Those who read the New York Times electronically missed something in today’s print edition: A full page ad “signed” by Wells Fargo President John Stumpf (what a perfect name for the head of a failing bank) bemoaning the mean-spirited public outcry about the Las Vegas junket Wells Fargo was forced to cancel after the aforesaid outcry.
After all, Stumpf said, this junket was not for the executives, it was for the little people; the front line soldiers who did the day to day work that enabled people like him to drive the bank off a cliff. Without “recognition”, in the form of a 12 day Las Vegas bacchanal, how will these precious darlings find the courage to go on? Perhaps they should learn to get motivated by the thing that gets the rest of us out of bed and into our cars every morning: a paycheck.
But no Wall Streeter has completed his work without adding insult to injury. In this case, the insult is to our intelligence. This is an actual quote: “The funds to pay for recognition events such as these do not come from the government. They come from our profits”. To which, of course, the initial response that comes to mind is: What profits? If Wells Fargo is profitable, why did it need $25 billion of our money. Moreover, does he think we are so stupid as to not know that money is fungible, whether we know that specific word or not?
Which all leads up to a final question. Why is this Stumpf spending taxpayer money for full page ads in the New York Times?
UPDATE: Something is strange when this blog gets a slew of comments about anything. My observations stand. That’s our money they’re spending. Whatever Wells Fargo’s motivations, it is getting taxpayer money. I googled the issue raised by the commenters and found that the same sort of pack comments, often using the same or nearly the same language, appear wherever this story is reproduced. In fact, it was almost impossible to find an actual news story that dealt with this issue. Indeed, Wells Fargo is paying a dividend: to the government. It’s also likely to cut its dividends this year and will probably need to enter the capital market. In addition, its purchase of Wachovia was indirectly subsidized by us taxpayers. What I find interesting about this is that this concerted defense, which appears all over the internet, does not seem to be the line the company is officially taking. Who are all these rabid Wells Fargo fans?
UPDATE 2: Wells Fargo Reports $2.6 Billion Q4 Loss:
The company also reported that Wachovia, the struggling bank it bought Dec. 31 and didn’t include in its bottom line, lost $11 billion in the period
6 Comments