Wells Fargo Claws Back Millions From Former Executives -- Will It Be Enough?

By Motley Fool StaffMarketsFool.com

In this video, theMarket Fooleryteam offers unexpected praise to the board of directors atWells Fargo(NYSE: WFC)who have recently moved to hold accountable the ousted executives embroiled in the fake accounts scandal that came to light in 2016.

Will this be enough to restore trust in the company?

Continue Reading Below

A full transcript follows the video.

10 stocks we like better than Wells FargoWhen investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the market.*

More From Fool.com

David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now... and Wells Fargo wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys.

Click here to learn about these picks!

*Stock Advisor returns as of April 3, 2017

This video was recorded on April 10, 2017.

Chris Hill:I think we have to start with a shout out to the board of directors atWells Fargo,which is a sentence I really never thoughtI would actually say. In the wake of the salesscandal last year, the board of directors at Wells Fargo is clawing back $75 million incompensation from two people:former CEO John Stumpf, andCarrie Tolstedt, who was the head ofCommunity Banking. I have to say, Jason,I was surprised by this.I was surprised that this happened, given the fact that Stumpf knew about the salesscandal back in 2012,didn't really do anything about it for three years, and then it came to light. I just assumed that there would befinancial equivalent of a slap on the wrist for both of these people andthe fact that they're getting $75 million taken away, good for the board.

Taylor Muckerman:On top ofwhat they already had taken away from them.

Jason Moser:Yeah.I feel like, up to this point,I've kind of felt like they weren't really sorry that this happened,they were more sorry that they just got caught. Andon the one hand, to your point, youlove to see a board take strong action like this. Onthe other hand,it at leastmakes you want to ask the question,what the hell were they doing all this time from 2012 up until now? How was this going onunderneath their noses? So it leads me to my greater thinking in regard to boards -- boards areessentially as good as an executive team wants to make them. At its very core,you have to look at a board and think,these folks are actually just beingincentivized to show up once a quarter for a year and nod and smile politely and say, "Everything is going well," andthey're getting paid like kings to do that. They'reincentivized to not rock the boat,because if they do, chances are they may not be asked toserve on the board anymore. Certainly, there's the financial benefit they get fromactually serving on the board.I feel like a board can only really be as strong as a company'sleadership wants it to be. So please understand that I'm not saying that all boards suck. I think a lot of boards are really good. It is really one of those things, though, where you look and say,how in the world was this all going on,and it's now really just coming to light? Yeah, I do applaud them for taking such a bold move here. Hopefully, we'll seefuture leadership here with Wells Fargobe able to distance itself from this verynegative culture that's been going on for some time.

Muckerman:I think they're trying to protect their neck a little bit in hindsight. I saw that the Institutional ShareholderServices, anindependent firm, suggested thatshareholders vote against 12 out of 15 board members in the April proxy. So I think a few of them were like, "Maybe we claw some of this back,return to some good favor withshareholders in hopes that 12 of 15 aren't voted off the board in a month's time." And to see 5,300 people get fired over five years from the same exact division and maybe not ask a question as to why ...it's only about 2% of Wells Fargo's workforce, amassive company, about 268,000 people at the end of last year. Bu,2% of your employment,all from the sales team, and seeing those huge spikes in new accounts being signed up,over a million unauthorized accounts,there's some red flags there. At least, some things to maybe ask a question or two about, like how are we doing so well? And yet we're firing people? So,I think it's a little bit reactionary, trying to protect themselves a little bit,ahead of a very important shareholder vote fora lot of these board of directors members.

Hill:Oh,I think both those things can be true at the same time. I think I can be the right thing to do, and it is absolutely a level of self-interest going on as well. But I remember whenthis story first broke,and one of the things we talked about was the trust factor with Wells Fargo. If you're aninvestor, if you're an existing shareholderor a potential shareholder,whether you're someone like us or you're running a fund on Wall Street,one of the things we kicked around was, how is Wells Fargogoing to restore trust in the investor community? And I think this is a move in that direction.

Muckerman:Sure.I don't know how much shares sold off the first time when thisoriginally happened. But yeah, if it happened again,certainly much more damage would happen toshareholder value.

Moser:Yeah. I think whathappened to the stock wasrelatively predictable. Itdidn't seem like it really sold off all that much. But it's a huge company. Obviously, they have a stranglehold on the mortgage market,and that's not likely to change. ButI think that's probably one of the things that investors shouldat least be concerned with going forward. Because they're going to continue to have thestranglehold on the mortgage market --and there's no real control over that. We just bought a home, and we didn't use Wells Fargo as our lender, but the chances are Wells Fargois going to end up getting that mortgageto service it,and I'm not going to have any say-so in it. To me, I would be a little bit more convinced had, maybe,Timothy Sloan notnecessarily been named the new CEO, because Sloan was there during this whole time. He was the COO, he served as the CFO. It's not like he's completelyinnocent here. There's no way he didn't know what was going on. Hehad to know something.

Hill:You're sayingTimothy Sloan doesn't have fresh eyes?

Moser:I'm just throwing it out there for discussion. Maybe ourlisteners candeliberate and send us their thoughts onTwitterand email and whatnot. But, again,I think this is a great move from the board. I would personally be a little bit more convincedif they completely cleaned houseon the leadership side.I'm not saying that Timothy Sloan is guilty of anything here, but the perception is the reality in most cases, andcertainly the perception is thathe had to have known something.

Chris Hill has no position in any stocks mentioned. Jason Moser owns shares of Twitter. Taylor Muckerman owns shares of Twitter. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Twitter. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.