Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

@5gij+18OJJcNv

What does this even mean?

Post ID: @1mzr+18OJJcNv

Sorry, none of that means that banking is a monopoly. Economics is interesting, but these common Economics terms do have specific meanings. Even the fact that banking becomes intertwined with politics does not indicate a monopoly.

If you’re interested enough to comment and discuss this on a Lay Off board of all places you surely have enough interest to take a few economics, finance and accounting courses. You could better yourself, make more money and understand the industry in which you are employed. I studied all of his extensively at both the undergraduate and post graduate levels. Beyond a fascinating career I greatly enjoy understanding how this all works.

I hope that you consider this advice.

Here I think that WF might be the next Ma Bell, when it comes to a strictly democratic congress/presidency and the change in tune from regulators. I’d hold off on thinking it’s all clear until we get a tone check from the new legislative branch...

BS, lol. Bless your heart. Everyone with a pulse has one at this point, so you might want to keep working on that. Those specialized niches that are 'perfect competition' are exactly why there's minimal risk of 'tech' moving in and taking those elements of banking over. Big banks will be with us for a very long time. Beyond the benefits of economy of scale, they've entertwined themselves with government, regulatory systems, the FRB etc. sufficiently to ensure their place in the economy. Sure, every once in a while a larger bank fails, but that's hardly the end of big banks. Of course survival and whether something is a worthy investment are different questions. Like most major sectors, investing in banking has a time and place, depending on the objectives of the investor. Is it the best investment right now? For most, probably not, but these things are cyclical. In any event, having excess capital is clearly better than having insufficient capital, and it's hardly a harbinger of impending insolvency or a tech takeover.

@shk+18OJJcNv Talks a good game but has no idea whatsoever regarding what a monopoly actually is. Banking and financial services are far from being a monopoly. Indeed the big banks would have to be considered as an Oligopoly but there are Credit Unions, investment managers, mortgage originators, financial advisors, asset managers, and more..l many of which could only be considered to be perfect competition.

I think that the OP, possibly with his spanking newly minted University of Phoenix Associates Degree, is mixing up the thousands of banking entities with the fact that they are all doing specializing in different niches.

It’s exactly like auto repairs. Big names, small mom and pops, independent garages, roadside assistance, car sales. All helping people to service, buy or lease their cars with different sets of parts and services. The fact that all of them service auto owners does not make them a monopoly, but actually perfect competition.

OP, if you’re going to work in banking or financial services get a BS in Business including Economics, Accounting, Finance, Management and Technology. That’s an expected core curriculum. If you don’’t have a degree and/or still don’t know what the words mean then just be quiet.

Better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt about it.

I didn't say I was investing in anything. Might want to modify the reading comp settings on your "tech". To answer your question though, banking has something of a monopoly in certain areas, and that won't be changing any time soon. "Tech" is not an industry that takes things over as much as it's what people in all industries use to compete, and it's always been that way, the technology in question just changes. All the big banks use plenty of technology and the vast majority of money they moves already is "digital", not cash. It's been that way a long time. The banks aren't sitting around dolling out gold dust or anything. They'll adopt useful new tech as it comes along, always have. If you look at the history of bank failures, you won't find "didn't adopt new tech fast enough" as a root cause in very many of them, and the primary reasons for that is, that they do, for the most part, and that they have a kind of monopoly on the practice of banking.

@hwr+18OJJcNv, are you a nuts?

who on earth would invest in any banks now. Tech stocks going up non stop.

Future is tech, all currency will be digital for banks that want to survive. FinTechs to take over this space. They call them 'FinTech's' for a reason. I would suggest you get some training in investing if you plan to do it so we don't have to worry about you.

I'm just here to watch people be mad that WFC has "to much money".

Post ID: @osv+18OJJcNv

Even people in the Fed have said that it's become punitive at this stage. Hopefully the other 10 issues will be resolved this year.

Or they could reinvest in the business. Tech is sorely lacking and I'm not in Tech.

Google: WF consent orders for your answer

I don't invest in banks now, everything I do is Tech IPO only right now

This part is intriguing to me:

First, they got rid of the CEO who had presided over the bank during all the scandals, and replaced him with someone else internally. The Fed said, "No, that's not good enough."

Now that they finally have a new CEO, Charlie Scharf, pretty much a brand-new management team, they've overhauled the Board, they've made big changes to the incentive structures that were really the root cause of the problem in the first place.

It's tough for me to make the argument that they haven't made enough changes. I mean, what does the Fed want them to do? Change their name?

Other than what they've done, I really can't think of how they would overhaul their business anymore, other than actually selling themselves to a competitor or something like that. I think there's a high probability that that gets removed in 2021.

Wells Fargo wasn't forced to cut it's dividend Chainsaw did that voluntarily. Now he can use artificial stock price momentum from increasing the dividend to show he is accomplishing something. Just another shell game.