Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

OP here.

I wish you good luck with everything.

OP.

I am just being realistic here. I hate what's going on but it's the same stuff posted here day in and day out. Charlie s—s! This is what a real leader would do. The cards have been dealt and I'm playing my hand the best I can and right now I'm limping in to see the flop.

The board made their decision and with the revolving door of leaders in the last 5 years they can't afford to cut losses just yet otherwise they look inept and start losing their seats in the next election cycle.

I'm not dumb enough to plow everything I have into this stock but I see an opportunity to juice returns.

OP here:

To Post ID: @1nvi+17jSYyzC

I’ve copy and pasted my reply from another thread, but will adjust and supplement to answer you specifically:

The Board should responsibly provide the bank’s shareholders with more than a one-trick pony for $36,500 million. We have the highest paid bank CEO in the industry, who has so far, only displayed one skill set. For that amount of money, we should get a CEO who can do more than one thing. A CEO who can achieve fundamental change. It does not show good judgement on any person’s part to accept or support Charlie’s leadership style. He received some good commentary when he accepted the job, but I’m not seeing much praise now. Sometimes a good BOD has to cut their losses.

There are plenty of CEOs out there who can manage layoffs, create efficiencies, rally the troops and transform the business at the same time. At the end of the day, Charlie has to turn a profit. And good luck doing that consistently, with low employee morale.

It is our CEO who keeps making the front page this past year for the bank’s ongoing and worsening problems: we are still in hot water with regulators, we completely failed with the SBA PPP loans, stock price cut by more than half, dividend cut by 80%, we reported a loss in the second quarter (I don’t think our competition did, but will research if necessary), the mortgage forbearance issue, loaded up the C-Suite with only white privileged man. Come on. It would be foolish to let it continue.

Shareholders deserve better than this. And so do we. Not sure what is in it for you to accept and support a barely engaged leader with an insufficient plan. But every one of us should be pushing for better.

Regarding your options:

1. I would rather push for change with our new CEO. Or push for a different CEO. I’m not the one who has done anything wrong.
2. This is a good recommendation. But it doesn’t do anything to create change for all the friends/employees/shareholder/customers who deserve better than they’re currently getting.
3. Not taking it personally. That is strange commentary. I always strive to do what is right, and not just for myself. You go for it, but I would not put a dime in to Wells Fargo stock until I see a lot more than just cost-cutting as a strategy. I watched too many new eager employees and leaders pile into Wachovia stock when a new CEO hit the deck, and because the stock had come down to “such a great price”, and they lost everything, including their jobs. They had their blinders on and couldn’t see the forest for the trees. If a worked for a well-run company than maybe. Here, that is not a responsible suggestion.
4. Not enough money, but we can write letters. We can contact the media.
5. Best suggestion of the bunch.

You call it complaining. I call it not settling for anything less than what we deserve. I don’t think encouraging the team to accept a toxic environment is right. I would like to encourage and inspire employees and shareholders to be catalysts for change. I would like to portray a vision of what the right CEO should look like, and for what the future of the organization should look like. Our CEO isn’t doing it, so we should.

Please explain how the board is not handling their fiduciary responsibilities by leaving Charlie at the helm. I get what you are saying and I dislike the toxicity.

But the options are.

1. Quit now
2. Look and quit when you have something.
3. Wait it out for the perfect CEO by working hard and doing what is right and not taking it personally. All the while piling money into to the stock while it's on sale only to come out the other side with 2x your money.
4. Buy enough stock to influence the board or find an activist investor to jump in and do it.
5. Wait for your "package" and ride off into the sunset while giving the double 1 finger solute to the building as you drive away.

Coming here and complaining ain't going to change anything.

I'm debating between 2 and 3 myself. Not dumb enough to do #1, never going make #4 happen and #5 only gives me 60 days notice + 60 days additional pay.

Right or wrong, I’m not a “embrace a toxic situation” person. And I have done more than a good job for years, which is why it is so frustrating to see clearly incompetent leaders be allowed to stay at the helm. I think we should be pushing for change.

I have an analogy and a recommendation:

Analogy: A friend took a voluntary layoff from another company last year. Old job was stressful and she was ready for a change and some time off to reevaluate. Then the pandemic hit and finding a job she really wanted was difficult. So she took an “okay” job, which was better than nothing, but kept looking for the job she had always hoped for. It took some time, but she recently was extended an offer for a fantastic job which is the perfect fit for her, and she has accepted.

Recommendation: Our Board had a difficult time finding the right CEO for the job. At the time, they were under tremendous pressure to finally pick someone (anyone?) because we had gone 6 months without a CEO. Charlie is the “okay” CEO, better than nothing. But if our Board is smart, and fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities, they should still be looking for the CEO who will be the perfect fit.

@nkq+17jSYyzC @pgl+17jSYyzC

No one wanted the job! Wasn't he like number 5 or so to be considered?

There are very few leaders that would want to come in and execute 25% of the staff.

I'm not saying I like what's happening but its here so might as well embrace it by putting my head down and doing a good job.

Charlie is going to fix our efficiency ratios and get the cap lifted. Doing so will skyrocket our stock. At the same time (3 to 4 years for us to see ROI from his initial work), Jamie Dimon will retire from Jpm, handing Charlie the keys to the kingdom. C Suite will follow him to JP Morgan and THEN we may get a humane CEO. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

I agree with the idea of replacing Charlie now with a CEO capable of doing both: creating efficiencies while also showing employees what working for a well-managed company should look like. He already collected his big payday in 2019. Give employees and shareholders what we need and deserve.

BOD should be looking for our next CEO now, and move Charlie out. It would be a win-win for literally everyone.

There are plenty of CEOs who have managed all aspects of transforming a S&P 500 company from a losing state into a healthy state, excelling in the development of new products, services and business models; repositioning itself vs it’s competitors and improving it’s financial performance.

Charlie, unfortunately, has not shown himself to be that leader. Charlie is in crisis-management mode, rather than recognizing the moment as an opportunity for fundamental change.

For years Wall Street b–ched about how much Costco paid their employees.

Sam's Club pays less for the same work.

Costco has happier employees and does more business than Sam's Club.

It's not just about happy employees, but happy employees do better work and more of it.

Wells is not well run and Charlie is not here to make it well run, just to restore ROI for the shareholders.

The next CEO would be the guy to fix things and we don't know when she'll be here.

@qdq: Just because you keep saying it, does not mean it is the best and only option. Try thinking outside the box. Charlie is making $36.5 million to execute a $1million job, at most.

It Is not ok for you, or anyone else, to be content with the lack of leadership. I can’t even imagine why you would. It is not responsible to sell the company line which is to accept a low standard for our leaders.

If people feel good about where they work, and employee morale is high, attrition does not happen. Attrition plays a huge part in WF's plans for downsizing. The more people who leave voluntarily lowers the cost of severance and holding over employees 60 days until the notice expires.

I'll say it again.

This CEO is here to do 3 things.

1. Chop off heads.
2. Thin the herd.
3. Put people in place that can execute 1 and 2 while keeping the boat afloat.

Once that is done he'll be replaced by the long-term guy that hopefully fits what you describe.

Quote all the HBR books you want there is a time and place for what's being done here. Now is the time and this is the place.

Too many years of mismanagement, empire building, scandals and lack of investment in digital have led to this mess. Now we have to pay the piper or we all die.

100% agreed.

From Harvard Business Review:

Employee disengagement is costly. Disengaged workers have 37% higher absenteeism and 60% more errors. In organizations with low employee engagement, they experienced 18% lower productivity, 16% lower profitability, and 65% lower share price over time.

Charlie is only focusing on who and what he can cut from where. He is completely ignoring/neglecting the remaining 75% who are going to serve our customers and help bring the company back to a position of profitability.

Disengaged CEO = disengaged employees = unhappy customers (with plenty of other choices as to where to take their business) = low or no profits = disappointed shareholders and lower stock price = an impending train wreck, unless something (or someone) changes.

They are all short-timers. CS, SVB, and MN are all cut from the same cloth. They don't have a clue. They do know how to get hired at an outrageous salary with intentions of only being at a company for 1-2 years. They don't really have to do anything, but collect their big, fat paychecks and then move on to the next company.

Well, they do not care about their brand or reputation! They proved that with the fake accounts scandal. Time to GTFO.

The leadership team comes across as simply enjoying that your fate is in their hands and the power that they have. This is the new culture that they have brought. “We are superior” is their mentality. Heck. Charlie came out and said it with his “unconscious” bias statement. And I don’t buy it was “unconscious”.

Besides the obvious responsibility of running the business, I think that tending to employee morale and stewarding the company culture are also nearly just as important responsibilities – of which, Scharf and our senior leadership have completely dropped the ball.

I couldn’t agree more. It is disappointing.

Very well written and very true - refreshing change of pace for the board.