Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan reminded investors this month that the company’s head count had fallen significantly under his tenure. He became chief executive in 2010, and the bank has steadily rolled out more technology throughout its functions.
“Over the last 15 years or so, we went from 300,000 people to 212,000 people,” Moynihan said, adding, “We just got to keep working that down.”
https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/layoff-business-strategy-reduce-staff-11796d66
@OP Great! I'll call the newspaper.
Laying off people to outsource and hire h1bs and other visa holders. There fixed it for you.
@130 - The MF is the fastest, most secure, most reliable platform there is. There were virtually no hacks before the internet came along. Any buggy rollouts are generally due to ‘programmers’ who can’t tie their own shoes. They are useless no matter the platform..
Going from buggy roll tech rolls outs that end up creating more issues than it resolved to migrating to AI....Will AI pave the way out of this prehistoric system we call the mainframe??
We already have those, they’re called Credit Unions.
If you’re not in it for profit, then don’t expect to get any.
it is a healthier franchise from a risk approach angle, it is hard to grow when you probably pi---d off half the wallets you don't still have and they won't come back no matter how you woo them. Yes, responsible growth but it will by definition have its limits. That said, I don't appreciate the leadership style of many of the management team members and have only been here 14 years. New Technology leadership, let us pray now.
@k0 - Responsible growth, lol. The stock is surely not growing.. He’s making office conditions / requirements ridiculous, so people will quit.
It's a business, folks. Business has hard realities.
@k2
In the heart of every endeavor, there is a promise. For Brian Moynihan and Bank of America, this promise is whispered in the phrase, "responsible growth and win the market no excuses."
It is a beautiful paradox, a call to both strength and tenderness. It's a recognition that true victory isn't found in a ruthless climb to the top, but in the steadfast journey of a responsible leader.
Imagine a towering oak tree. Its branches reach for the sun, a testament to its drive to grow and touch the sky. This is the desire to win the market. But its roots are deeply anchored in the earth, drawing life from the soil, providing shelter to those who gather beneath its boughs. This is responsible growth. It's a commitment to nurture what sustains you: your clients, your employees, and the communities you call home.
This isn't about mere success; it's about a legacy. It is a vow to build something that lasts—something built with integrity, compassion, and a tireless devotion to doing what is right. It's a philosophy that believes the greatest achievements are those earned not just for profit, but for people. It is a heartfelt belief that a business can be a force for good, a beacon of hope, and a source of strength for all.
“Brian is also driving the company forward with responsible growth and winning the market no excuses.”
Wait, I was listening to your post until you wrote the above corporate speak. Are you like a brainwashed machine now? Instead of regurgitating the taglines…..how about define what those taglines really mean.
Brian is a significantly better leader than Ken, headcounts were mostly reduced through attrition and not backfilling roles vs. the Ken way (layoffs when we need to hit a #).. As a manager under Ken's rule, they would come to us and say you need to cut a percentage of staff. That has never happened under Brian.
Brian is also driving the company forward with responsible growth and winning the market no excuses.
@ah+1k1b37fzv - slight correction to your otherwise informative post:
BM did not in any way shape nor form "force" his way into the CEO role. (I worked for him directly at the time and saw first-hand.)
Board had no choice but to fire Ken and therefore needed a replacement.
They passed over BM at least twice while a search launched, preferably for (preferably) an external hire.
The Board tried unsuccessfully to woo many (and I mean, MANY) other so-called "leading" bankers around the U.S.
But NO ONE wanted the job.
They went hard after the head of PNC at the time, but he (nor anyone else) wanted the d@mn job.
So finally after nearly a year (!) of no takers, and the largest shareholders pressing for some action, any action, the Board gave up and settled for BM.
So here we are, essentially by default.
This is spot on.I want to see the one person (so far) who down voted this to post their rebuttal as to why this is not an accurate perspective.
Clock is ticking for BM and his version of BofA. There has also been very little growth during his tenure. He forced his way in to taking over from Ken, mopped up the mess, and has held steady ever since. Investors continue to be annoyed. His model of buying shares back and reducing expenses by reducing employee head count (aka power of the firm) eventually leads to one conclusion….getting left behind. At some point BofA will need to grow. It left a lot of businesses after the GFC. It trimmed down their client count by nearly 65%, it has irritated many of the wealthy with its push to digital banking only, it has become a financial institution for the Wall Street crowd only, and had snubbed its nose at the Main Street crowd. It has become a symbol of the “woke” movement, and it has seen profits due to market conditions and not expansion growth. It is simply just one of the boats docked in the harbor for the last 10+ years, watching all of the other boats get bigger. It’s getting quite stale. Its model for growth, is aligned to raising taxes to control the deficit. You can’t tax your way to prosperity, and you can’t rewrite that history lesson no matter how hard you try (and many have tried and failed).