What are your thoughts?
10 replies (most recent on top)
Where was rick?
Still no accountability for Walt or the EC? Instead Schwab has become a place where consequences are put on employees (with layoffs, cut compensation) but spoils are given to executives with $5M-$20m salaries.
It’s all the Fed’s fault! Never seen a CEO blame so many other things/people for his bad decisions.
If you don’t change executive leadership, how do you expect to get better results?
And you know Walt or a lackey of his watches this board when he defensively and angrily states that "it's not true" that the problems started with the bond fiasco. Well, let's do a "but for" analysis shall we?
This is the same Walt who said in October a $100M expense action would not be material and needing announcement. The same Walt who said we'd print money with 5% interest rates. The same Walt who said we needed to align remote work with commitments and that we'd have managers and staff do that - weeks later he would disclose months of work to have everyone come in even if there were no individual, team or business benefit.
Bonds were only a latter event. Failing most prior mergers, purchasing TD, putting our company at risk of interest rate changes, assuming customers were too d-mb to move their assets, allowing toxic managers to come in and legacy managers to remain devoid accountability or success.
Walt epically announced that he and the board didn't care if employees whined or complained or raised legitimate issues as part of the RTO fallout. And that's fine. He's shown that he doesn't care about surveys that the company pay through the nose to process. I don't believe for a moment that they read this board. Nor that they care. They may get a summary from HR, but this week's presentation left no doubt.
There was a time Chuck cared. But that, like him, changed long ago. Now we have a bitter group of wealthy overlords and angry employees. Technical and business debt met cultural ruin and animus.
Lastly, RTO wasn't to be restrictive. Really? What was the percentage - 18.42 something? 50 miles? People having to come in off-shift when literally no one else is in the office? Teams that are in multiple offices so they can sit in shared spaces on video with overbooked conference rooms? No manager discretion or effort to bring people together with travel or relocation.
It wasn't meant to be restrictive indeed. It was meant to be soul crushing and arbitrary for a greater purpose. That purpose has nothing to do with performance, culture or employees.
And you know Walt or a lackey of his watches this board when he defensively and angrily states that "it's not true" that the problems started with the bond fiasco. Well, let's do a "but for" analysis shall we?
And just to be clear — Jamie Dimon originally said 5 days and he's back to 3 - same with Goldman. Only 6% of CEOs are doing 5 days. Pretty telling that Walt did not state that we will not be required to do 5. Also, what a liar — 20% of employees were NOT approved remote. More like 1%. WAFJ.
@upk+1qH8vI04 Who are the largest individual shareholders? The EC of course.
Where was Rick??
This going to be ICE AGE , winter is just a start.
We can’t adjust employee bonuses after one of the worst years we’ve had in decades (in large part due to our failure to predict interest rate hikes in the face of the worst inflation in decades) because we’d be taking from our shareholders…So shareholders > employees. Remember that.
What an absolute joke. There are so many topics to call BS on, but the line I'll sink my teeth into was, "RTO was never meant to be restrictive".
Are they serious with that?! Who - seriously, who - is buying this? They literally told us what days to be in the office, and there has been no flexibility even when asking specifically to WFH for an afternoon because of a kid's Dr. appointment. I cannot believe they used that exact example when WFH was 100% denied for that exact situation.