Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Chainsaw Charlie more like shovel

Charlie is literally digging wells into a deeeper hole in terms of reputation and relationship with regulators. Let’s start with reputation. Wells has been riddled with scandal and literally hasn’t had any good press in I don’t know how long. Hence why even though every bank was cheating the PPP wells was the one in headlines. Now they come out and say they’ll be conducting layoffs during a pandemic and recession without specifying the groups. Do you know how heartless you have to be to cut team members months after you bring in your high salary friends? Whose gonna want to keep their accounts after they were laid off? Whose gonna want to bank with a firm who lacks technology, ethics and laid off a friend or family

Now regulators. It’s my belief Tim Sloan had the right idea of how to turn wells around. yes he was here during the scandal but his idea of building out the Second line to address and identify issues was valuable to calming down the regulators. The only problem is the house gave him literally no time to work. How is that same house going to react when they see Charlie gut the risk department in an effort to cut costs? Is he really going to convince them less people will make it easier to address the MRAs, Consent Orders and Remediation’s in addition to the everyday business? Everytime he talks about the regulator work it’s simply focused on meeting the deadlines. Nothing about actually changing the bank for the better. Charlie isn’t here to make the bank better. He’s not here to get the asset cap lifted. He’s only here because nobody else would touch the position so the board needed someone to make the bank look more attractive. Put lipstick on the pig if you will. Let’s just hope there is a bank left to fix once his pockets are lined.

by
| 2003 views | | 6 replies (last June 12, 2020) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+15px5Rwj

6 replies (most recent on top)

"...yes he was here during the scandal...."

LOL.

He's dirty, just like the rest. We paid fines to avoid CRIMINAL CHARGES.

Wish I had that option during the years of my misspent youth, but back then I was not a Too Big to Fail bank paying politicians millions in PAC and campaign donations.

Ridiculous.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ndj+15px5Rwj

Make no mistake – Scharf is cutting to the bone to boost share price and make company more attractive for acquisition. Period.

He's doing what he was hired to do.

No one at the top cares about the employees... BIG mistake, since many of them are (not for long) customers.

Short-sighted as always.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1qdl+15px5Rwj

They do not care about reputation among employees, customers, Congress, or anyone else. They have paid about $17 to $18 BILLLION in fines to date in last few years since sales practices scandal erupted, for egregious misconduct. Do you think they care about layoffs?! Hell no!.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @lwx+15px5Rwj

I agree with everything in your post except any favorable comments regarding Tim Sloan. On the outside, he came across like a nice guy. However during his tenure as CEO, he authorized $40 billion in stock buybacks paying all-time highs (double what the stock is trading at now) while he himself held $64 million in company stock. He used the company’s money to enrich himself and other top execs, while keeping employee wages low and laying off workers. I would contend that the firm would be in much better shape now had that money been used to Improve the actual value of the company through investments in technology, higher compensation for workers, new products, and a better customer experience.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zyd+15px5Rwj

Agreed, there are a number of managers that knew about the scandal and profited from it. They should have been let go immediately. It's not just the business it was in tech as well.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @fsr+15px5Rwj

Reality check- the LA times broke the sales scandal in 2014. The regulators gave the bank until late 2016 which is when they clamped down. THREE years after that Sloan AND Stumpf are finally gone. So it’s been a total of 6 years. Sorry, that’s plenty of time for competent management to make meaningful change. Huge numbers of senior managers and directors should have been swept out immediately, but instead they allowed problems new and old to fester, still do.

More people doesn’t make better risk management. Having real authority, an escalation path and competent people make risk management work. HR, Risk, and other control functions should have the ability to overrule business leaders when they break the law and violate corporate policy, or engage in blatantly unethical behavior. They didn’t, and barely do now.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @sjw+15px5Rwj

Post a reply

: