O Ho the Wells Fargo wagon is a comin' to town!

[GGT]

Remember the musical, with little Ron Howard singing/lisping "oh please let it be for me"?

I can't believe CEO Stumpf is refusing to step down, or that the board of directors hasn't fired him. It's also unbelievable that Tolsedt retired with a golden parachute.

It's obvious that corporate fines aren't going to change the culture of greed. Neither is firing 5,000 low level employees. I'm not sure last-minute salary, bonus, or stock option claw-backs are enough, either. I think someone from executive leadership actually needs to be prosecuted and sent to prison.....just like any other criminal.

It would be a good step forward, and maybe the first step that's been absent since the '08 financial crisis. What do you think?

[Lewkowski]

Remember the musical, with little Ron Howard singing/lisping "oh please let it be for me"?

I can't believe CEO Stumpf is refusing to step down, or that the board of directors hasn't fired him. It's also unbelievable that Tolsedt retired with a golden parachute.

It's obvious that corporate fines aren't going to change the culture of greed. Neither is firing 5,000 low level employees. I'm not sure last-minute salary, bonus, or stock option claw-backs are enough, either. I think someone from executive leadership actually needs to be prosecuted and sent to prison.....just like any other criminal.

It would be a good step forward, and maybe the first step that's been absent since the '08 financial crisis. What do you think?

If the burden or proof can be met that someone ordered employees to knowingly open false accounts, than yes. Absolutely there should be some prison sentences, that's fraud.

[GGT]

If the burden or proof can be met that someone ordered employees to knowingly open false accounts, than yes. Absolutely there should be some prison sentences, that's fraud.

Or conspiracy to commit fraud, which doesn't require 'direct orders'. This has been going on for at least five years. It's lame for the CEO to say he "accepts" responsibility/accountability, but doesn't.

[Lewkowski]

Or conspiracy to commit fraud, which doesn't require 'direct orders'. This has been going on for at least five years. It's lame for the CEO to say he "accepts" responsibility/accountability, but doesn't.

I doubt the particular activity reached the CEO level, I could be wrong I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[GGT]

I doubt the particular activity reached the CEO level, I could be wrong I guess we'll have to wait and see.

How can a CEO claim he's the leadership of a corporation, and take millions of dollars, even tho it was 'earned' by deception and fraud? The stock price and investor buying was based on false data. It shouldn't be too hard to see that fraudulent "activity" reached the CEO level: they got more profits.

[Flixy]

I doubt the particular activity reached the CEO level, I could be wrong I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Maybe, maybe not. For criminal prosecution that's obviously very important, but as CEO he is responsible for his company so if the company fucks up, it's weird he didn't get fired but thousands of others were. And if the company had been doing great because of the lower level employees, wanna bet that he would take responsibility for that?

[LittleFuzzy]

Or conspiracy to commit fraud, which doesn't require 'direct orders'.

You want conspiracy, you are going to prove, at a bare minimum, direct personal knowledge of the crimes being committed. And unless something very surprising comes out, you're not going to find that from C-level. They're too removed from the day-to-day of those low-level employees.

[Lewkowski]

Maybe, maybe not. For criminal prosecution that's obviously very important, but as CEO he is responsible for his company so if the company fucks up, it's weird he didn't get fired but thousands of others were. And if the company had been doing great because of the lower level employees, wanna bet that he would take responsibility for that?

Sure, but GGT is talking about criminal violations. I'm not saying the CEO is doing a bang up job, I'm saying it is unlikely he directed criminal activity. He likely *should* resign but that's up to him and the Board of Directors and to a certain extent the customers (who can express their dissatisfaction by leaving).

[GGT]

You want conspiracy, you are going to prove, at a bare minimum, direct personal knowledge of the crimes being committed. And unless something very surprising comes out, you're not going to find that from C-level. They're too removed from the day-to-day of those low-level employees.

Claiming C Suite didn't have direct knowledge is a stretch. They "knew" in 2011, when the first 1,000 low-level employees were fired for fraudulent cross-selling tactics. But the fraud continued for years, with more low-level (and some middle management) firings, but no real change or reform made in their business model. If executive leadership tries to claim they didn't know....that's admitting they ignored facts they *should* have known every year for five years. And for that they got paid the big bucks, with golden parachutes?

Sure, but GGT is talking about criminal violations. I'm not saying the CEO is doing a bang up job, I'm saying it is unlikely he directed criminal activity. He likely *should* resign but that's up to him and the Board of Directors and to a certain extent the customers (who can express their dissatisfaction by leaving).

Proving any criminal violations will take years....and if it pans out like the after-math of the Financial Crisis, no high level person will see prison time, and they certainly won't feel any financial penalty.

Firings and clawbacks should NOT be enough to 'pay for' their mistakes. It's outrageous that Tolstedt (in charge of retail banking) retired with multiple millions, even after giving up $19 million in compensation when shit hit the fan. And it's not enough for the board (of which Stumpf is the chairman) to claw back $41 million of Stumpf's 'unvested stock awards'. They'll will still resign or retire with multiple millions, and be on their merry way.

[Lewkowski]

So criminal violations will take years... so what exactly are you suggesting should be done? Ignore the rule of law and just jail them because *someone* is at fault?

Regarding how the 'private owners' of a company set up their contracts for employment of their executives - either you own some stock and have a voice (depending on the amount likely a small one), or you don't and have no say in how they provide compensation. You don't get to decide what they do with their compensation packages.

[GGT]

City and State managers are coming forward, divesting their shares in the bank, which reduces the bank's value. Wells Fargo isn't a just a private company that can do whatever they want. They're a public bank that used the Fed's zero interest rate, which makes them a public utility.

I'd like to see a corporate structure where Stumpf and Tolstedt et al didn't "earn" ANY profits during ANY years where fraud was committed. That would be executive leadership actually claiming responsibility/accountability.

[Lewkowski]

They're a public bank that used the Fed's zero interest rate, which makes them a public utility.

Been hitting the ghanji pretty hard lately?

[GGT]

ghanji? The board and its shareholders DO get to decide on executive compensation, and should include claw-back provisions in their contracts -- just like "moral clauses" are written for high-exposure public figures, athletes/actors, etc. That's not ignoring the rule of law, OR waiting years to go through the courts (which often ends in fines and no jail time anyway).

Like I said, corporate fines haven't changed the culture. Even after top executives have run a company into the ground, or engaged in unethical *or illegal* activity, they can still walk away with multiple millions. I think it would be more effective to focus on contracts where golden parachutes can be rescinded, and income can be clawed back. I'm not sure what the time frame and 'statute of limitations' should be, that's where things get tricky.