Why can’t Charlie get that Federal Asset Cap lifted?

He’s been in charge for nearly two years. It seems he has focused on everything BUT getting the asset cap lifted. We have watched him hire all his friends for leadership positions, but no progress on removing the federal asset cap. We have watched him lay off our teammates and offshore American jobs - none of that helps us to progress towards removing the asset cap. Neither does his focus on DE&I, cost-cutting,, ranking employees, or sticking it to us with the annual 401K payout.

He has issued 2 new credit cards, entered the Bitcoin space with Jamie, and angered customers by making odd decisions like shuttering all personal lines of credit.

I don’t have my MBA from NYU, but I do understand that Wells Fargo’s NUMBER 1 PRIORITY should be to get the Federal Asset Cap removed. All focus should be on that goal. All decisions should take us closer to that goal. All leaders should be working together to accomplish that goal. Keep the business running, of course, but forget all the flowery bs and focus 100% on getting us out from under the asset cap.

Charlie was paid $20.4 million last year, but he isn’t worth a $1 if he can’t get us out from under the asset cap.

Comment! It's anonymous!

16 replies (most recent on top)

It will never be lifted.

Cos Stumpf and Sloan made such a monumental f*** up that they will go down in history infamous forever

Charlie is not a miracle worker but he will get it lifted

I'd force rank Scharf a 2 against the other CEOs. Probably shouldn't get a bonus.

Stumpf wasn't at WF when the asset cap was placed by regulators. He was the one who caused it but he couldn't have removed something not in place during his tenure.

Chainsaw also sold off a few profitable lines of business, again to make the balance sheet look better. Some other poor decisions have been made with him at the helm. He's "eaten up" all the low-hanging fruit, and I don't think much more is forthcoming from him. He's reacting instead of having a long-term strategy, except for the magical transformation of turning WF into a mutant version of JPM.

@reg almost accurate.

Charlie failing still benefits Charlie. He's already made >$54 Million from WF.

$54 Million that's mostly in the form of WFC stock.

He can destroy the bank while goosing the share price, pocket the windfall and leave the place in worse shape than when he arrived. All while coming out hundreds of millions richer.

"you say that you had nothing to do with the initial consent orders, but the sales practices were only the iceberg. remember, we're not talking about a singular issue that is causing the asset cap. the issues that were identified touched every aspect of how the company operates. so yeah, you were more than likely part of a department that had a deficiency."

Do all new hires double down on being wrong this much? I'm not interested in divulging my group, but trust me, I had nothing to do with anything that resulted in the asset cap or a consent order. Zero, zilch, nada. If you want to advocate firing every person that did, go right ahead, but stop lumping everyone that started before you together in your little blame game.

Post ID: @rid+1cKtGZ6f

No one WANTS Charlie to fail. Charlie failing benefits no one. But the bottom line, unfortunately, is that he IS failing. And keeping a CEO in place who isn’t focused on getting the asset cap removed harms all stakeholders, including you.

you say that you had nothing to do with the initial consent orders, but the sales practices were only the iceberg. remember, we're not talking about a singular issue that is causing the asset cap. the issues that were identified touched every aspect of how the company operates. so yeah, you were more than likely part of a department that had a deficiency.

if it was so easy to remove the asset cap, why didn't stumpf get out from under it in the 3 years that he oversaw the company during it? oh right, it happened on his watch!

as for being a jerk, sure, as all of you are being jerks against all of the leadership who really didn't create this mess that we're in. and it is two faced, you want to keep your job but you want the ceo to fail.

@rkf+1cKtGZ6f

You do realize that the vast majority of long time employees that are currently employed by WF had NOTHING to do with any scandal / consent order, right? Apparently not.

@rkf+1cKtGZ6f, please tell me exactly what I did. Also, demerits for being a jerk. I'd like to see you say this to someone's face. Anonymity has provided you the comfortability to say things to/about people you can't experience in the real world. So brave.

because you long time id--ts who screwed things up in the first place, screwed it up even worse than first believed. it isn't about charlie sweet talking the regulators, it is about fixing that world that all you people claim to have been much better times with better leadership, but was corrupt and law breaking.

Mainly because he hasn't dispatched Daley with enough briefcases full of cash to 'contribute' to the right people.

Cos there is still too much dead weight impeding the bank for making real progress

Charlie needs to rapidly accelerate efficiency initiatives and get rid of as much as red tape and fat as he can

Additionally, he has authorized spending $18 Billion on company stock buybacks, which is a poor use of capital. It is a smoke and mirrors artificial maneuver to temporarily inflate the stock price. All shareholders know the real and lasting stock price improvement occurs once we get out from under the asset cap.

All spending should be towards the goal of improving technology and fixing Compliance and Oversight.

Ask him.

Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Why can’t Charlie get that Federal Asset Cap lifted?

16 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply