Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

@bqd+19abmKPR

To be fair to Charlie, he has not yet hit the two year mark and nothing was normal in the COVID year of 2020. Some honeymoon. Charlie does have excellent skills in working with regulators. The fact that little has changed on the regulatory front is more indicative of the giant hole that the entire cast of bad actors dug for Wells.

Sloan remains a key reason for our problems, regardless of whether he gave a (worthless) stock grant and a few more holidays. Of course things are worse for the employees and the stockholders. That is exactly why Charlie was hired... to clean it up.

Things are indeed much worse for employees, and will get worse when cost cutting really intensifies. Wells is going to be cleaned up and Charlie wasn’t here for the scandals that put us in 5e ditch.

1 day ago

The people saying that management has not been reduced probably don't work in management. I've seen a lot of management people shown the door. More in the last couple of years than I saw in the first decade plus I was with the company combined. Could more be cut? Sure, you could 200,000 team members and contract or automate or offshore pretty much everything, but that doesn't mean it'd be a good idea. I work so much more in management than I ever did as an IC or in supervisory roles, and it's not even close. Doesn't mean that there aren't management people out there that aren't doing much, but the stereotype of the manager with nothing to do is laughable. We have tons to do, and there's more every time another manager is laid off, just like there is in IC roles when their team gets smaller. People like to create this idea in their head that ICs and managers don't face similar challenges at work and I'm not sure why. We have much more in common than we have differences.

@woz+19abmKPR In all fairness, anything good at WFC was k–led long before Charlie. Charlie is here to clean up the mess and he deserves every penny.

The fact is Sloan had blood on his hands.

He was part of the exec mgmt team who turned a blind eye to the fleecing of our customers, supported policies that enabled and encouraged it, as well as the retaliation against anyone who tried to resist.

Honestly anyone who would even try and defend Sloan is extremely unethical, self absorbed, and has no credibility here.

Chainsaw Charlie

I mostly see vague talking points about why Charlie is so much better

1. Fact - precious little to nothing has changed on the regulatory front, one whole consent order of 11 was lifted due to work started years ago
2. Fact - 6000 front line type people are gone, at least 20 new senior level multimillion dollar positions were created net new. 6000 does nothing to reduce bloat, nearly nothing has changed with layers of management
3. Fact - on Scharf’s watch, the bank earned $4B less annually

At least with Sloan we as employees got a stock grant, two new personal holidays, new federal holidays, no bonus hatchet job and other cuts. Oh and he did actually sell a business unit, Retirement to Principal. All while the bank was profitable.

So foundationally, the facts of the banks situation have not changed. But things are much worse for employees. I look at the facts, not just talking point assumptions

I work with middle management pretty much daily, and let's just say that whether or not that group is "toxic" or a group that should be gotten rid of depends entirely on the LOB. In my neck of the woods middle management is the only group with the clout and the interest in preventing even more mass layoffs. It's upper management that is sending down the really c-appy decisions, like raise/bonus budgets and how they work, site closures, ideas on outsourcing and things of that nature. Again, this is just my group but if not for middle management we'd all be outsourced by now. Your LOB may differ.

@uwa+19abmKPR, great post.

I would only say he has started on the management bloat, the middle mgmt definity needs to go and is a good start but thing is they have a ton more to get rid of in Middle management. Hopefully this happens soon as they are the one's destroying the company. They are toxic beyond belief that middle layer of management so sure they make things painful as possible

Everything else on your assessment is right on target.

I’ll play

Charlie - good things:

Cleaning out old management

Focusing on core business and selling of non-core lobs

Focused on reducing expenses

Getting rid of toxic middle management bloat

Increases focus on regulatory issues

The bad:

Morale in the sh–ter

More cutthroat environment as fearful employees go into self preservation

Lack of progress on consent order

Sloan, good: nothing
Bad: everything. Part of the problem. Had to go.

@hrm+19abmKPR

The jury is still out on Charlie. But I would hate to have his job.

I’m more interested in hearing what you think the solutions are?

So Tim Sloan was disaster, but you provided zero examples of how Scharf is better.

Tim Sloan was a complete disaster who had his head in the sand and he was promptly and rightfully shown the door.

He was on the exec team when the worst of the fake account scandals were happening. It happened on his watch and he was part of the problem.

I would love to hear how all the armchair CEOs here think the bank needs to be run differently? Could you address how our ridiculously high expense ratio needs to be handled? What about the consent order? Also, the previous regime left us with antiquated technology infrastructure, remember the “AC malfunction that brought down an entire data center for a day...”

Ok let’s hear your solutions?

IMO he should have been cut more than that, he was already the highest paid in the sector and still didn't even do much 18 months-in, except bringing in his friends and laying off the lowly worker bees, that is.

I’ll just point out that Tim Sloan was CEO for a bit more than two years. He was criticized for not turning the company around fast enough. In September Scharf will have been here two years.

So far, the asset cap hasn’t been lifted, a single consent order has been lifted, gobs of his friends have gotten on the fat paycheck gravy train, he’s insulted people of color, laid off people, and found loads of ways to make employees miserable (stank ranking, making the 401k contribution at the end of the year only, endless reorganization). All facts.

I greatly prefer Tim Sloan, he at least didn’t make a point of making employees miserable.

@woz+19abmKPR, great post on this; sounds exactly on point.

The problem they have is the management they hired, they are gung ho to keeping company in the past. Until Charlie just entirely clears out management at all levels it will never succeed. The management working here today do not even see they are the cause of the company destruction. Pathetic.

I am not a fan of Charlie. I think he has k–led anything good at WFC. We have no culture and no sense of being part of something good. To that end, Charlie's base salary for 2020 is $2.5 million and his bonus was $4.35 million. His total CASH compensation is just under $7 million. The rest is WFC stock. For the stock to be received and valuable, the stock has to increase in value. Last I checked, the stock is worth under $30. Hopefully more people understand why his approach is the way it is. He makes bank only if he turns this place around, which in my opinion is highly unlikely.

I don't disagree that his cash compensation is exorbitant compared to the average compensation at WFC. It would be impossible to get someone remotely qualified to take the WFC CEO job and to sit through this mess to fix it. You may recall countless executives that passed on the role. Not even CEOs at smaller banks (USB and PNC) wanted the job. Scharf is in a c-appy situation and the only thing that is making it worthwhile is that he gets paid decently. He could be at BNY making less but enjoying life. It's a bet he decided to take and time will tell whether he will be successful. Personally, I think he will fail.

Too much baggage here, mismanagement, while our top competitors- JPM and BAC- are focused on growth and dealing with fintech. We are still trying to get out of regulators' doghouse. Until then, JPM, BAC, and fintechs will eat into our business and take many of our top performers. There is no individual loyalty to WFC anymore. The recent lack of raises, performance review stackranking, and changes to 401k benefits prove this point. I expect more comp/benefits changes and continued layoffs over the next 3-5 years.

The fall in Scharf's pay compares with a 36% drop in Goldman Sachs Chief Executive David Solomon's salary. WF performed worse than GS, so in fairness, Chainsaw should be happy with 40-50% cut, let alone a 12% cut.

He is still making millions. Don't expect sympathy from WF employees who will receive 1 - 2% pay increases that will be eaten up by inflation.

good over paid in a failing company; need to clean out the corrupt groups here and middle mgmt

Sorry Charlie!