3 ms·
I think that we're talking about different levels of management, and their incentives. At the C-level there aren't great incentives for the accounts. There's a
by huac 10y ago
I think that we're talking about different levels of management, and their incentives.
At the C-level there aren't great incentives for the accounts. There's an argument to be made that metrics can boost stock price, but whatever. At the branch management level though, there are definitely incentives to not shutting down the practices, after managers found out about them. Even if there aren't explicit instructions, if managers don't disallow the practice after they discover it, that indicates WF involvement beyond the individuals who actually opened the accounts. Furthermore, firing individuals who complain about the fake account practice is a clear example of corporate culpability in this scandal.
Sure, this might not meet conspiracy standards. But it's hard to unilaterally paint the bank as a victim, when there's so many organs to the bank.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoI think you're right; I was referring to upper management (as was fludlight in the original post I responded to), you are discussing branch managers. I agree that branch managers were involved. I agree with you that if the firings happen as alleged, that's a problem. But note Matt Levine's skepticism, which I share: But I wonder how many of the 5,300 people fired by Wells Fargo for creating fake accounts now claim that they were actually fired in retaliation for refusing to create fake accounts?...Everyone I've seen or heard interviewed about the scandal describes seeing people create fake accounts, but not doing it themselves. By describing the bank as a victim, I meant the shareholders.