Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

The C-suite doesn't care about any potential costs since these layoffs aren't being viewed as a temporary cost-cutting measure to boost the stock price, that will induce some short-term pain due to lost institutional knowledge. These cuts are in preparation for those jobs permanently disappearing in the "Age of AI". Like most viewpoints, this is wrong and I already see AI initiatives backtracking on their initial business case projections. Find another job and wait for WFC to implode and have to re-hire a lot of talent. Then ra-e them for all this pain and get hefty salaries.

@a9+1kg5k9sys

If that's the standard, shart could have been downsized years ago.

He is getting ready to pull the cord. But will milk it all as long as he safely can. Once the chute is descending slowly toward WPB, he will look around and admire the fiery rain of burning fragments. With his usual disdain and scorn, and understated glee, for a job well done.

It doesn't matter what the shills say. The fact is, there have been many studies with ample data to show that layoffs generally are not good for a companies long term health.

@a9 You're making a big assumption that the people being laid off "aren't doing anything relevant." Wells has been heaving off talent and institutional knowledge with great force with the way they've has targeted older and more well-compensated workers, and trying to force attrition to chase out workers who have options. Before joining Wells I worked as an external consultant across dozens of large corporations doing large scale org changes and what's happening here is really unlike anything I've seen before. Even the "useless" functions like Risk that some people on this board seem fairly gleeful are getting downsized - Wells Fargo has direct, relevant, material, RECENT experience with what happens when you destroy functions designed to keep the bank compliant.

This only looks like a thoughtful reduction if all you are looking at is top line numbers. Poke under the hood even a little bit and its a horror show that WILL blow up some day, even if not when Charlie Shart is still at the helm.

@a9 You sound like a manager who doesn't know how to deploy and motivate your people. Or, you're a narcissist who worries entirely too much about what others are doing. Maybe both. Regardless, you sound toxic.

Laying off people who aren't really doing anything relevant to the bottom line, and not replacing them, is absolutely good for the bottom line. If you owned a business, would you pay people a ton of money/benefits to sit around all day whining about having to come to work when they aren't extremely busy doing things that indisputably add to your bottom line? Of course you wouldn't.

Laying off and rehiring constantly because you cant keep people you want or need to thrive is a different story that applies in virtually no way to WFs layoffs.

@a3 OP here. I think the market is fickle and tends to follow what's trendy. Banks have been trendy for the past few years, not just WFC. Is there anything rational about the flow of cash into AI stocks? The "professionals" almost never beat the market. It's something like < 10% end up actually beating the index.

LOL
And you don't think the people on Wall Street who actually know what they are doing didn't start factoring this in SIX YEARS AGO when it was announced the company would be closing certain LOB and cutting thousands of employees???

Here’s why this doesn’t matter to leadership- they get paid for the short term, not the long term. They are not here to build a big brand or legacy. It’s all about the stock price. Gone are the days of what’s good for GM is good for American type leaders. Look at lay offs, look at outsourcing, etc. They are here to get their big payout and live behind security fencing in Florida while the rest of the country suffers.