What the Wells Fargo Crackdown Signals to Corporate America

Even with the appointment of four new directors by the year’s end, the Federal Reserve stopped short of ordering any to step down immediately, nor was anyone in senior management identified as acting improperly.

The central bank sent letters to the former chief executive John G. Stumpf and to the former chairman Stephen W. Sanger, criticizing their performance as “an example of ineffective oversight that is not consistent with the Federal Reserve’s expectations” for a bank of its size and scope.

Wells Fargo’s attitude seems to be that the order is more of a legacy cost for past misconduct than a censure of its current operations. In a statement issued by the bank, its chief executive, Timothy J. Sloan, said: “It is important to note that the consent order is not related to any new matters, but to prior issues where we have already made significant progress.”

Even the limitations on growth don’t seem to be too much of a stumbling block. Mr. Sloan said on a conference call with analysts that “we want to have this cap lifted as soon as possible, and we’re going to work very hard to make sure that’s the case.” In other words, nothing for investors to fret too much about.

Unlike banks, most corporations have little fear that a civil regulator might take actions that cost executives or directors their jobs. The Securities and Exchange Commission can seek to bar a person from serving as an officer or a director of a public company, but that requires proving the person engaged in fraud, not just mismanagement of the company.

An individual who has a controlling interest in a company that is convicted of violating federal health care fraud laws can be excluded from participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, effectively requiring that the person be removed from his or her position. But this provision has not been used against corporate executives who did not have any direct involvement in the criminal violations.

Wells Fargo was widely admired for how it navigated the financial crisis, coming out of it stronger than most of its competitors even after acquiring a failing bank, Wachovia, at the government’s behest in October 2008. Now a corporate culture that emphasized cross-selling products over protecting customers has made it something of a pariah, subject — at least for the moment — to more exacting oversight by the regulators.

Its competitors are unlikely to view what the Federal Reserve did as having much deterrent effect except perhaps in the short term. Other large banks will no doubt pat themselves on the back for not engaging in the types of customer abuses that put Wells Fargo in its current position. When you don’t think you’ve done anything wrong, and you believe it was just the other guy who got caught, then any penalty is unlikely to have much of an impact on your future actions.

Rather than viewing what happened to Wells Fargo as an instance of “there but for the grace of God go I,” directors and executives at other banks will more likely see it as a case of an aggressive company that crossed the line too many times. For those looking at this as a harbinger of a federal crackdown on corporate misconduct, this is more likely to be a one-off situation, with little prospect of its happening again in the current deregulatory environment.

Continue reading the main story

Check Also

Bitcoin news: cryptocurrency regulation to be discussed at G20 meeting after France demand | City & Business | Finance

The finance minister and Central Bank Governors of France and Germany have requested that talks …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *