Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Charlie is CEO only because multiple more preferred candidates either refused the headhunter offer to interview, or after the top candidates did start interviewing they had no desire to become a leader of this poorly run company. Charlie was likely the 10th or lower candidate but he and his ego saw it and hung around. He got a grossly undeserved package, and his weaknesses and lack of any leadership qualities have been on display ever since.
But he is an outsider. And once he took the job Jamie D has pulled all strings for this token CEO.

If you’re a clueless coattail riding racist, you try to stay off the media radar. And Chuck is all three.

He goes on Fox Business sometimes (Shrewsberry did too). They'll post the clips to teamworks whenever he does, which I agree, is not very often.

He was there, hiding under the desk hoping he wasnt called on!

@1arw. Very sensitive aren’t we?

Post ID: @xtc+1af1kY2T

Ok. I took the “snap out of it” as an aggressive response, but I’m glad you took the time to come back respectfully. Thank you.

Charlie has not accomplished anything and is not distinguished among the bank CEOs. That distinction belongs to Jamie Dimon.

Jamie Dimon was instrumental in leading Bank One to the merger with JPM and the banking powerhouse it is today. It also helps that his personality exudes a leader that doesn't mince words and due to his performance as CEO of Bank One since 2000, no other bank CEO comes close. That is why he opinions are sought after. Also, he is the only CEO that lawmakers respect. He is smarter than them and doesn't give in to political BS. He believes in doing what is right for our country and will say things that put him at a disadvantage as a billionaire just because they are best for the prosperity of our country.

He is a true class act and JPM is lucky to have a leader like Jamie Dimon. Charlie Scharf is nowhere near Jamie Dimon's league and he will never be.

They’ll start interviewing Charlie once the asset cap is lifted. Until then they don’t really care what he has to say as he’s unproven talent...

They both terds but one has some skill doing and speaking, the other is a limp dcik nobody who only knows how to fire people, make enemies, and is constantly sticking his foot in his mouth.

I will let you decide which is which.

@cjd+1af1kY2T It's nothing like that, actually. Not mad at you. Or snapping. Or – once again – defending or taking the side of Charlie. I just don't think he's personally to blame for WF's problems, or the need to reduce headcount and other expenses. He's got the unpopular – albeit very lucrative – job of fixing huge issues that predate him.

Charlie seems to be a jerk, no doubt. But he's not the problem. If everyone needs an easy scapegoat to blame for their misfortunes, and it makes them feel better – go for it. It won't improve a thing, though. It's merely a distraction.

He's not eliminating my job. Instead of focusing on who'd done me wrong, I got a job elsewhere. I come to this site 1-2 times per week to find out how my old colleagues (who I care about) are being impacted. Unfortunately, this site rarely has that info anymore. My mistake.

@kxw- you give Charlie too much power. You allow him control your emotion and you allow him to make you and break you. Again, snap out of it.

Post ID: @hhz+1af1kY2T

Well I only comment and respond to comments that I care about. I’m curious why people feel the need to automatically disagree with anyone who comments against Charlie. If you don’t care one way or the other - then why snap at people who do? It’s curious to me that you would go out of your way to take the side of a man who’s profiting personally from eliminating your job, offshoring your job, cutting your benefits, etc. It’s like getting mad at me for speaking out against a thief who is robbing both of us.

@kxw+1af1kY2T Just because someone doesn't waste energy railing against Charlie, and thinks maaaaaybe there are more important things than appearing on CNBC, doesn't mean they are defending the man.

And even if someone does defend him... how does that impact you personally? Why is it so important that every, single person on this site dog pile on Charlie? Either way, it's not going to change a thing for you, or for me.

Almost hoping for layoffs tomorrow, and threads that are actually relevant.

Post ID: @fmg+1af1kY2T

He doesn’t care what you think either, FYI. So why defend someone who’s goal is to get rid of you? I don’t get it.

Charlie does not care about what you people think. Snap out of it.

Viewers of CNBC and Cramer lovers LOL.

@dbk+1af1kY2T We’re not talking about all of middle America in this thread. We’re talking about viewers of CNBC (in middle America or elsewhere). Please do try to keep up...

Post ID: @dbk+1af1kY2T

I guess you didn't read any of the letter then. What do farmers and ranchers in middle America talk about? Where's my stimies or something to that effect? $40Bn last year alone - I'd bet more than a few of them were interested.

Charlie would get skewered on national live broadcast TV. You've seen him on Town Halls...he's awkward, spoon fed corporate jargon that has no actual substance. He comes across as completely inauthentic. BD is also a nightmare in media - arrogant, bombastic name-dropper.

One look at JPMs stock price and you will see why people care what Jamie Dimon thinks. You are a pack of mo--ns.

What so called "folks want Dimon's POV?" Speak for yourself. Most of middle America don't care one bit what a wall street ceo thinks of voter IDs or anything else, let alone most mainstream issues. I never sat in a coffee shop with ranchers or farmers and any of them ever said "Well, I wonder what Jamie Dimon thinks of that!"

@ifv+1af1kY2T Grateful for your civilized response. We can all agree to disagree without tearing into one another.

Don’t like Charlie. Just don’t see the point of shouting at someone who is not listening.

Cramer keeps inviting him, but Charlie doesn't respond. And Cramer knows the guy socially. The way he acts on earnings calls makes me think Charlie wouldn't do well on live TV.

Post ID: @wbg+1af1kY2T

You had me until you agreed with @pce.

Like all of us, Charlie prioritizes based on his most critical objectives. Being on CNBC will not further goals like cutting costs, getting the asset cap lifted etc. I suspect the board is very supportive of him laying low.

Plus, Dimon is seen as an industry leader at a successful bank, so folks want his POV. If Charlie makes an appearance he’ll be grilled on head counts, expense reduction, his D&I comments, regulators etc. So not much value in giving interviews, until he has good news to share on those fronts.

Agree with @pce that in general WF employees here spend a ridiculous amount of energy attacking everything Charlie does/doesn’t do. Whatever you think of him, what’s the point of shouting at the rain?

To the first commenter: Not sure what rock you’re living under, but CNBC is not “so 15 minutes ago. I trade on one of the Wells trading desks and we have TVs all over the floor carrying CNBC 24/7. We also consistently have WfC analysts and economists interviewed on CNBC.

Your toxic comments do not deserve anyone’s time, but I do like proving you wrong AGAIN!!!!

Post ID: @pce+1af1kY2T

Do you ever have something of value to add, or do you just whine and complain?

OP asks a valid question, and Post ID: @mbe+1af1kY2T has relevant comments with additional input. You just complain and attack. Are you not able to support an opposing POV intelligently and without being rude? I feel sorry for you.

Ask our head of Corp Comms. That is her job to put him on CNBC and she hasn’t. It is also her job for there to be a strategy and we don’t have one and none of us know why. Maybe one of our new PR agencies can do that.

I must say that his letter to the shareholders was interesting especially the public policy section. It's remarkable that he can be so honest even though some of the things he's saying would be detrimental to the profits of his bank.

I'm not sure Charlie is quite at the level yet where he can comment - you have to actually get some runs on the board first before offering advice to others. See how things look in a few years maybe.

Who cares. CNBC is so 15 mins ago. Who the heck watch them anymore. Charlie job is running Wells not being on TV. You people complain he is on TV, complain he is not on TV. If he sneezes someone would complain. Endless complaining. Getting old! He is your CEO don’t like it then leave. Put yourself out of misery. If you don’t leave then grow up and deal with it.