6 ms·

I appreciate that Warren didn't let Stumpf talk his way out of taking any responsibility for the actions of his employees and made a clear argument as to why he

by tswartz 10y ago

I appreciate that Warren didn't let Stumpf talk his way out of taking any responsibility for the actions of his employees and made a clear argument as to why he should be held accountable. Unfortunately, it seems the primary reason he resigned was because the public outrage was loud enough. It seems that until CEOs are personally held accountable via fines or prison (as Warren suggests) we won't see a very big change in their actions. He benefited personally from the policy he implemented, but ignored the negative consequences. The bank is fined, but he is not and keeps his bonuses.

CalChris 10y ago
Carrie Tolstedt is also retiring at the end of the year with $125M.
- bas 10y ago
  Oh man, she must be so bummed about that. The struggle is real.
wheelerwj 10y ago
Bullshit he resinged! at 63, he's the oldest ceo of all the top 5 banks. Stumpf did't resign, he retired!
- tswartz 10y ago
  haha, fair point. He is probably going to go into consulting and make some extra money for those green fees.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  Resinged is a nice way to put it. Once before the senate, then again before the house.
  - LargeCompanies 10y ago
    Sorry and not to be the grammar police but it's resigned...
    - amake 10y ago
      Re-read the comment. The commenter knows that. He or she purposely reinterpreted the misspelling as a different word, "re-singed" as in "singed again". (Also, the original mistake was not a grammatical error, but rather a spelling one. If you're going to be pedantic at least get it right.)
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  He still serves on the board of the Financial Services Roundtable. If he were younger, he'd likely take a break for a few years while doing some silent investing. After everything had blown over, it's not unlikely that he would be welcomed back into the fold.
- dv_dt 10y ago
  He resigned, and in his successor is from the same senior leadership team in charge during the behaviour that has gotten Wells Fargo into trouble.
forgetsusername 10y ago
Anyone who has worked in a company of any size knows it'd be down near impossible to know the inner working at all levels of the organization. So, yes, the guy is accountable and needs to lose his job. But the idea that he should go to prison for something like this is ludicrous.
- rconti 10y ago
  Prison may be a bit harsh. And in a vacuum, you're right. It would be somewhat unfair to drop the hammer, out of nowhere, on some unsuspecting CEO who just did "business as usual". But that's no excuse; it just means we need to create a culture where this kind of thing becomes increasingly unacceptable, so that in the future executives will know what's expecting of them, and what the consequences can be. The "unintended" consequences of unrealistic goal-setting should be patently obvious to anyone who's made it that far in business, and if it isn't, we should make it clear that it's something these people need to start thinking about. In the case of Wells Fargo, this went on for a LONG time, was well-known, frequently reported on, and had a number of whistleblowers. The CEO can't know what every last person in the organization is doing, but they should be incented to make it their business to a culture in place that doesn't permit this, nor the blacklisting of whistleblowers.
  - henrikschroder 10y ago
    > The CEO can't know what every last person in the organization is doing, but they should be incented to make it their business to a culture in place that doesn't permit this Where I'm from, there's a group af crimes such that if an employee at a company does them, the CEO will absolutely go to jail, even if they knew about it or not. For example, if your company produces toxic sludge as a byproduct, and someone at the company dumps it in nature instead of properly taking care of it, it's jailtime. Unsurprisingly, compliance with some environmental protection laws are A+ at all companies. Personal liability works fantastically as a motivator for companies.
    - maxxxxx 10y ago
      Personal liability may also be good limiter for size of companies. If something is unmanageable, it should be split up.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Personal accountability for CEOs is a good step. However, I think the most needed step is that it becomes unprofitable for the owners.

by tswartz 10y ago

CalChris 10y ago

Carrie Tolstedt is also retiring at the end of the year with $125M.

bas 10y ago
Oh man, she must be so bummed about that. The struggle is real.

wheelerwj 10y ago

Bullshit he resinged! at 63, he's the oldest ceo of all the top 5 banks. Stumpf did't resign, he retired!

tswartz 10y ago
haha, fair point. He is probably going to go into consulting and make some extra money for those green fees.
tedunangst 10y ago
Resinged is a nice way to put it. Once before the senate, then again before the house.
- LargeCompanies 10y ago
  Sorry and not to be the grammar police but it's resigned...
  - amake 10y ago
    Re-read the comment. The commenter knows that. He or she purposely reinterpreted the misspelling as a different word, "re-singed" as in "singed again". (Also, the original mistake was not a grammatical error, but rather a spelling one. If you're going to be pedantic at least get it right.)
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
He still serves on the board of the Financial Services Roundtable. If he were younger, he'd likely take a break for a few years while doing some silent investing. After everything had blown over, it's not unlikely that he would be welcomed back into the fold.
dv_dt 10y ago
He resigned, and in his successor is from the same senior leadership team in charge during the behaviour that has gotten Wells Fargo into trouble.

forgetsusername 10y ago

Anyone who has worked in a company of any size knows it'd be down near impossible to know the inner working at all levels of the organization. So, yes, the guy is accountable and needs to lose his job. But the idea that he should go to prison for something like this is ludicrous.

rconti 10y ago
Prison may be a bit harsh. And in a vacuum, you're right. It would be somewhat unfair to drop the hammer, out of nowhere, on some unsuspecting CEO who just did "business as usual". But that's no excuse; it just means we need to create a culture where this kind of thing becomes increasingly unacceptable, so that in the future executives will know what's expecting of them, and what the consequences can be. The "unintended" consequences of unrealistic goal-setting should be patently obvious to anyone who's made it that far in business, and if it isn't, we should make it clear that it's something these people need to start thinking about. In the case of Wells Fargo, this went on for a LONG time, was well-known, frequently reported on, and had a number of whistleblowers. The CEO can't know what every last person in the organization is doing, but they should be incented to make it their business to a culture in place that doesn't permit this, nor the blacklisting of whistleblowers.
- henrikschroder 10y ago
  > The CEO can't know what every last person in the organization is doing, but they should be incented to make it their business to a culture in place that doesn't permit this Where I'm from, there's a group af crimes such that if an employee at a company does them, the CEO will absolutely go to jail, even if they knew about it or not. For example, if your company produces toxic sludge as a byproduct, and someone at the company dumps it in nature instead of properly taking care of it, it's jailtime. Unsurprisingly, compliance with some environmental protection laws are A+ at all companies. Personal liability works fantastically as a motivator for companies.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    Personal liability may also be good limiter for size of companies. If something is unmanageable, it should be split up.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Personal accountability for CEOs is a good step. However, I think the most needed step is that it becomes unprofitable for the owners.