https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-documents-detail-wells-fargo-private-bank-transformation-abbott-downing-2022-9
I am taking my $3 out of this bank after reading this!
You mean Fundsource lol. Worst fee based platform ever.
Investments aren't chosen based on excellent money management, they're chosen because they share the most revenue with WF.
At the wires (Merrill, MS, UBS), clients pay less and have access to more investment options. The advisor makes more and doesn't have some bureaucrat breathing down his neck to refer to the bank.
Post ID: @1xnq+1j2Xn9Zq
I’m getting ready to go to bed lol, but I think WFC is lucky to have 2 people so passionate about their work.
“but they often aren’t going to be as actively traded, and the FA managing the account is going to have to spend more time researching and designing a portfolio and less time helping their clients with their planning and other financial needs” FYI - that is all “the standard bs company line” . Smoke and Mirrors. Active trading is not needed and not a plus. Managed Money was designed purely with the thought of bringing in regular predictable income for brokerage firms. Never was designed “for the good of the client.” Other firms equally taking advantage of their clients doesn’t make it right.
“Another major reason managed accounts are preferred: litigation risk and good ol’ DOL standards.” Agreed! Preferred for the good of the firm, not for “the good of the client”.
“this business strategy is an attempt to make the whole experience possible from an efficiency standpoint so that we can stay in business and continue to serve people.”
for the good of the firm and it’s leaders, not “for the good of the client”. People do not need to be served by Wells Fargo, they can easily go next door. Wells Fargo, however, needs to be able to serve people.
I love my FA, and wouldn’t really leave him for some random $7 fee three years down the road. What I do know is that he is actively and constantly being pursued by other Banks and Brokerages. He doesn’t like Wells Fargo, but stays because it is more convenient right now than having to move his accounts elsewhere. Same with most FAs I work with. But if they have to start dealing with more of this nickel and dime bs - I predict that will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. If they start losing accounts (and money) due to this nickel and dime bs, that will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Charlie has turned us in to the Macy’s of Banks. We sell run-of -the mill products which shoppers can find more cheaply elsewhere, there is nothing that sets us apart from our competitors, well-paid experienced employees have been replaced by low-wage inexperienced employees, service is poor… And now he wants to start squeezing more money out of our clients for the privilege of shopping here? He is out-of-touch with the real world.
“ You can’t even begin to compare any of our products to those of other top banks because we have to do it better due to our rotten reputation. And let’s not ignore the fact that we are under the most costly Federal Asset Cap in history for “widespread and pervasive abuses.”
That sentiment is exactly what I’m battling against, you’re right. And it wouldn’t be a thing if Massachusetts never elected a certain center to perform a dog and pony show back in 2016.
Post ID: @1qms+1j2Xn9Zq
I don’t want to be the one to burst your bubble, but Wells Fargo is losing high-producing teams, who have hundreds of millions and even Billions under management, regularly. So your statement “Wells has had and still has people that have brought them in and taken care of them.” is only barely partially accurate.
You can’t even begin to compare any of our products to those of other top banks because we have to do it better due to our rotten reputation. And let’s not ignore the fact that we are under the most costly Federal Asset Cap in history for “widespread and pervasive abuses.”
Wells is certainly not the only firm that hears their FAs toward putting clients in managed platforms. Can transactional accounts sometimes accomplish a similar concept for cheaper, sure, but they often aren’t going to be as actively traded, and the FA managing the account is going to have to spend more time researching and designing a portfolio and less time helping their clients with their planning and other financial needs. Portfolio management is better delegated to the experts in St. Louis in my opinion.
Another major reason managed accounts are preferred: litigation risk and good ol’ DOL standards.
You are right in that cost cutting measures are important in business, but this business strategy is an attempt to make the whole experience possible from an efficiency standpoint so that we can stay in business and continue to serve people.
Many wealth clients aren’t quite as fee conscious as you suggest either. Some are, sure, but different people have different things that are important to them when it comes to choosing a wealth management firm. They all unanimously want to feel special, yes, but that doesn’t always come in the form of waiving every fee imaginable.
Kudos to you for having a good WFA relationship currently and I’m sure your advisor will do their best to retain your business. If in 3 years you get charged a $7 fee for some random business request though, please take it easy on him. You taking that business elsewhere out of principle won’t really help you in the long term as other firms will have those same charges. There are industry standards in wealth management that pretty much happen across the board.
Post ID: @1wmc+1j2Xn9Zq
Thank you for your respectful response.
If “raising fees is not the sole motivating factor”, we all know “cost cutting “ is the other motivating factor. Charlie Scharf doesn’t do anything for “the good of the client”. An excellent example would be his strong-arm tactics to manipulate bankers and FA’s to put their clients in to Managed Accounts which means high fees to the clients when the same or better outcomes could be achieved for our clients for far less cost to them.
Charlie is the the guy who will waste $20 Billion in one year in a failed attempt to manipulate our stock price higher, but brag about how much he’s saved shareholders by laying off experienced employees with irreplaceable institutional knowledge.
Any memo that has to begin with, essentially: “Let’s all try to focus on the positive” means the C-Suite know this is not going to be a favorable or popular change. The memo itself states “all monthly fees will be waived until 12/31/23.” That tells me that WFC already knows that fees will be a problem for both the clients who will now have to pay them, as well as the Bankers and FA’s who have to try to hold on to these accounts.
Charlie should be doing everything possible to increase our services and product offerings and nurture the clients who are already on the cusp of leaving due to our now scandal-ridden reputation. In other words, take care of the golden goose.*
I can tell you that I have quite a bit of money here with an excellent FA. I’m no one special, certainly not ultra-wealthy, but I will expect my FA to find a way to wave any fees for services I now receive for free. If he does not: I will happily take my money to any other firm who will welcome me with open arms. The ultra-wealthy are way more demanding and finicky than me.
I have taken care of these clients, and the FAs who serve them at WFA for many years.
They want nothing less than perfection, they want the right answers to their questions yesterday, they want to be made to feel special and elite, they want what they want when they want it 24/7, and most importantly: they don’t want to feel like they are being taken for granted or taken advantage of or played for fools. They will walk and they will tell their wealthy friends that we tried to put the squeeze on them.
If you are responsible for trying to put a positive spin on these changes: My heart truly goes out to you.
“If I had that much money I wouldn't even consider WF as a viable financial services provider. Shocked that there seem so me so many that do.”
These wealthy individuals don’t select companies as their financial services provider, they select people. Wells has had and still has people that have brought them in and taken care of them.
Regarding chase private client having a 250k threshold, sounds like that’s their name for Wells Fargo premier.
JP Morgan Private Bank has a 10MM threshold.
So there ya go.
Chase private client=WF premier
JP Morgan Private Bank = Wells Fargo’s The Private Bank.
If I had that much money I wouldn't even consider WF as a viable financial services provider. Shocked that there seem so me so many that do.
As far as I know, at JPM/Chase you only need a combined balance of $250,000 to be upgraded from the standard bank to Chase Private Client. I'm not certain all what benefits that entails but this seems like a weird departure when they could have probably just copy and pasted the strategy seeing as Wells Fargo is currently just the revolving door for ex-Chase execs.
That’s a very good post and I’m going to be hard pressed to do it justice typing a response on phone but will charge my best.
I’ll start with pointing out not what’s not factual, but rather just very misleading:
“Fee-bearing accounts are part of the new 'premier checking' product the bank launched this summer”
“ Customers placed in the premier checking accounts have to maintain a minimum balance of $250,000 to avoid a monthly service fee of $35”
Both of those statements serve the purpose of making it seem like our sole motivating factor is fees.
“Wells Fargo customers are also being told they may "pay fees for certain transactions, such as incoming and outgoing wire transfers, and non-ATM withdrawal fees depending on the type of account," the documents show.”
Also misleading. The premier checking charges for none of these.
Regarding ultra high net worth services, what would you like to see us offer, or what do those other firms offer, that our Private Bank currently doesn’t? It seems to me like them increasing their thresholds will allow for all those clients to get more focused attention.
Separation of church and state. If WFA and TPB are totally merged, it’s harder to differentiate bank products vs investment products which carries some regulatory risk.
They’re both under WIM but report up to different managers under that umbrella which helps keep the separation there.
Post ID: @1ynk+1j2Xn9Zq
I have not (yet) downvoted you.
My question: Please specify what, exactly, in the article is not factual.
My viewpoint, as someone who has vast knowledge on the Brokerage Side, is that
Charlie is “d-mbing down” and “ neutering” anything of value that Wells Fargo once had the capacity to provide.
Wells Fargo is sadly the ONLY major Wall Street Bank who does not have a separate unit which caters to the unique needs of the ultra-wealthy. Folding that unit into the general “streamlined” business exposes the Ultra- Wealthy to all the weaknesses in service, technology, off-shoring, the endless maze of wrong answers, and the growing void of experience and knowledge which Charlie has so aggressively eliminated in his unbridled zest for cost- cutting.
I can tell you who DOES think this is a great move:
JP Morgan
Deutsche Bank
UBS
Morgan Stanley
Bank of America
Citibank
and every specialized boutique catering to the Ultra-Wealthy.
Why wasn’t private bank fully integrated into EIM/WFA a long time ago?
Post ID: @ksz+1j2Xn9Zq
This is happening on The Bank Side. Abbott Downing was on The Bank Side. Private Banking and Private Bankers are on The Bank Side. WFC reputational damage took place
on The Bank Side.
This article exists to sell itself. So negatively biased.
I have vast knowledge of the private bank and premier bank. AMA. Here’s a brief rundown of truth though:
No one is gonna incur any fees as a result of this transition. Look at what our premier checking offers and tell me what they’re losing that the private bank interest checking offered.
Some may get slightly lower deposit interest rates, true. But is it a crime to raise minimum on our best rates? Or is it federally mandatory to grandfather all? To me it’s a bit unfair that customers who at one point had 1MM would qualify for stuff that someone with those assets now couldn’t qualify for simply because they weren’t grandfathered.
It sounds to me like folks in the 250k-2.5MM range will actually get better products and services than they used to as well.
Alright, downvote is to the lower right of this post, and then fire away any questions you’ve got.
What a joke. WFA, and WIM in general, are completely ruining the business.
This is like a scene from The Rehearsal 😂
Thank you to OP. Thank you to Post ID: @uby+1j2Xn9Zq for giving us access.
And an especially big thank you to whoever leaked the documents 🤭.
Why or why is our BOD continuing to let the buffoon that is Charlie Scharf lead this bank?? Yeah - let’s pi$$ off our wealthiest clients. Let’s pi$$ off the bankers and the FA’s who brought these clients in.
Wells Fargo mistakenly thinks The Bank somehow owns these accounts. This puts on display how pompous and clueless our C-Suite is. These accounts are loyal to the Bankers and FA’s who brought you the assets, Charlie - you d-mb S-B 😂. Wells Fargo has nothing special or unique to brink to the table - I hope every one of these accounts take their assets to a better bank (which would be literally any bank).
A HS graduate with a little bit of street smarts, a little bit of “one foot in the real world”, and a whole lot of integrity could do SUCH a better job running this place.
behind paywall...
https://archive.ph/Lo0rU