Someone needs to reevaluate the decisions of our Board once again!

Our Board of Directors is supposed to be acting as a fiduciary for the shareholders. They fail shareholders time and time again, as often as does our C-Suite.

I would like to take the place of Elizabeth Warren and ask the following questions:

At what point will the BOD concede that their decision to hire Charlie Scharf has been a complete and utter failure? (Note - Is “he’s the only guy who would accept the job” an example of how low the bar has been set?)

What, exactly, is this current BOD doing to monitor that Charlie is acting in the shareholders’ best interests and not his own? At what point will they start looking elsewhere for a suitable replacement?

What kind of timetable does Charlie have to get the bank out from under the federal asset cap? Is it 2 years? 5 years? Surely it’s not open-ended. Not only has leadership been so incompetent as to fail in accomplishing this #1 priority, but apparently we are failing to the extent that we are potentially facing new sanctions.

Which Board member is responsible for Charlie’s irresponsible spending of the firm’s capital on our corporate buyback program? Who thinks it’s good judgement to spend $18 Billion to artificially inflate our stock price, rather than using that capital to prioritize meeting the OCC and the Fed’s requirements for proper Compliance and Oversight? Are we looking at a legal conflict of interest? Did we not learn from Tim Sloan?

Comment! It's anonymous!

12 replies (most recent on top)

Don't you get it? All the BODs of major corporations are a big club. I'll sit on your BOD and look the other way, if you have someone sit on my BOD and do the same. They are not about protecting the shareholders, they are about protecting themselves.

The only time they act as a BOD should is when a hedge fund manager calls them out of when someone like Warren calls them out.

It is all rigged.

People are not being held accountable because HR keeps trying to protect the worst of our employees. It is well known that it takes an act of god to terminate from this company so more and more poor workers are protected and stay employed here. You can't have an office full of poor employees and expect they manage RISK and take care of our customers. HR is our worst enemy in this company as it relates to employee accountability and solid work ethic performance.

Best post in months. Exactly why they are likely going to break this bank up.

There’s the spin and there’s reality. If you work in risk, you clearly see things aren’t going well. People aren’t being held accountable. Issues aren’t being escalated.

@jhn+1cDbJElf

You’re buying Bod’s?

Jeez now I’ve heard it all. I really hope hat you are not a coworker.

OP - You are spot on! Keep up this line of questioning!

Bod and stockholders are money hungry a$$h@[$

It doesn't mean anything to be right when all the bank is so wrong....

Give it a rest! No one cares what you think!

You do buybacks when you think shares are cheap, and guess what they are dirt cheap. As a shareholder i hope they keep buying. I don't want to be taxed on even larger dividend payments. @OP+ your knowledge of valuation is right their with a 5 year olds, stick with bitcoins.

Post ID: @txi+1cDbJElf

Try to follow the text. The OP said that he/she would like to take the place of Elizabeth Warren to ask the questions. The Senator most certainly does have a legitimate right to ask such questions. And she should.

"Who thinks it’s good judgement to spend $18 Billion to artificially inflate our stock price, rather than using that capital to prioritize meeting the OCC and the Fed’s requirements for proper Compliance and Oversight? Are we looking at a legal conflict of interest?"

There's no conflict of interest recognized by law here. However, Congress is slowly looking into the issue - there are several perversions in the concept, and one poster here this week raised the issue that if you are executing a stock buyback, you are saying your company has no use for capital (i.e., cannot grow its business), which is of course every reason to devalue the company, even though the justification for stock buybacks is that the company is undervalued!

The law is going to take some time to catch up here. The best that can be done today is a derivative shareholder action against the company, and those are much more miss than hit.

As if anyone on the BOD cares at all what your concerns are. You do not have a right to this information nor would any legit company share this detail with those outside of the BOD.

Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Someone needs to reevaluate the decisions of our Board once again!

12 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply