This is the central point I am making: there is little evidence that: 1) The stock price was inflated. This can be seen by the fact that the valuation of WF is

This is the central point I am making: there is little evidence that: 1) The stock price was inflated. This can be seen by the fact that the valuation of WF is relatively stable both prior to and after this debacle. (outside of the short term volatility due to the scandal). If what you are saying is true then we would have expected the market to dump WF shares at the "inflated" price. This did not happen 2) That the intention of the executives was to increase the stock price by leveraging the fake accounts rather than to increase real accounts whilst policing an incentive scheme that was harsh to the point that it resulted in bad behavior by low level workers. My point is that the revenue impact from the addition of fraudulent accounts is so negligible that to equate it to "fraud" is misleading. Any incentive scheme has cheaters, abusers and fraudsters. That is the norm in an organization that employees thousands of unskilled workers. This is a case of an incentive scheme that was pushed too hard despite market realities -- to the point where people felt compelled to lie to keep their jobs (which was morally wrong on their part -- regardless of "how tough it is to find work" or "needing to put bread on the table"). Those people were fired. In order to understand if this was fraud or not we need to look at whether or not these incentive schemes generated an increase in LEGITIMATE accounts being created. If this was the case then the incentive scheme worked and policing needed to be increased or modifications needed to be made to the management to prevent bad behavior. If this was not the case -- then we have to ask why the management chose to push harsh incentive schemes knowing that it only created fraudulent accounts. The type of black and white thinking that is going on in this thread (and elsewhere) is emotionally driven due to the size of Stumpf's paycheck. Most people are just not used to seeing $100mm dollars. I would be very skeptical of articles like the one linked to above. Anyone who has lead a large organization that contains people that couldn't compete or got fired and angry has heard these types of gripes... they are a dime a dozen. My point is that Stumpf paid for his sins and I don't think we need to roast him further. I think Warren's appraisal of the situation is excessive.