Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Excerpt from earnings call regarding consent orders and asset cap. Charlie and Mike very evasive when pressed for answers.

Deutsche Bank -- Analyst

Good morning. I want to follow up, Charlie, on some of your prepared remarks. You talked about there's still some things that you're implementing to address regulatory issues. And wondering if you could give a couple of examples of what still needs to be done in terms of implementation and when you expect that to be completed.

Charlie Scharf -- Chief Executive Officer

Listen, I think as we've said, there's a lot of work to do. It is multiyears worth of deliverables. What we've -- what I've said is that we have implemented a lot, but we still have more to do. And I -- but I say that I just want to be clear, I'm speaking in -- everyone generally thinks I'm speaking about one of the consent orders, which has the asset cap.

We're thinking about all of the work that we have to do related to all the consent orders and the work to build the control environment. And there is a lot getting done. But ultimately, what matters, you don't get an A for effort, in this. It's about getting things over the finish line on time and getting them done to the -- with the quality that our regulators and we expect from each other.

And so -- as you know, we've been very careful not to put dates out there because we have to do our work and then our regulators have to take a look at it and see if it's done to their satisfaction. We don't want to get ahead of that process, but we continue to move forward.

Deutsche Bank -- Analyst

And I understand that you can't speak for them signing off on what you've done. But in terms of you accomplishing what you want to accomplish, where are you on that kind of process like whether you want to frame it from an innings perspective or a percent basis. Any way to frame that acknowledging there's a lot to do and that you've done a lot, but how far along are you in terms of what you can control on implementing your things?

Charlie Scharf -- Chief Executive Officer

Yeah. No, listen, I appreciate the -- your desire to have me answer those questions. But again, all that matter, it does -- our view of accomplishing the work doesn't matter. What matters is that our regulators look at it and save them to their satisfaction.

So, I really don't think it's helpful or productive to go beyond what I've said at this point. But again, I do understand and appreciate why you're asking.

Portales Partners -- Analyst

Good morning. Most of my questions were already asked and answered. But just I wanted to follow up on the consent order issues. If I recall correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, there's six consent orders remaining and three of them I remember, deals somewhat with the mortgage banking operation.

And I know starting last fall, you started the planning effort to simplify and downsize that. And you've been executing on that this year. Can you give us a sense of what it is you need to do in mortgage banking related to those consent orders?

Mike Santomassimo -- Chief Financial Officer

Yeah, sure. It's Mike. So, first of all, there are nine public consent orders out there that are all there, so you can see those. The -- when you look at the mortgage ones, I think that each of the consent orders is actually quite clear in terms of what needs to happen to satisfy those.

So, I would just point you back to the documents themselves, which can give you a pretty good sense of what it is, and each one is a little bit different.

  • Portales Partners -- Analyst

Follow-up then. Do you talk to the regulators about the progress you're making in mortgage banking on a monthly basis or quarterly basis semiannual? Or do you present something at the end? How does the interaction with regulators go?

Mike Santomassimo -- Chief Financial Officer

We talk to our regulators all the time at all parts of the company at all levels of the company. And so, you should assume we're actively engaged consistently with our regulators all the time. But the only thing I would add to that is -- but again, they're here, they're on site. We talk to them literally all the time.

  • Portales Partners -- Analyst

Right. No, I understand that. But specifically related to the progress you're making.

Mike Santomassimo -- Chief Financial Officer

I know. Just give me a second. We talk to them about everything. And given the importance of the consent orders, you can assume it's about the work that's going on in the underlying consent order.

But having said all of that, what matters is the work that they do at the end of the consent order after we submitted to them. And so, they can be up to speed on what we're doing. They can know how we feel about the progress that we're making. But at the -- but when we submit a consent order to them, they come in and do their holistic review.

And so, that's really where their determination is made about whether or not it's done to their satisfaction. So, again, that just gets to the reason why I want to be very careful about not drawing any conclusions from our view on our work or any interim comments we might get from them. What really matters is the holistic review that they do and the process that they go through internally in the regulatory organizations.

  • Portales Partners -- Analyst

So, that was part of my first question. Have you submitted anything yet on mortgage banking?

Charlie Scharf -- Chief Executive Officer

We're not going to talk about that. I've said that over and over and over again.

by
| 3574 views | | 29 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1nCLQmIa

29 replies (most recent on top)

@1lpw+1nCLQmIa

I used to laugh these kinds of suggestions off, but looking back on his reign, I can't imagine how an intentional hostile take over from within would be executed any differently. It's plausible that Charlie was dispatched by Dimon to eliminate the competition and take Wells back to regional status. I'm sure he'll be bought off with lavish board positions once he's done destroying this company.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2nke+1nCLQmIa

Here, is a pretty good analysis of jpm, c, and wfc earnings. Why the bank stock gains quickly go down after people started moving from reading the (cheerful) press releases to the (boring and lengthy) financial statements,

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2qsn+1nCLQmIa

@2wjc+1nCLQmIa

I guess I see Charlie as the board's puppet. The board was so desperate to find ANYONE who would even take the job they they paid Charlie his $28,000,000.00 bonus he was going to receive Bank Mellon. The board showed how desperate they were to get anyone. Charlie showed how he is controlled by money and can be bought-out.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2fhl+1nCLQmIa

I can’t see the WF Board renewing this man’s contract but who knows!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2wjc+1nCLQmIa

Charlie Scharf is a low rent Bill Ackman.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ywi+1nCLQmIa

FU Charlie. You corrupt S-B!!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ohl+1nCLQmIa

@1ovz "He's buying time like another post here says til the bank is broken up or sold/ swallowed."

Bingo! Charlie's executing a hostile take-over from within.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1lpw+1nCLQmIa

@1xsw+1nCLQmIa

use chatGPT much?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1zrv+1nCLQmIa

His responses are a big "F" . He's buying time like another post here says til the bank is broken up or sold/ swallowed. No-one else wanted the job. Pretty ironic that the Bank that sold so many people and employees down the river will itself be sold out by it's own decisions.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ovz+1nCLQmIa

Post ID: @1xsw+1nCLQmIa

Let’s assume what you say is true. Our $24.5 million/year CEO should have several pre-approved prepared professional responses at the ready for questions regarding progress on the consent orders and the federal asset cap. Those questions are at the top of everyone’s mind and Charlie shouldn’t appear to be caught off guard or angered by perfectly reasonable and to-be-expected questions.

For eg,

  1. “I respect that you need to ask the question, Bob, but that information is subject to strict confidentiality requirements. I appreciate your understanding.”

or

  1. “I appreciate why you are asking that question, Bob, but that information would be considered sensitive and confidential. Thank you for understanding.”

or

  1. “As I informed everyone before this meeting, I am not allowed to discuss supervisory information with external parties. Any answers to questions regarding the asset cap or remaining consent orders could be considered breaching this confidentiality and can lead to serious legal and regulatory consequences for the bank.”

You just put it in writing on an anonymous website available to all. Charlie should be able to regurgitate it in some form professionally.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1xwk+1nCLQmIa

@1xsw+1nCLQmIa - we just blew your cover as the management stooge! Holy S$$$$ ! Your answer is the material from the training course win CSI. Get lost! Do lick your boss’ b..lls.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1glz+1nCLQmIa

When it comes to supervisory information from regulators, banks and financial institutions are usually subject to strict confidentiality requirements. Regulators such as central banks, financial authorities, or government agencies oversee and monitor the operations and compliance of banks to ensure financial stability and adherence to regulations.

The supervisory information that regulators provide to banks is typically considered sensitive and confidential. This information may include examination reports, assessments, risk evaluations, and other details related to the bank's performance and compliance with regulations.

Bank employees and officials are generally not allowed to discuss or disclose such supervisory information with shareholders or external parties without proper authorization from the regulator. Breaching this confidentiality can lead to serious legal and regulatory consequences for the bank and the individuals involved.

The confidentiality of supervisory information is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the banking system and preventing market manipulation or abuse of insider information. As such, banks and their employees are required to handle supervisory information with the utmost care and confidentiality.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1xsw+1nCLQmIa

Just get ready for the next batch of fines to be levied on Wells Fargo. This time our boy may have taken it a bit too far … to keep the analyst community in the dark through obfuscation.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1eft+1nCLQmIa

Those exec's said a whole bunch of nothing.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rds+1nCLQmIa

Post ID: @koi+1nCLQmIa

I have done some work with regulators. I, respectfully, don’t agree with your comments.
Charlie was vague and evasive even when speaking before the Senate Banking Committee. You can easily google his written testimony.

I would put good money on his strategy being to string everyone along, quarter to quarter, hoping that his cost-cutting will keep investors’ eye off the ball in order to keep his job as long as possible.

Charlie is essentially Pleading the Fifth. He doesn’t want to go there because the bank is still a mess, and he doesn’t want to admit to shareholders that removing the asset cap could be 10 years out. Or that the bank is irreparable due to our mishmash of outdated systems which can’t talk to each other. Or because possibly they are preparing the bank to be broken up and/or sold off in pieces.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jak+1nCLQmIa

y'all don't know how regulators work. They cannot say anything more than that. And they also can't say "we're not allowed to say anything" because then that is regarded by the regulators as pointing fingers at the regulators - and there's no good that comes of that.

Regulators have the company by the b*lls.

The people who need to know where we are on these things - know.

Bof A went thru this. it took them 10 years to clean up a smaller mess than WF has. This is directly from people who were at B of A.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @koi+1nCLQmIa

“the bank already got sued for misleading investors so of course he isn't giving any details”

The answer to that is honesty, unless “of course” the truth reveals your incompetence.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @exw+1nCLQmIa

Regarding “He probably isn’t allowed to give specifics.”

If that were true, the easy and most professional answer would be “We are not allowed to give specifics.”

Shareholders are partial owners of the company and have a right to the specifics around Charlie’s progress towards fixing the repeated problems around mismanagement, fraud, customer abuse, and lack of oversight.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rne+1nCLQmIa

the bank already got sued for misleading investors so of course he isn't giving any details

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @nip+1nCLQmIa

What he said was true. Regulators are setting the dates and deadlines. He probably isn’t allowed to give specifics. Don’t we take training about CSI?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tcu+1nCLQmIa

He's running out of time and knows it. In another year or so this nitemare will be over. So long as the even bigger POS, SP, goes with Charlie, that's when the company's recovery will begin. Not before.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @uon+1nCLQmIa

Needs Improvrment, ya think?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @yka+1nCLQmIa

Charlie's tenure as CEO is longer than the time between Pearl Harbor and VJ Day, and he still hasn't gotten it done lol

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bxo+1nCLQmIa

What an effing embarrassment. WF is circling the drain. Nice job, BOD.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @fpu+1nCLQmIa

Shareholders should insist on getting more information. Request a White Paper.

Charlie consistently gives zero information on our progress, and then acts insulted when pressed.

Banks, especially, are insistent upon setting goals which are:

Specific: An effective goal should be ultra-specific and leave no room for misinterpretation or vagueness. CHARLIE FAILING.

Measurable: Your goal should be quantifiable and the progress easy to track, so you know when you hit a benchmark or the finish line. CHARLIE FAILING.

Achievable: Where the rubber meets the road. You must be realistic and determine if your specific goal is truly achievable, or an unrealistic ask. CHARLIE FAILING.

Time-bound: Should have defined start and end times, and, if large enough, should also have incremental dates to meet specific objectives. CHARLIE FAILING.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zha+1nCLQmIa

Wow, endless blather from those two without actually saying anything.

Why is the board so in love with Charlie again?? How is there not even one large shareholder that's unhappy?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zah+1nCLQmIa

Two big things stand out to me.

"our view of accomplishing the work doesn't matter. What matters is that our regulators look at it and save them to their satisfaction."

Translation: we thought we did a good job but the regulators didn't.

"We're thinking about all of the work that we have to do related to all the consent orders and the work to build the control environment."

Nearly four years and they're admitting they still don't have a functional control environment?

If I were Scharf I'd be embarrassed about that call. How is this guy worth multiple millions per year?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @urk+1nCLQmIa

Infuriating.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @urp+1nCLQmIa

That doesn't provide a lot of hope. Not just for employees but all investors.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @yvt+1nCLQmIa

Post a reply

: