking to the press and oversight committees any and all regulatory violations, it needs to be done.

Call Elizabeth Warren's office.

Regarding “It’s not rocket science and it does not require any great innovation or genius
It requires someone to just not mess it up so catastrophically bad like Stumpf did.”

What you describe does not warrant a $24.5 Million/year salary. Charlie was hired to get us out from under the asset cap and to fix the bank’s reputation, neither of which he has done.

I will support the bank’s leadership when they stop treating customers and employees like pawns to build their personal wealth.

Blame all the previous leaders for over hiring.

Post ID: @nck+1n6mqp58

Op here. Thank you regarding your figure. I think my $65B came from an article talking about money spent by Wells Fargo on buybacks in the past 5 years. That was the figure still in my head, but Charlie will be here only 4 years this Fall.

See? Wells Fargo employees all work well together when we feel like we’re on the same team.

Thank you!

Post ID: @zge+1n6mqp58

OP here. My apologies! I read it as you disagreeing with me, but it was the first comment. Thank you for coming back to me. Glad to know others see it the same way as I do.

Total buybacks since Charlie $37 billion!

https://ycharts.com/companies/WFC/stock_buyback

Higher than historical avg

Newsflash. No finance company CEOs are great leaders who lead pioneering efforts

We are a bank. We take a dollar from little old ladies and lend it back out so we earn 2-15c on that dollar. It’s not rocket science and it does not require any great innovation or genius

It requires someone to just not mess it up so catastrophically bad like Stumpf did

Anyone who replaces Charlie will do the same. “We have to manage our expenses, blah, blah, blah”

Post ID: @unf+1n6mqp58

I am Post ID: @gcv+1n6mqp58.

Agree. We are on the same page.

Charlie is the great imposter without any skills, only his JMP buddy. We are doomed with him as CEO whether cut from our jobs or through business failures. God Bless.

Post ID: @gcv+1n6mqp58

That would be the point of firing the CEO, because he has been a poor investment. The message needs to be sent that he DID NOT fix things and the next person absolutely needs to. Not all CEO’s view slashing jobs as the only road to fixing a company. Charlie is a one-trick pony. We need to repair our scandal-ridden image, we need to lead with ethics and accountability from the top, we need to fix management and oversight in order to get the bank out from under the asset cap, we need to stop getting black eyes in the news, we need to invest heavily in technology, we need to inspire our employees in order to bring out the best in them. we need to serve our customers, and we need a CEO with sound judgement. Charlie is terrible from any angle.

If you’ve made a poor investment and you’ve given it nearly 4 years to accomplish your goals, and it has proven itself to be a loser - you cut your losses and try to make it back in a better investment. The point is not to ride the loser to zero.

Disagree with the above poster in firing.. Firing Charlie would send a message that he didn’t fix things and the next person absolutely needs to.

Agree it won’t save HIS expense and will likely pay the next person more, but you have to invest money appropriately in order to get the return you want. A CEO is an investment. The US employees and better technology is an investment. Those are areas when spent and managed appropriately, will pay off on the investment.

I'm no fan of Charlie but firing him saves $0 because WF will have to pay his replacement as much or more. WF is a reputation-destroying company, so anybody who agrees to work at WF is agreeing to have their reputation destroyed and will ask $65 million/year just like Charlie.

There's a certain point however where if a company is corrupt enough, you need to just stand back and let it fail.