From a socialist or income equality standpoint, Charlie Scharf may be signaling the right virtues.
However, the risk in today’s announcement is that top performers - and those slated for promotion - will bolt. That’s not the attrition we want. Unless you’re in a group with variable bonus targets (which really is only CIB Front Office and parts of WIM), you don’t have the incentive to go above and beyond - just survive until the cull is done.
@6pda+17MphqDt base salary.
Is the 150k total comp or just salary?
Didn't say that. Just said that the prior rationale for that at 200K and up was about the proportions of total comp - more (higher percentage) coming from deferred comp and less from cash It's not how they are going to make the folks in the 150-199 range "whole". Whether you get deferred comp depends on job family and level, not the salary. Most folks over 200K base are in one of those families. 150-199 not so much
The deferred comp pools have been flat to down the last three years also since those are still a cost to the firm and rise or fall like the cash bonus pool. So I am not counting on any joy there either.
I agree with @3zca, anyone who worked at Chase knows what’s coming and it is just getting started.
I saw it coming when I saw the people they were bringing in. Good luck to all.
it's basically a way to get rid of people in high cost areas like the Bay Area and NYC. It's sad because there're so many good ACs and QAC that are going to leave next year if that happens. Why accept 0% raise and maybe lower bonus when you can literally walk 1 block down and get a good offer with a FinTech? In my building I could get off on a different floor and there'll be a company willing to hire. We already have an issue attracting talent, and this is just going to make it impossible.
Good look Charlie. I'll be leaving immediately if I don't get a raise.
@3zca+17MphqDt i understand what you are saying, but is WF going to provide additional restricted stock options or deferred compensation, or are they simply just removing the merit increases? If it's just removing the merit increases, then your argument would not apply.
as someone else mentioned in this thread, this has been policy for several years already for 200K and up. major competitors have similar policies.
(promotions are different. This is about merit. there will still be bumps with promotion, as long as you are not already over midpoint in the new job grade. This is not new either)
The rationale for 200K+ has been that your financial fate should rise or fall with the company's results - higher proportion of comp is in restricted stock etc. And it's consistent with how bonuses were handled last year. the higher your base salary the lower the percentage of salary for the target IC was. And also de facto the folks in the 150-200 base pay were getting very small or no raises.
Lowering that threshold to 150 will probably make WF stick out as an outlier though.
Strap on your helmets folks. this ride has just begun. Talk to anyone who worked for Chase when they merged with bank one and the Jamie-Charlie train left that station. Many more moves to come.
who cares, i have another offer locked in so am good , no worries if what they decide on pay any longer
Why do we find out news like this from outside sources first? If your going to screw your employees the least you can do is own it and tell them...
My moral is high, because I stopped caring about this place.
for those that think it's ok and "it helps"- who exactly is this helping? the company? Charlie who makes an absurd amount? Gimme a break! This is just one more example of greed by our current leadership and antother drive for attrition, hoping higher compensated ee's may go elsewhere.
it's simple economics really, they're devaluing the value of your compensation bit by bit. If you stay too long, which I'm sure is their point.
I'm tired of how they're treating all employees, morale seems to be at an all-time low. Notice how they haven't sent out ANY company-wide surveys to measure? There's a reason for that.
November 11, everyone take PTO! Let’s show ‘the man’ who is really ‘the man’!!!!
There’s no internal way for employees to give feedback or ask questions. Morale is at an all time low. I guess every employee could coordinate or take the same day of PTO off, as a way to prove it’s the worker bees keeping the place running (not the overpaid CEO and his fraternity like friends from JPM). Let them try to figure it out for a day or two. And maybe they’ll have more appreciation.
This has been the de facto policy for employees $200k and up for years. I have no issue dropping it to $150k.
This affects me directly and I'm actually ok with it. I don't mind taking home a little less if it really helps folks out.
The best thing that happened at BNYMellon in the last year or so —- Charlie quitting and moving on to the next carcass. Sorry.
It's exactly like socialist economies. the people at the top, whether qualified or not, make sure to carve out exceptions for themselves and their friends, all the while stoking the peons (all 'employees') into fighting each other. They justify stealing from the middle class (in this case, top earners) to subsidize programs for lower earning brackets. If it's such a good thing, why don't they put themselves in that role? Why doesn't chuckles and the executive 'leaders' forfeit their salaries and compensation?
Right socialist virtues? Dude this is a bank. If a bank starts paying its tellers the same as its CEO it’s gonna go to sh–. Income equality is so dumb... you should get paid for the value you provide. If I bust my arse as a high paid employee why should I not get a raise.
Charlie is “on the ropes”. He has to start showing some “perceived value” for his salary soon.
One year down and nothing good to show for it. Unable to give any answers regarding cost cutting or status of the asset cap in the 3rd quarter earnings call. Stock down 60% and dividend slashed.
So he fidgets with the 401K and freezes salaries to give the illusion he’s hard at work behind the scenes. He leaks the news that we might be looking to sell 2 business units. Slight glimpses of small progress to hopefully hold the questions at bay. This is how I kept my parents and teachers at bay, during my teenage years, so I’m thoroughly familiar with the strategy.
They selling the cap as being fair/socialist when they’re just doing it to line their own pockets.
Nice try Charlie Chuckles
Post ID: @hmn+17MphqDt
Nobody is irreplaceable, including Charlie.
Guess I’d rather not get a raise than be one of the thousands out of a job on Thanksgiving.
let them bolt. nobody is irreplaceable.
I would give him an ounce of respect if he cut his salary 10%. But he and his cronies have contracts so all of this cost cutting has nothing to do with them
"Socialist standpoint".
Oh no, so scare.
Turn off Fox/OANN and the rest, it's a money thing.
This is a bank, a major financial institution, an American corporation, all they care about is shareholder value.
Or I'm wrong and Scharf is a socialist. LMFAO.
Generally I'm an "assume positive intent" kind of person, and I have no doubt that Wells Fargo needs to shed expenses in order to be competitive.
However, I totally reject the idea that "From a socialist or income equality standpoint, Charlie Scharf may be signaling the right virtues."
This is a bank. Charlie Scharf had a 2019 compensation package of $36M, approximately double of Tim Sloan's.
If he is striving for income equality, he needs to follow a Ben & Jerry's model of limiting executive compensation. If he's striving to bring people closer to socialist ideals, he needs to find a new industry entirely.
@fpk "I'm concerned about the amount of smart, productive people leaving this company."
cause how has that worked out for ya?
I'm concerned about the amount of smart, productive people leaving this company.
Maybe it's an attrition play. But if lack of a raise makes you leave, then you were already undervaluing your market rate. Yes, please go out and see what happens.
They want you to leave. Attrition and no salary continuation
I hear ya, but the term “virtue” is used loosely. Hard to send signals about certain virtues when you are getting paid $36,400,000.