Improving our efficiency ratio has been a goal for some time. I haven't heard it mentioned as much recently as it was when Charlie started but obviously it's still a huge goal. I've certainly seen people leave - displaced, quitting, businesses sold off, etc. I have not yet seen - at least in my corner of WF - any increase in actual process efficiency. On the contrary, things seem to be getting worse. Constant turnover, org, and leadership changes leave various dependent processes siloed, lacking expertise, mismanaged, and going backwards in maturity. This will just lead to further problems, regulatory/reputational hits, and an asset cap that is just an accepted norm that no one expects to be lifted.
15 replies (most recent on top)
The company IS to big for a mo--ns in Hudson Yards to run. Doesn't mean that competent people couldn't pull it off, just not these morale destroying soul sucking clowns.
If that was the case, term for cause. Paying severance to people that should be termed for perf is ridiculous.
I've seen it where we laid off folks in our department, just to have open positions six months later because "oops, we actually needed those resources".
Perhaps those folks needed to be gone? Yes, those positions need to be filled but not with THOSE folks.
Laying off employees is the "easy button" compared to making strategic changes that could reduce expenses to increase efficiency ratio. In short, layoff decisions are lazy. I've seen it where we laid off folks in our department, just to have open positions six months later because "oops, we actually needed those resources".
100%. A voice of reason.
Ah yes, the Labor Theory of Value. Good job.
Need I remind you that you're ALL replaceable and expendable. Unless you all quit, at the same time, the organization will recover (probably won't even notice) and keep on going. But by all means, keep smoking that bo-g and telling yourself that you're special and the organization will cease to exist without you.
Or is it such a big change that it takes time to iron out all the kinks? We are so far behind our peers that it's comical. And instead of fixing things on the way, we just kept hiring people working in archaic ways
That's what she said
Kinda. Their problem is that we (employees) collectively create $5B/quarter in profit while the entity and the executives produce $0 while costing $75M+/year. So sure, they can get rid of us all the want, but they'll be getting rid of all the profits also. Of course, it's entirely possible that Charlie is a mole for JPM and that's the point of all this BS.
If you want to improve the efficiency ratio, get out from the asset cap while controlling expenses.
It is half arsing his job to just cut cut cut when it is the asset cap that is the biggest impediment.
Short sighted id--t at CEO.
What's this "we" you keep on about? There is no "we". There is you, a person who trades their time for money, and there's the entity called Wells Fargo.
If cutting 1000 employees a month isn't improving our efficiency, maybe the board should pull their head out and realize that chainsawing the team isn't going to get us where they want us to be.
Chuckle thinks the answer is to ax everyone and put all jobs in India. That is his idea of efficiency. What a POS
Post ID: @res+1n8IpqU0 I’m not saying your statement isn’t correct bc I def believe there will be an efficiency issues. but for the money/headcount forecasting: than can hire 3 people for the price of 1 us resource. than in a few years let 2 of them go. They have reduced headcount/salaries down the road. this shows efficiency cuts to the shareholders. other companies i’ve worked for jade done this as well.
offshoring to India is counter productive to improving efficiency.