or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Talking stocks, trading, and investing in general
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Talking stocks, trading, and investing in general - Page 711

post #10651 of 11163
I agree, I just think the entire thing is a dog and pony show.
post #10652 of 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba View Post

I agree, I just think the entire thing is a dog and pony show.
Was that pun intentional? If so, bravo.

post #10653 of 11163
biggrin.gif
post #10654 of 11163
In b4 December rate hike is off the table due to weak export and import data from china and resultant stock market decline.

😹😹😹
post #10655 of 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba View Post

What does relinquishing the reins to another fellow one spot below him really do other than satiate the blood lust of the political saber rattlers.

It only further pushes the CEO role as more of a sacrificial one. 

 

It tells CEOs to ask for more money, because your position could be taken any day due to unforseen risks and to not report misconduct if it's found at the bank.

post #10656 of 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by stimulacra View Post

Just curious, what are everyone's thoughts on gold as an asset allocation?

For those that allocate for it what percentages and do you prefer physical bullion or ETFs?

I keep about 5-10% in IAU and sell it off occasionally to offset broader stock market declines. Long term I target to hold about 5% in gold. 

post #10657 of 11163
Anyone wanna buy my VRX stake @ 200 pennies on the dollar?
post #10658 of 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchapiro View Post

It only further pushes the CEO role as more of a sacrificial one. 

It tells CEOs to ask for more money, because your position could be taken any day due to unforseen risks and to not report misconduct if it's found at the bank.
Poor sacrificial CEOs frown.gif
Maybe Latrell Sprewell can give Stumpf some tips on how to put food on his family's table now.
And "unforseen" risks is at best a wild assumption. I don't know exactly what was or wasn't "reported", but misconduct by sales employees is a well known risk of and over-emphasis on aggressive sales targets and quotas. If that truly was not tecognized at WF, isn't that itself indicative of a management problem?
What do you think a CEO of a public company should be delivering to be retained and handsomely paid? Were all the factors that produced previous good results and supported his comp the direct result of his personal, hands-on efforts?
post #10659 of 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Poor sacrificial CEOs frown.gif
Maybe Latrell Sprewell can give Stumpf some tips on how to put food on his family's table now.
And "unforseen" risks is at best a wild assumption. I don't know exactly what was or wasn't "reported", but misconduct by sales employees is a well known risk of and over-emphasis on aggressive sales targets and quotas. If that truly was not tecognized at WF, isn't that itself indicative of a management problem?
What do you think a CEO of a public company should be delivering to be retained and handsomely paid? Were all the factors that produced previous good results and supported his comp the direct result of his personal, hands-on efforts?

Stop arguing about inane BS and take this bag of VRX off my hands brah.
post #10660 of 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


Poor sacrificial CEOs frown.gif
Maybe Latrell Sprewell can give Stumpf some tips on how to put food on his family's table now.
And "unforseen" risks is at best a wild assumption. I don't know exactly what was or wasn't "reported", but misconduct by sales employees is a well known risk of and over-emphasis on aggressive sales targets and quotas. If that truly was not tecognized at WF, isn't that itself indicative of a management problem?
What do you think a CEO of a public company should be delivering to be retained and handsomely paid? Were all the factors that produced previous good results and supported his comp the direct result of his personal, hands-on efforts?

WFC is a huge institution and retail banking is a small part of that. A good CEO doesn't have to be hands on everything to make a company function well or exceed the value he is paid. 

 

We have a sales force too that is incentivized for performance. Am I personally responsible if there was misconduct if they bypassed the compliance systems? I'm not exactly sitting around all day doing nothing. It just becomes impossible to know everything going on in a large company and while it's fair to have a CEO be responsible for certifying their financials are accurate, it becomes ridiculous beyond a certain point. 

 

The lessons from this are clear though and if I was up for a CEO role I would take them into account. I'd also take into account the increased cost of cooperation with the government given this. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenFrog View Post


Stop arguing about inane BS and take this bag of VRX off my hands brah.

I just increased my stake. 

post #10661 of 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchapiro View Post

WFC is a huge institution and retail banking is a small part of that. A good CEO doesn't have to be hands on everything to make a company function well or exceed the value he is paid. 

We have a sales force too that is incentivized for performance. Am I personally responsible if there was misconduct if they bypassed the compliance systems? I'm not exactly sitting around all day doing nothing. It just becomes impossible to know everything going on in a large company and while it's fair to have a CEO be responsible for certifying their financials are accurate, it becomes ridiculous beyond a certain point. 

The lessons from this are clear though and if I was up for a CEO role I would take them into account. I'd also take into account the increased cost of cooperation with the government given this. 

CEO's are accountable, not necessarily responsible. With the top job comes the buck stopping at your desk. Or would you rather encourage even more plausible deniability?

What's ridiculous here is firing 5,000 people when they were directed to engage in the behavior. How come the CEO doesn't put forward the names of the staff involved in crafting the scheme?

I am glad the asshole is out. Now time to go after the executives that crafted this scheme...
post #10662 of 11163
Who says the 5k fired does not include the people that organized the scheme?
post #10663 of 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchapiro View Post

WFC is a huge institution and retail banking is a small part of that. A good CEO doesn't have to be hands on everything to make a company function well or exceed the value he is paid. 

We have a sales force too that is incentivized for performance. Am I personally responsible if there was misconduct if they bypassed the compliance systems? I'm not exactly sitting around all day doing nothing. It just becomes impossible to know everything going on in a large company and while it's fair to have a CEO be responsible for certifying their financials are accurate, it becomes ridiculous beyond a certain point. 

The lessons from this are clear though and if I was up for a CEO role I would take them into account. I'd also take into account the increased cost of cooperation with the government given this. 
 
I don't disagree with your first statement. But you seem to start from the assumption that Stumpf is, all things considered, far and away the best possible CEO they could have at this point in time and going forward. What's the basis for that? What's the value proposition for keeping him going forward and being certain his WAR is significant? Or are we just lovingly embracing moral hazard, where he benefits from all rising tides but never has to get wet in a storm? The board's fiduciary duty here is to the shareholders, not John Stumpf. I'm pretty sure that weighing the perception issues along with everything else, the decision to move on from Stumpf reflects their judgment that such a move is in the best interest of the shareholders. Even if I accepted that it's somehow "unfair" to poor John Stumpf (which I don't believe, because as I said it's a known risk when someone accepts such a po$isition), that's tough titty for him. The board's duty is not to protect his feelings.

And dude, with all due respect, if up until now it didn't occur to you that part of the deal in being CEO of a major public company is that you might be asked to fall on your sword if the company takes a public black eye on your watch, then you probably aren't ready to be a CEO. And to your earlier point about CEO's "now" asking for more compensation. They already did. I can guarantee you that in negotiating Stumpf's compensation and other deal terms he, the board, and their respective lawyers and advisors all factored in the risk that he might unexpectedly be asked to take the fall for a scandal that becomes public during his tenure. For any of them to fail to do so would have been laughably naive and negligent.*





*Just saw it reported that even net of the clawback Stumpf will walk away with about $113M in equity and deferred comp. I'm pretty sure public companies will still be able to find CEO's despite the risk that they could suffer such a terrible fate.
Edited by lawyerdad - 10/13/16 at 12:42pm
post #10664 of 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


I don't disagree with your first statement. But you seem to start from the assumption that Stumpf is, all things considered, far and away the best possible CEO they could have at this point in time and going forward. What's the basis for that? What's the value proposition for keeping him going forward and being certain his WAR is significant? Or are we just lovingly embracing moral hazard, where he benefits from all rising tides but never has to get wet in a storm? The board's fiduciary duty here is to the shareholders, not John Stumpf. I'm pretty sure that weighing the perception issues along with everything else, the decision to move on from Stumpf reflects their judgment that such a move is in the best interest of the shareholders. Even if I accepted that it's somehow "unfair" to poor John Stumpf (which I don't believe, because as I said it's a known risk when someone accepts such a po$isition), that's tough titty for him. The board's duty is not to protect his feelings.

And dude, with all due respect, if up until now it didn't occur to you that part of the deal in being CEO of a major public company is that you might be asked to fall on your sword if the company takes a public black eye on your watch, then you probably aren't ready to be a CEO. And to your earlier point about CEO's "now" asking for more compensation. They already did. I can guarantee you that in negotiating Stumpf's compensation and other deal terms he, the board, and their respective lawyers and advisors all factored in the risk that he might unexpectedly be asked to take the fall for a scandal that becomes public during his tenure. For any of them to fail to do so would have been laughably naive and negligent.

The board made the correct decision for the company given the bad press, but I consider it a poor decision industry wise. It also continues a trend of increasing government power and authority, which I am not sure is a positive thing in the long run.

 

It is correct that CEOs already asked for that and this has reinforced that logic. That said I consider this situation different because of the narrative that was spun and the circumstances.

This situation:

1. Essentially made no material profit for WFC. 

2. Was a sales program well below the executive level 

3. Stumpf has performed well during his time as CEO

4. WFC immediately cooperated when this was discovered. To my knowledge they were the ones who turned it over, it was not discovered by the government first. 

5. Due to 1 & 2 it's hard to imagine a scenario where this was intentional on the part of the WFC executive team

 

So while I don't disagree that CEO will ultimately bear responsibility or may potentially be forced to fall on their sword if the company takes a black eye, I wouldn't expect it for a paper cut. 

 

The idea that a scandal of any magnitude will result in your dismissal is a new paradigm. Jamie Diamond wasn't let go for the London Whale fiasco, in which not only was there a far stronger case for his termination, but he made the situation worse by his actions when he publicly announced the position and all the hedgefunds took the opposite position. 

post #10665 of 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post


CEO's are accountable, not necessarily responsible. With the top job comes the buck stopping at your desk. Or would you rather encourage even more plausible deniability?

What's ridiculous here is firing 5,000 people when they were directed to engage in the behavior. How come the CEO doesn't put forward the names of the staff involved in crafting the scheme?

I am glad the asshole is out. Now time to go after the executives that crafted this scheme...

If there is no tie of accountability and responsibility what is the point? It's not preventative then, it's just punative for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. 

 

WFC paid their $180M fine. Many multiples of what the scheme potentially netted them. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Business, Careers & Education
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Talking stocks, trading, and investing in general