https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wells-fargos-likely-role-archegos-102944421.html JP
14 replies (most recent on top)
Once again, WFC falls short in the ethics department.
This is on the down-low, but I hear that Wells Fargo is also eager to lend billions to Kenneth Lay, Bernie Ebbers, Bernie Madoff and Dennis Kozlowski. Shhh 🤫.
Post ID: @lmu+1a7STjzI
I would have said the error was doing business with someone who pleaded guilty to a criminal fraud charge and agreed to pay $44 million to settle civil allegations by U.S. securities regulators for. engaging in insider trading. But that’s just me.
Apparently you have low standards and thus should do very well at Wells Fargo. Good for you.
The error would have been a lack of collateral. That was not the case. Wells liquidated the collateral without any loss.
I don’t think you understand banking very well if you don’t understand that
Post ID: @fnj+1a7STjzI
And your experience in banking is what? You read the headlines/PR statement and don’t look any further? Come on now: I would think if you have the arrogance to post your daily bs - you would want to make sure you have more experience and knowledge than you appear to.
See all official comments by John Stumpf, Tim Sloan, Carrie Toldstedt, Betsy Duke.
If you have a problem/mistake/error in judgement which could have just as easily yielded a loss: it is still considered an error and a risk event even if you get lucky (this time) and break even or profit from it. An error is an error. Obviously it is better that we did not yield a loss, but it should still be looked in to. Someone at the firm did not do their due diligence on this account, or someone knew the risk and approved it. Not sure which is worse.
Statement by WF - I guess risk did their job.
“We had a prime brokerage relationship with Archegos. We were well collateralized at all times over the last week and no longer have any exposure. We did not experience losses related to closing out our exposure" the company noted.
Why were we doing business with a convicted white collar criminal? Apparently we need some more controls around reputation risk.
Man, this post was a little premature like most of the posts on here huh?? No losses and WF already made a statement confirming that. Sorry to all you doom and groomers out there. You’ll have to wait until the next time your manager reschedules a 1:1 to overreact to something.
I love how the Wells hater trolls are desperate to make this something more than it is
yawn
Move along. Nothing to see here
The JPM analyst statement was made before Wells’ statement that it suffered no losses.
Could there be regulatory scrutiny? Sure in this environment. But “you didn’t take any losses when other banks did” is a weird basis for scrutiny.
Press release says no loss, fully jettisoned, controls worked...
The result of decades of mismanagement, inadequate procedures, flawed policy and mountains of technical debt.
How many more of these are out there.
The fact they fired head of corporate treasury is extremely telling.
Compounded by radio silence means this might actually be epic and they in damage control mode.
Will it be 1B of profits wiped out? 5B? 20B?
wow......cuckies head might be on platter soon....
I’ll be interested to learn more, but I’ll put good money on the fact that a probe reveals inadequate controls on our part. There are inadequate controls throughout the whole firm. I see it in our department alone. Checks and balances are passed from employee to employee, with all the reorg, and important facts get lost in the transmission. Depts are short-handed, managers can’t manage because they’re in 24/7 meetings, can’t get the technology we need.
We need a combination of good technology plus experienced people who know what to look for. It can’t be one without the other.