Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

@dwc+1qwjxRXs

That just proves that both the Schartman and the BOD have been lying about putting the firms risk and control environment and addressing the regulatory problems. Sounds like you are saying that they are misleading investors who expect a certain level of growth after a certain amount of time.

After five years, you would think the asset cap would be lifted, and progress would be made on that front. All these quarterly calls about how the CEO and senior leadership are laser focused on our risk and control environment. Was he lying about this? Why would this have been the statement of the beginning of every public call? The bank cannot grow without the asset cap being lifted. Sounds very misleading. There are so many other ways to increase efficiency and productivity versus cutting heads count. I’m not surprised!

WHAT A Schart!

#WFC
#2025
#2026
#2024
#2023
#SenileSeniorLeaderahip
#WellsFargoProblems

WF is very broken and not an attractive M&A target.

It reported good profits last few quarters because of the rate hikes, not because of top line growth or improved efficiency.

There is no clear coherent strategy to bring the bank back to a functioning bank.

CS is responsible for destroying this bank, when he was hired and paid $$$ millions to fix it.

Just wait.

@xlo
Q. "At what point do the regulators get frustrated with the progress?"

A: Regulators don't care if there's progress. They'll just keep the asset cap in place to prevent wide-scale damage. They would like WF to be broken up -- they just don't want to be the ones to have to do it.

So, if WF buckles under the weight of the asset cap and ends of breaking themselves up, regulators will be quite content.

This is the understood stand-off.

WF will not win. Employees will not win. But Scharf will get his 30 pieces of silver, as promised.

@exg+1qwjxRXs

If they reach a point that Hudson Yards is the last option left to move people to, at that point they’ve sold everything they want to sell and don’t need to force anybody else in to juice rent rolls. At that point they’ll off-shore the jobs that they can, and those they can’t will be allowed to work remote. I imagine they’ll still maintain a few leases in big hubs for the jobs that require face-time with clients.

The earnings numbers come out tomorrow. Add when he does the quarterly earnings calls if you care to take time to read the transcripts he is certainly always transparent about what he plans to do with the people, but he hedges completely when it comes to the asset, Cap being listed, and actually act really defensive and unprofessional. I think people on this thread have had it right they have no intention of getting this lifted.

There are banking laws in place that limit M&A on deposits. No banking entity can buy Wells Fargo’s deposits. Only a non-bank entity that wants to become a bank can do so.

@bwh+1qwjxRXs

Spot on, except they won't allow you to go to a different hub eventually. They don't want plebes in Hudson Yards.

Wow juicing the rent rolls I didn’t think of that

At what point do the regulators get frustrated with the progress?

It makes me wonder if that’s ultimately what RTO push is really about. Get everyone used to having to go back into an office, and then stop renewing leases and consolidate as much as possible into the buildings we own. Juice the reporting numbers for how many people are in those, then sell them for whatever they can get to some su---r. They do this knowing even if the sale price is a huge drop from their value pre-pandemic, it’s still more than they’re going to be worth long-term, as it’s based off in-office numbers that were forced and artificial. Then eventually they’re able they exit those leases too, and ta da, they managed to cut costs long-term without being left with the liability of owning a bunch of worthless empty office buildings. Employees currently being needlessly forced into leased office spaces in non-hub localities where we currently don’t own any buildings is done with the intent to avoid getting sued for inconsistent enforcement of RTO policies, and to keep up the appearance of a company-wide commitment to RTO for eventual potential buyers of our properties. Once those leases can be ended, the employees in those localities will either be asked to relocate to a hub where we own the building, or let go.

Why would a quality broker work with WF considering that the firm cannot function while hamstring by regulators? I have a moral issue with a firm that has done so much damage to consumers that it is bared from growing. Why make your jobs harder and expose clients to potential risk? That's id--tic. Care about your clients.

@elr+1qwjxRXs

As many scandals as there have been, the overwhelming majority of customers have not been personally screwed over by us, at least not in a way that is substantial to them. Until we do something to upset them personally, I think most people are too complacent to bother going through the slight hassle of switching banks over a scandal they weren’t personally impacted by.

Now, I’m sure the scandal certainly makes it harder for us to acquire new customers, but it’s not like that’s something we can grow substantially under the asset cap anyway.

What have we sold off to JPM date? Why do you think that would happen?

I've felt this way from the beginning of Scharf's reign. They are not even trying in earnest anymore. Talk about gaslighting! It's sad so few can see it for what it is. Maybe they will in hindsight.

@jbl
Q: "Then why do they keep spending on new products and services? Why are they improving technology?"

A: WF has to keep things afloat and attractive enough for eventual buyers. Ultimately, just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

Exactly. RCSA is smoke and mirrors, signifying nothing. WF is vapor.

"In BOD's eyes, CS is exceeding in the mission"

100% spot on with the above sentence! The CEO and the BOD's are all on the same page. He is just doing what they brought him in to do. Like it or not, this CEO will be around for a long time. He has a lot more to accomplish.

No, that's not their sole focus, they are intentionally wasting billions of $. That isn't helping make the company profitable. Just the opposite.

Then why do they keep spending on new products and services? Why are they improving technology?

@elr

The only number that matters is stock price. So, no, WF is not a going concern.

The desperate buybacks are proof of panic over stock price.

Maybe chainsaw is cutting down all the dead trees in preparation for the cap being lifted

I agree with all but the last line. WF as a company is a going concern. It continues to make its numbers. It is uncanny how "clients" stick with this bank.