Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Can the government step in?

The asset cap isn’t getting lifted. The last effort is the Risk and Control Self Assessment also known as RCSA. Basically asking the front lines that have failed to manage risk to evaluate themselves.

If the inevitable RCSA failure is enough to get Charlie out..is there a precedent that would allow the federal government or an appointee to join Wells to get it back on track?

I’m just thinking out loud because Wells is too big to be sold off or just fail. I doubt the board will be allowed to just keep hiring incompetent CEOs

by
| 2053 views | | 11 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1i4fpvil

11 replies (most recent on top)

the US govt doesn't care about the citizens. it's cares abt corporations and war industries--thnk of the us as one big military-war monger base

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hhh+1i4fpvil

I'm sure our leadership will do the needful

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wrh+1i4fpvil

Post ID: @sby+1i4fpvil

Doesn’t look like the MARC exercise stopped WFC’s greed, fraud, mismanagement and lack of oversight back in 2003. I have full faith and confidence that this new round will not stop it now or at any point in the future.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bft+1i4fpvil

RCSA isn't new here folks. Back in approximately 2003 the entire WF bank did an exercise called MARC, management's assessment of risk and controls. This was to satisfy requirements from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This act was passed in response to the Enron debacle where the board and senior management were clueless to the risks that company had and was basically ignoring. A year or two after the MARC work was completed, all that work was moved to the RCSA system to capture all those risks, the controls, and document the effectiveness of said controls. Post Wachovia merger, some genius sh!tt canned all that documentation and it has been a mess ever since. Now we get to recreate work product that was done 15+ years ago.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @sby+1i4fpvil

Google “termination of federal charter”. Is that likely? Absolutely not for a bank this size, even with its problems.

Look into what the Fed did with AIG - although their problems were liquidity based, WF are risk management based, it gives you a sense of the broad powers the Fed has to protect the financial systems. They can even get creative - like how they invented the asset cap in this case.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tlz+1i4fpvil

Well - it’s a good idea to try to pinpoint the risks which the C-Suite might not otherwise know about.

However, let’s assign ratings to the risks which are created by the C-Suite

  1. Offshoring, which gives third-world countries access to customer’s personal financial information and creates the risk of further reputational damage and more lawsuits.
  2. Offshoring, which gives third- world countries access to our systems thus making WFC more vulnerable to being hacked and the risk of further reputational damage and more lawsuits.
  3. Overzealous cost-cutting, leaving teams short-handed and forcing managers to make shortcut decisions which leave us vulnerable to very large errors.
  4. CEO and BOD who have wasted $20 Billion this year on company stock buybacks rather than investing in the technology, infrastructure and talent necessary to improve all levels of risk.
  5. Toxic atmosphere and layoffs, leading to the loss of employees with vast institutional knowledge and the degrading of organizational effectiveness.
  6. Toxic atmosphere which could lead to internal intentional damaging events.
  7. Smoke and mirrors focus on irrelevant and complex routines which give the illusion of risk controls, when the largest and most dangerous risks are staring everyone in the face. C-Suite is unwilling to address the largest and most hazardous potential risks because either: A. They cost too much money to properly fix and/ or B. They are impossible to fix with the bank’s outdated technology held together with bubble gum and bailing wire.

I could keep going- but I would identify the bank’s largest potential risks as being a self-serving CEO and a sleepy BOD who consistently fail to properly prioritize and effectively execute in a manner with best serves the long-term health of the bank, it’s shareholders, and it’s customers.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zzu+1i4fpvil

how about a 3 word definition = smoke and mirrors.

it's what the entire corrupt organization runs on.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @shv+1i4fpvil

Why don’t we find out when Chucky goes before congress next month?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @swt+1i4fpvil

@jeu - A Risk and Control Self Assessment (RCSA) outlines the key risks of the respective business - for example Operational Risk, Regulatory Risk, Legal Risk, Compliance Risk, etc. These broad categories are then broken down into business-specific detail. Management must then assign assessment ratings to each risk and determine a remediation plan where current operating protocols yield a less than satisfactory rating.

That's 3 sentences, sorry!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gkd+1i4fpvil

Risk Control Self-Assessment. Document every business process in excruciating detail, identify points of risk, come up with plan to mitigate those risks.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bdr+1i4fpvil

Could someone give a 2 sentence overview of what RCSA is??

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jeu+1i4fpvil

Post a reply

: