Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

I’m officially calling it: Charlie is on his way out.

I’m not claiming to be the first to call it - but I think the sentiment is building against him, similar to what was happening at the time with Stumpf and Sloan. It’s happening.

I’ve been in the industry for a long time and have learned that the old saying “Where there is smoke, there’s fire” is more often true than not.

First: I heard a rumor that my old firm AG Edwards was up for sale. I said “No way our CEO just promised the company officers publicly that we are not for sale.” The sale to Wachovia happed one month later. (In hindsight, all the signs were clearly there.)

Second, there were daily rumors that Wachovia was going under. Wachovia denied all the rumors, the new CEO bought $16 million worth of stock personally to show his faith in the bank, the public was told only 2% of WCHV’s outstanding loans were bad. Additionally, I don’t know that I can properly describe it, but there was this frenzied vibe within the bank, in that we were watching odd decisions being made - it wasn’t all adding up. 2 weeks later, WCHV ceased to exist.

A little bit older and wiser, I knew Stumpf was a goner after his (terrible) interview with Cramer. He was so incredibly narcissistic and out of touch with reality. I was not the only one who said it, but there were many on the inside who fiercely denied it up until his final day.

We watched sentiment starting to build against Sloan: He was criticized for spending $billions on stock buybacks and failed marketing campaigns, and for not being aggressive or quick enough in addressing regulatory concerns. He made big promises (like Charlie), but was unable to pull them off. WFC started being in the news again weekly for new scandals, new fines and failure to address regulatory concerns. Sloan, similar to Stumpf, was not properly prepared to testify before Congress. And right or wrong, Elizabeth Warren started calling for his resignation. He was forced to resign.

We are seeing much of the same today: failure to address regulatory concerns as expected, letters to the Board about Charlie’s performance relative to his pay structure, WFC back in the news weekly with new fines and new restrictions, the Federal Reserve Chairman speaking out about the asset cap remaining in place “until the bank has fixed it’s multiple problems”, Warren publicly calling for the bank to be broken up, Charlie showing questionable judgement in spending the bank’s capital on stock buybacks thus lining his own pockets, instability at the top ranks (newly hired execs leaving with no explanation), poorly thought-out decisions being made and then retracted, and more. Each event, by itself, isn’t all that convincing. But all of it together adds up to only one conclusion.

I don’t know if he resigns or is let go, but I definitely think the ball is rolling.
Let me know your thoughts.

by
| 4106 views | | 28 replies (last October 1, 2021) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1d5aRxg1

28 replies (most recent on top)

When do all his options vest? I'll give it a month after that. Oh, and this assumes he's done all the damage he can. Hostile Take-over from Within.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1mxh+1d5aRxg1

It really makes you wonder if Charlie figured it was worth ending his career for $50 Million.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @elj+1d5aRxg1

Charlie was never qualified for the job... he was a last resort from the cr-p BOD. Lower your expectations cuz there won't be any changes soon unless a major scandal, not the everyday type, happens.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wnm+1d5aRxg1

@sxj

I've studied what they been doing….

You have been studied Charlie for a long time too. Still sore that he does not care about you?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zan+1d5aRxg1

OP here. Some good points coming back.

Agree with it not being so brave to make an official call on an anonymous site. Hopefully it makes sense that I do not want to identify myself given my POV. The thought hit me yesterday and I felt the urge to state my case and share. There are a few trolls out here, but mostly good employees who are trying their best to get it right and wanting the same from our leadership. They are who I want to commune with.

I really related to Post ID: @ilg+1d5aRxg. Glad to know someone feels the way I do!

Also - some good points about the BOD being in a pickle with Charlie. And someone pointing out that Warren called for the bank to be broken up because yet another CEO doesn’t seem likely to solve the problem.

Agree with the comments saying that Charlie never intended to stay for the long term and he was in it for the fast money and wanted the notch on his resume that “he saved the bank” but Covid has interfered with his plans.

So, ultimately- I am agreeing with the person who said he is going to resign in 2022. I do think the sentiment is building against him and he knows it. It’s not turning out like he planned, he is not wanting for his name to go down with the bank and he will try to find a way to walk away and still save face.

Best of luck to us all.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @btt+1d5aRxg1

And take SVB with you, Charlie! Please and thank you.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jqu+1d5aRxg1

Everyone here knows Charlie so well. Know exactly what he will do and when he will do it.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dwc+1d5aRxg1

He's going to exit voluntarily. His ego can't take the scrutiny. His followers will do the same and jump ship.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @pdk+1d5aRxg1

Officially calling it on an anonymous chat board? The bravery….

I agree with some of the other posts, he can’t be ousted without a replacement. An interim CEO solves nothing. But who would be willing to take over this dumpster fire?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @umi+1d5aRxg1

Breaking up and gone. That’s Wells future. No more Charlie and no more employees either. All are worthless!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zba+1d5aRxg1

Stumpf’s internal “retirement” exit talk with Carrie Tolstedt was it for me. Shade shade shade… a week later sales was announced.
September 2016 if I recall correctly… it’s been so long without any comeuppance — I just can’t keep any of it straight anymore.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @byx+1d5aRxg1

Fingers crossed!!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zvg+1d5aRxg1

He thought he could just waltz into this broken complex federated enterprise and swing an ax and get things done.

Doesnt work like that - its just too complicated, there is too much turf protection, and lower managers can rebel against senior management - discreetly - without necessary compliance.

I think Warren is correct - the best solution is to nationalize the bank, the fed comes in and seizes the enterprise and then executes the "living will" to ki-l it.

They cannot fix it - Chainsaws sole focus has been cutting heads and stonk buybacks.

He even said as much "I cannot imagine a time without the asset cap" - he has no intention of fixing it. None.

And Warren is now calling out his bullsh!t.

I've studied what they been doing with monthly cuts - they've slowed some - the plan it appears was RTO, a lot of people would drop off the employment rolls, and then 1 quarter earnings explosion, chainsaw would cash out and retire.

Covid has ruined those plans.

Chainsaw doesnt want his own brand tarnished by this place - he might come out and say he wants to focus on family - like he did with Visa - or that he has some kind of health condition (probably a paper cut) that he has decided to retire.

Then this place goes down for good.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @sxj+1d5aRxg1

You must forget about the revolutionary 2% cash back Active Cash credit card. FINALLY there is a card without the stagecoach on it, appealing to those that hated horses and avoided WF credit cards before. I think he'll stay to enjoy the great success of that product.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @lln+1d5aRxg1

Charlie never wanted to be with WF beyond 2 years (3 yrs max). He was in it for fast money.

He told all his hired cronies it was a quick buck, too. Look at all of the top heavy execs feeding at the WF carcass. You think people like Daley, who worked in the White House (!) and was in the room w/govt. elites during Bin Laden capture, wants to be at WF for anything but quick money? Major step down to be a glorified janitor. He'd rather be fully retired counting his millions.

Scharf wants to leave if he can (i.e., BOD agrees to terms that allow him to save face). But without a replacement in place or imminent, that would look odd. And it would tank WF stonk valuation.

If BOD fires him, they have exactly the same problem. No one wants the job because the bank is a mess, is on govt. hit list, and Scharf likely got the last of the ridiculously sweet compensation deals.

WF deserves to be broken up.

WF has proven time and time again that it is too big to manage.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @awl+1d5aRxg1

Charlie ain't succeeding in accomplishing anything SUBSTANTIAL or RELEVANT to WF success. He's repeating his BNY playbook, hoping for a different result -- but everyone should expect "Highway to He-l" as the soundtrack for this train wreck.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rsw+1d5aRxg1

Post ID: @ilg+1d5aRxg1

Well said!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cjw+1d5aRxg1

Can we get a better leader please?! Maybe someone who understands change management, transformation, and leadership? This company needs life blown in and an overhaul. It's not impossible to fix, but we need someone who listens to the boots on the ground, in the grind and give them the autonomy to make a difference. Our leaders need to be inspirational, transparent, and practical. We need to get rid of the box checker middle management. If you're a manager, have 1:1s, know your people, care. Keep my bonus, but give me the ability to stay remote if I want. And if you want to transform, listen to your people and give then the autonomy to make decisions. Scrum is supposed to be flexible. It would make sense if some necessary bank functions were just agile/lean instead. We need not just process improvements but an overhaul bank-wide. We have the ability to be great, give us the f*cking opportunity to be.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ilg+1d5aRxg1

I can see it. But also think Post ID: @yvf+1d5aRxg1 made some good points. After reading his/her POV, I think that explains why Warren is calling for the bank to be broken up rather than for Scharf to be replaced. Replacing BOD and CEOs hasn’t solved the problem in 5 years. A fourth CEO just means starting all over again with more time passing. Breaking up the bank is the only solution in her eyes.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ael+1d5aRxg1

This is the best news in days! Even if it’s not true, it gives me hope. At least it’s more logical than the schizophrenic RTO messages coming from SP each day, so that’s saying something.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @vtz+1d5aRxg1

Cool story

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @eyt+1d5aRxg1

@yvf+1d5aRxg1 It is not THAT bad!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @kef+1d5aRxg1

As I've been posting, he will certainly be gone in 22. But as of late, it is beginning to appear that it will happen soon after the New Year. I expect it to be voluntary.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @vjo+1d5aRxg1

They couldn't even get any candidates who wanted the CEO job when the were replacing Sloan! Nobody wanted to be CEO of this circus even with a $20M salary. He's not going anywhere. Buckle up, Buttercups and get on the Charlie Train!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gxh+1d5aRxg1

I gonna read my tea leaves then we will
compare notes

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @fce+1d5aRxg1

Your crystal ball needs cleaning

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qrh+1d5aRxg1

The Board can't afford to let Charlie fai; if he goes they'll all replced by the institutional shareholders, the regulators will be through with us, and WF becomes either a breakup or takeover target. It's basically ride or die with Charlie at this point.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @yvf+1d5aRxg1

I don’t know that the Board has any good options if and when Charlie leaves, but I 100% agree. I think the bank is in a pickle either way.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zqn+1d5aRxg1

Post a reply

: