> if they are avoiding doing awful things in the name of money, then they are leaving something on the table That doesn't stand as a reason at all. I think the

> if they are avoiding doing awful things in the name of money, then they are leaving something on the table That doesn't stand as a reason at all. I think the big contrast isn't as you described. It's more about short-term versus long-term or conflict of interest between principals and shareholders. But to be specific, Wells Fargo was mentioned, and their downfall was very much driven by doing awful things in the name of money, specifically.