John G. Stumpf: Wells Fargo CEO Gets $18.7 MILLION, Biggest Bank Payday Of The Year

nytimes.com:

It turns out that some of the highest-paid financial executives in America work far from the canyons of Lower Manhattan, at companies that have largely avoided the outcry over the return of hefty paydays on Wall Street.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[AngusC]

05:03 AM on 02/12/2010

I am 100% confident that Blankfein got at least 10 times what he reported he made.
I am sure it was hidden in some foreign country or bank or put into some sort of stocks or something.
I will eat my hat if he actually only paid himself $9 million.

I am sure they funneled the rest into yachts, houses, horses, art etc.
Nothing about these guys is honest.

[robphilnz]

07:25 PM on 02/11/2010

Yet another CEO who has had to pay himself a large "retention bonus" to stop himself from resigning.

A tough call, no doubt, but as the CEO he decided that he was worth keeping and has acted without hesitation to ensure that he isn't lost to one of his competitors.

[JessWonderin]

11:35 PM on 02/11/2010

LOL!!!

a move of desperation . . . he was forced to raise the retention to insure he wouldn't leave . . . .

I'd laugh, but Wells has made a fortune off ME already . . . . .

[robphilnz]

07:19 PM on 02/11/2010

Oink. . . . Oink. . . . . snuffle. . .snuffle.....Oink.

"Hey, look guys, the trough's got something in it again. Better eat it fast, before someone else wants some."

[hellboundtrain]

06:33 PM on 02/11/2010

Crooks never know when to stop shoveling the plunder into their sacks.

[mellene]

04:21 PM on 02/11/2010

Guess we need to find us another bank other than Wells Fargo. I like Huffington's idea to move money to community banks.

[emm29056]

04:14 PM on 02/11/2010

When are these people and the companies they work for going to have to pay FICA payroll taxes on 100% of their income rather than just the first $101,000?????

That's a 2fer, they have to pay the same share of their income as the average working person - rather than on a miniscule portion - and stabilize the Social Security Trust Fund at the same time.

[JessWonderin]

11:36 PM on 02/11/2010

as long as they can afford BETTER LOBBYIST than "WE the People" . . . it will NEVER happen.

[Giac Belli]

04:09 PM on 02/11/2010

looking into leaving this c rap bank

[WA-violins]

03:35 AM on 02/12/2010

I left it when I heard a teller say, "Will the next 'member' please step forward. Asked the mgr why they were calling their customers "members." He said the company PR people knew what they were doing. I promptly moved all 3 of my accounts to a community bank. That was in 2000.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

03:03 PM on 02/11/2010

All it takes to expose the absurdity of those who still claim that pay is truly performance related is to point out to the huge variation in pay across different institutions.

Wouldn't that be a new game to play? Don't look at the size, look at how much it varies amongst the CEOs, and whether you can figure out any relation to how well the firm did financially.

But the truth is: you would be wasting your time.

Because the truth is that it is a JOKE to claim that CEO pay is performance based. If you even argue against it, you have already made a fool of yourself. You have turned yourself into a child. The only gentlemenlike response it so say: fuggetaboutit. It's a scam, and that's obvious. End of discussion.

[proggirl]

02:27 PM on 02/11/2010

For decades, WF has micromanaged their account holders in ways that maximize profit, such as LIFO check clearing (clear the largest items first, regardless of whether smaller checks would clear if that's not done).
While I keep my nose clean in dealing with these guys, I think I'll change banks anyway. I am the customer, and I want to do business with institutions that are more socially responsible, whenever possible.
Wells Fargo can pay their execs whatever they like, but I am not obliged to be a party to it.

[JessWonderin]

11:37 PM on 02/11/2010

"Bail out" say you ARE!!!!!

[Kolina]

01:50 PM on 02/11/2010

Wow, altogether $221.1M at least listed here. Is that our tax?

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/02/11/business/11bonus_graphic.html

[bogu]

02:50 PM on 02/11/2010

Whenever I have gotten a bonus I had to pay FICA taxes on the entire amount. Why are bonuses and salaries over $100,000 not fully FICA taxed. If they were it would help solve the Social Security insolvency issue. Keeping Congresses hands out of the SS trust fund would also solve the insolvency issue.

Now this guy is gonna get over $20 million and only pay FICA on around $100,000, whereas if I get a $12,000 bonus I will be paying FICA taxes on 100% of that money. Everyone in the Senate should be voted out. That is where the bottle neck in effectively changing our society for the better lies.

[BankerTee]

01:26 PM on 02/11/2010

So ...?

This is a matter between him, his board of directors and his shareholders. Wells Fargo has paid back the bailout money it was FORCED to take (watch the PBS documentary on what actually happened) with interest. It is none of my business or your business, except, of course, you are a shareholder.

This populist sentiment is getting ridiculous!

Btw, since the top 1% pay 60% of the taxes in this country, and since a majority of that 1% work at or is affiliated with Wall Street, when we gave them "taxpayer" bailout, we essentially gave them their money back! The average person screaming "give us our money back" either has negligible contribution or none to the tax base.

I know this position/view will not be popular with this forum, but it is the essential truth - numbers don't lie.

[ResoluteBob]

02:17 PM on 02/11/2010

I will agree with you that the shareholders and Board of Wells Fargo have the right to compensate their Management team in whatever manner they see fit. Correspondingly, I have a right to judge that compensation as excessive, and make certain that any investments I have are devoid of any WFC shares. Huffington Post, or any other Media outlet, has a right to comment on the state of the Financial Services Industry, with regard to compensation, practices, policies, etc..

As to the Populist sentiment comment....you can go "F" yourself. The 'average person' that you refer to, last time I checked, has the right to vote in this country, regardless of the amount of taxes he or she pays. A Fireman would likely qualify as an average person with average earnings. Are you suggesting that I or anyone else hold you in higher regard and/or give you greater say because you earn more? Is that the moral high ground that you seek to inhabit? Kiss my @ss.

[BankerTee]

03:02 PM on 02/11/2010

No need to resort to expletives or ad hominem remarks. We are adults and we can have a civil debate without throwing a tantrum.

I agree that we all vote equally, but we don't pay taxes equally! If Wall Street needed a hand, it is only fair that it be bailed out, after all it contributed a warply disproptionate amount to the coffers.

When the firefighting organization contributes as much money to the coffers, then it t, too, can request an exorbitant bailout.

Don't let your ideology/emotions get the best of you, my friend! Study the facts/numbers.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

02:59 PM on 02/11/2010

You're wrong.

It is not a matter between him, his board of directors and his shareholders.

And that is PRECISELY the problem.

Get it?

Don't worry if you don't. It sounds almost like the president doesn't understand that either. I don't know whether that's a good excuse or not. Truth is: I don't know what to say when you don't see your mistake. What's wrong with your view has been out there for two years now. When do you plan to understand it?

[BankerTee]

03:21 PM on 02/11/2010

I am not wrong! Indeed you couldn't be further from the truth!

I understand your sentiment, your anger and the outrage that the salary figure excites within you, but rules are rules.

It is not about "getting it" or "not getting it." The president got caught up with populist anger (he was wrong then), but has found out that this is indeed how businesses work (he's right now).

Rather than get yourself tight up in bunches, why don't you just pick up a book in basic economic and another in business law.

[dezzertguy]

01:08 PM on 02/11/2010

Wells Fargo has always been the highest rated bank and run in a conservative manner. They were foreced to take the bailout and, I think, have repaid the loans and interest. It is only the shareholder's that can feel he is paid too much. If people feel their fees are too high, bank elsewhere. It is sad to see a well run bank get dragged down by politics and the mistakes of others.

[jtenn]

09:54 PM on 02/11/2010

Wells "bought" Wachovia with what was to originally be their own 14+ billion. 2009, years end & their balance sheet showed they didn't have what they'd agreed to pay, for Wachovia, so the price was dropped by over a billion. Paulson and Geitner were all over this "transaction". They took the write down in 2008, and the TARP funds too. Don't tell me these pricks are saints. Just tell me where they live and dine! Some one once said... A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about some real dough... Or was it a million here a million there, What ever.

[liberal user]

01:04 PM on 02/11/2010

reading: http://stock-news-online.6te.net

[gypsy508]

12:46 PM on 02/11/2010

It's a bonus for successfully squeezing millions of dollars in fees from his bank customers.

[sposton]

12:36 PM on 02/11/2010

President Herbert Hoover would say this all part of our market based economy. ;-)