Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

to the comment about the Fed making concessions if WF got near bankruptcy because it's a SIFI - the "concessions" won't be about lifting the asset cap. If the company gets to a financial brink, then RRP aka "the living will " kicks in... with even more significant restrictions and mandates about how the bank can/can't operate, and even splitting the company apart.

Exec culture at WFB is that no matter how bad the screwup the Execs do not get held accountable. AML /BSA problems in Commercial Bank went unaddressed for a decade and Exec team has suffered NO consequences. Execs have blamed problems on employees for decades. So now we at the point where its do or die. We have to meet the regulatory targets and reduce overhead at the same time. Enter CS. A wise old man once told me that sometimes when you are in trouble not everyone that shows up is there to help you. I am not sure of CS' intentions at this point but he has cashed in on WF problems without fixing anything yet. Currently No one from the exec management ever articulates a strategy to the broader teams. So employees come to work each day not understanding how their helps the Bank meet the goals. Not talking about the Bulls#t town halls those are grabasstic nonsense. I am talking about a clear Situational Assessment and plan to fix problems. Also Employees need to understand that Execs are held to same standards as everyone else. CS has not atriculated a plan and has not held long time execs that got us into this nightmare accountable. The icing that may be put on this "cake" if the Other guy wins could well seal the fate of WFB. No amount of PC speak from execs is going to spare WFB from a regulatory beat down of epic proportions if that happens.

CEO is USELESS!

Destroy company with Racist Comments to the Press. How inexperienced can someone be?'

I am 100% sure FEDS will be on this

1ut, but it’s the fed calling the shots on the cap. Agreed prior regimes gave them All the double middle finger. Bill Daley influence is only way to navigate this between all the DC muscle flexing

Sadly the fix here is more simple than most would have you believe . The OCC are a vindictive bunch. For years they tried to get DK, JS and the TS to take them seriously. Those three chose to ignore the regulatory findings with arrogance and disregard and the BOD supported them. This was top down negligence. Example PP failed to address an MRA from 2007 in Wholesale Bank on AML and BSA issues until 2017. ten years. This kind of arrogance drives Bank Regulators insane and they will , I mean they really will get payback,. Bottom line here is the OCC believes the entire culture of WF is broken and they will not lift any sanctions until they are confident the ENTIRE bank has changed it's ways. That means the Arrogance is completely gone and compliance is more of a certainty. We are still a long way from that point. If EW is ever installed as Treas Sec you can gty that WF will be broken. CS is stripping this bank down to the the studs in an attempt to achieve two goals change the culture and reduce the OR. It's really just a race to see if he can do either one fast enough to convince regulators and analysts we can achieve both. This ride could be over Nov 3rd or much further down the road. There is a light at the end of this tunnel and it is a Train.

czs has it almost right. Except two things, the action plan goes to 2023. Also, a piece often overlooked that is part of the consent order is a third party must validate. What’s unclear is exactly when this might commence and complete, I.e are there things that can validate before 2023 that the fed can get comfortable with. The SEO group under DF in SP org is the main coordinator of the plan. This time around they’ve actually included the front line and done a gap assessment against all the chapter requirements. They say that’s been the big missing piece from last attempts where MN and others thought they could just submit a bunch of risk framework stuff that is actually not even operational in the business’s. Would spect the cap to be on for a while. And to the comment it will bankrupt WFC, keep in mind we are a GSIFI, if it got anywhere near that, the fed would have to make concessions for the good of the global financial system stability

I think since they are not doing anything to fix that, The Fed may have plans to confisgate this mess.

ALso bank gave racist statements to the news. My goodness, are they in kindergarden?

@pqe here

pretty much all of them are not protected. however, reviewing military orders and other info is highly sensitive (proprietary info). My goal is to try to spin everything we do as if there is a major risk (customer data, state nuances that need to be understood in relation to our operations). i’ll be honest, id rather have 60k ppl laid off than offshore ANYTHING but the law is not on our side. Its not my call and all we can do is fight for us and make the best case possible. This is not limited to me-lots of ppl researching. most laws that have been passed that attempt to discourage offshoring, are ultimately not successful. Seems to me that if they are asking for this now, they have not finalized offshoring anything yet (at least in the area they are asking about).

We all are. One for all, all for one. #oneteamonedream

@pqe: so which of our jobs can’t be legally offshored?

The response narrative and action plans aligned with the Consent Order responsible for the cap was recently approved by the Risk Committee of the Board. There are chapters in the narrative and action plans that are owned by certain OC members aligned to their business. I been working on it the past year along w 100s of other employees across the bank. The COO oversees the coordination and execution from a project management perspective. The latest status is they are submitting the plan 9/30 to the regulators which is the due date. A date that that was "extended" from 3/30. Next steps receive feedback from regs and concurrently execute the action plan. Some parts have been executed so far and completed but some of the deliverables reach out to the end of 2022. As the action plan dwindles to completion the regs may lift the cap but that is not certain.

So, at the Executive Level who are direct reports to the CEO each have a small part in lifting the Asset Cap, and they failed for almost 3 years to do so then why are those people still here? Example: SVB(Tech), MN(Risk), JS(CFO retiring), JW(CIB), DG(HR), JS(Audit), MM(Consumer), PL(Commercial). These Executives were here before CS started, so if he has no confidence in them then why are they still here?

@dvm here again...

re: how soon... we have been severely criticized by the OCC and the Fed for our lack of progress so far. We are at the point where if we aren't able to demonstrate material progress this year and early next (and stop missing our deadlines and asking for extensions) that we might actually be subject to additional restrictions. I've seen this happen in another bank i worked for...didn't clean things up after repeated promises and they issued a C&D order (which means then the bank is banned from doing any new business in the specific LOB that is under the order)

I personally am not privvy to how close or far we are from being able to demonstrate significant progress... Assuming that new management is able to demonstrate progress (and avoid further penalties), issues probably will take through next year at least to clear/resolve. Another wild card here is the upcoming election... depending on who gets elected you could see a much harsher shift in the regulatory environment (e.g. current administration has gutted the CFPB but if Biden is elected you can bet that it will be resurrected with a fury). The regulators sort-of compete with each other - none of them want to be seen as the one being lenient or soft on violators... so even though the Fed is the agency that has imposed the cap and they alone can lift it, it also will depend on the overall environment.

dvm is correct. they each own a piece from the operating committee. low levels are on a need to know basis so they are not privy but matters are being researched and addressed. There is one deadline we will not meet and there may be more so when they send the report to the fed, nothing will change. this cap is NOT going away any time soon. One reason they dont know anything is bc none of them are solely responsible and hardly any of the fixes are in/complete. Right now, im being asked which of your jobs can legally NOT be sent offshore. They know it isnt going to be lifted. If they thought it was, they would not be unloading teams, prepping for offshoring or asking LOBs to find additional revenue streams/tighten the belt.

@dvm thanks for taking the time to write this. I've never seen details like this anywhere regarding our asset cap. In your opinion, will this take more than 2 years?

You may not really understand how the cap works or why it's there.

There are specific reasons that we have an asset cap - regulatory violations and matters that we have not addressed sufficiently. And so the punishment is "you can't grow past X size" until you fix these things that we have told you to fix. And these are not small things... they are major issues that go to unfair and deceptive practices, and lack of safety/soundness for a systemically-important-financial-institution (SIFI - meaning if we go down we can take the entire banking system down). They have to be fixed, and then the regulators have to review them and agree that they are fixed.

So because of the above, the idea that we would negotiate the fed on lifting the cap is not how it happens. The terms and conditions are very, very clear. Fix what we've told you needs fixing, prove that it's fixed and then we'll talk. That's what Charlie is talking about when he says we don't have a target date - we have to do the work the regulators have asked of us, and they will tell us when we have done it to their satisfaction. That is a prerequisite for the cap being lifted.

The prior executive management kept acting as if they could negotiate or bully the fed into lifting the cap, and that just made things worse.

The "who is accountable" is - the executives that own the regulatory matters that must get resolved are accountable. Each OC member has a tranche that they own. Prior management let them get away with repeated missed deadlines, failed internal validations (I.e. they didn't actually fix the problem in a sustainable way), and failed validations from regulators. That will not happen under current management - if stuff doesn't get done on time, and done right, people will be gone. that's how it works at our competitors who have all dealt with similar issues. none of them though have had so many for so long as we have.

So, no one knows whose responsibility within Wells Fargo is it to work with the FEDs to lift the Cap? I am guessing it’s not directly the CEO who is communicating with the FEDS. What I am trying to figure out is who is the person that was assigned to deal with the FEDS. And if we know who that person is, and that person hasn’t done anything in the last 2 plus years to get us closer to getting the CAP lifted, then why is this person still employed with WELLs? Unless there is some kind of a conspiracy going on between the DOB and the Govt, I really wish someone would give some insides!

Wells Fargo Senior Leadership Meetings:

“It was their fault, not ours.” “I know, but we have said we will clean it up ” “They have no idea where we stand, just keep saying we are working on it.” “Well, who’s responsibility is it?” “Not mine.” “Definitely not mine.” “Could be mine, but I passed it down my LOB.” “To who?“ “I don’t even know the guy’s name, but I’ll blame him if it goes wrong.” “Just keep laying off employees and the Board will be happy.” “Hey it is getting close to tee-time! Let’s adjourn!”

@mpg: I’m with you! Give the job to some moms and dads who are WFH, teaching kids from home, helping aging parents. Along with managing household, laundry, shopping, lawn etc. They are used to honing in, cutting the bs, and getting it done right the first time because they are not going to have the time to go at it a second time. It would have been done many moons ago and we would be past it, and preparing for growth and innovation.

These privileged execs...what the hell are they doing? They are used to having things done for them and they don’t have the skillset/ mindset to make a plan and execute. It’s a fact. The proof is right before you. Protest! (joking on the protest lol, but seriously...)

Hey hey Hey now . Let’s give leadership credit where credit is due and acknowledge their accomplishments. I mean, they did make the change from Team Members to Employees. I mean, that’s gonna take us to places we have never been before.

Hallelujah! This should be focus #1. Bloomberg estimates it has cost Wells roughly $4 billion in profit since the cap was imposed. And as of May this year, $220 billion in market value.

Probably much more complicated to resolve than it appears on the surface. But gather the troops and make it happen. An entire year under Charlie and still no progress? I could put together a more effective team for 1/10th of the compensation, people who are used to getting things done and getting them done right. For the kind of money this leadership team is getting paid, they should be working day and night and weekends.

I don't think they're going to lift the cap. We had a CIB meeting and they said that question came up constantly and that it wouldn't be lifted.

I think Tom is involved and maybe Tony too.