So hear me out - why do we think that moving Bank Audit / SLOD. Etc around and into Bank is a move? What could this mean ? Not being sarcastic but what is the end game - reporting to board vs CRO I am confused - let’s all chime in ready … go … bonus points if you are in the know and share here
17 replies (most recent on top)
What's making people say that Neeraj and other ERC leaders are toxic? I haven't gotten that vibe from them.
Neeraj wrote he’s leaving for personal reasons. George is going to be interim. You’re right, Neeraj is toxic. As for George, from what I’ve witnessed regarding his undisciplined approach to risk management, I’m not impressed.
What happened to Neeraj? I left USAA (thank God) but he and George and Parvez were toxic. Who in charge now?
@znx+1u00AUZz Yes I’ve been involved. I’d equate it to putting lipstick on a pig 🐷
If there’s anything that this company is good at, is changing directions every six months or so. No one is ever bored, that’s for sure!
Wayne wrote ask him directly if you have any questions he wants to hear. Put it to the test send your speculations and call him up tell us what he says and no not being a smart a-s either
Need to clean up the blurred lines between FLOD and SLOD. Also need to streamline SLOD. I’ve never seen a place where clarity about roles and responsibilities between FLOD and SLOD is so broken, and where the SLOD to FLOD ratio is so egregious.
I worked on the pharma industry before coming to this h*** hole. In the pharma industry, risk is a separate branch reporting to the board. It prevents biased auditing/reporting. Maybe Weecock is going with this structure.
Bank CRO used to be in bank - meaning some employees were paid under 017. They moved all of risk under 001, the parent company and started billing back services to the bank, 017. I guess they decided to go back to the old model.
Regulators probably forced it , and the BOD has got to be sick of l ppl living in a mushroom factory.
bank will be a pain in WP behind and the other military credit unions seem to have fewer issues. Usaa too big for him to manage well
Have you seen what ARC looks like? Are you involved in those calls? It doesn’t give an impression of progress, it looks like the Bank is moving backward quickly and haphazardly. It looks like an attempt to make a very ugly baby semi appealing. How any of the involved EMG and Jessica Platt keep their job after this dumpster fire is out will be an acrobatic feat of misleading the regulators.
I would think if they were getting ready to sell the Bank that they wouldn’t have spent all this money on the McKinsey consultants and the ARC project. That’s the only thing that is making me think they’re not selling it.
However they haven’t replaced the bank president, and there has been a lot of churn of execs which is a head scratcher.
I believe TIAA did the same last year (not sure if due to similar regulatory conditions). Seems like insurance and banking are too far apart regulatory wise that it’s not effective to be run together.
I like this game! Chiming in Bank ( along with other other top contenders) are still the money makers - yes even with the fines and dings, so I do struggle saying it is to sell it off. Plus how many years has that been going around?
It could be a few things, from dramatic to ho-hum.
Yes, it could be preparing for a divestiture. That's a clear possibility.
It could also be that the Bank CEO was tired of being held accountable for outcomes that were (possibly) being hamstrung by a CRO who is external to that organization. A CRO who recently decided to pursue other opportunities...
There may be other reasons for wanting more separation of certain risk functions too.
Time will tell.
State Farm had almost identical regulatory issues with their bank, they realized it wasnt worth it in the end and sold it off. It seems something similar may be happening here.
I know nothing, but reading between the lines I personally assume it’s setting up the structure to be spun or sold off.