'Elections have consequences': Comments of the week
March 24, 2017 8:30 AM
American Banker readers share their views on the most pressing banking topics of the week. Comments are excerpted from reader response sections of AmericanBanker.com articles and our social media platforms.
On a lawmaker’s complaint that Democrats were excluded from the congressional investigation of Wells Fargo:
“Elections have consequences.”
Related article:Democrats frustrated after being shut out of Wells investigation
Related article:
On how renewed marketing by Wells Fargo’s retail operation has thus far failed to turn around consumer sales (via <a href="https://twitter.com/AlexH_Johnson/status/843851152223621120" target="_blank">Twitter</a>):
“This isn't a cultural problem. It's a structural problem. As long as bank employees are responsible for selling, we'll see abuse.”
Related article:Wells Fargo’s marketing push has yet to turn around consumer sales
Related article:
On bank regulators’ recommendations for reducing compliance burden through the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act:
“The music sounds good, and it is sung with fervor, but we need to study the substance of the lyrics.”
Related article:Regulators call for simpler capital rules, easier reporting standards
Related article:
Bemoaning the frequency of the regulators’ decennial review of unnecessary or outdated rules:
“It's a shame that the EGRPRA process takes place every 10 years. The industry gets an opportunity to let the agencies know every 10 years their rules are burdensome and harmful, then wait for something positive to happen. Sad. Go Trump Go.”
Related article:Regulators call for simpler capital rules, easier reporting standards
Related article:
On a proposal to reform accounting practices as a step toward improving customer experience:
“If you want satisfied customers, how about providing them with products that actually make them better off? Instead of measuring profit and loss, maybe banks should be measuring the financial health of their customers.”
Related article:Better accounting is first step to satisfied customers
Related article:
Another reader reacts to the idea of overhauling accounting in the interest of becoming customer-focused:
“Better accounting is the answer, but a focus on market (i.e. corporate fiefdom) does little to alleviate the internal battles and politics in banks. A focus on ‘customer’ profitability (admittedly very hard to define and measure) is what is called for. Incentives need to align with that measurement — then you'll have service units lining up to serve those customers who most benefit the bank.”
Related article:Better accounting is first step to satisfied customers
Related article:
On U.S. Bank using technology that tracks data from public review sites:
“Buyer beware: companies that offer reputation monitoring services are notorious for unleashing all kinds of 1-star spam reviews once you stop using their service.”
Related article:Tracking the detractors: How U.S. Bank keeps tabs on review sites
Related article:
In defense of Wells Fargo, a reader highlights the bank’s strength and customer loyalty:
"Wells has retained customers because it is a solid bank with one of the largest branch networks, as well as most robust online offerings in the industry. That hasn't changed. Existing customers know much of the negative coverage is overblown. And yes, sales will be down for a bit. The company has had nonstop negative press (not all of it justified, imo) and has an employee base likely confused about what they can and cannot do. Solid company. Incredibly valuable brand. They will be fine."
Related article:Wells Fargo’s marketing push has yet to turn around consumer sales
Related article:
Calling out the high costs of affordable housing programs, which are at risk of cuts under the Trump administration:
"20 million for 40 families means it's costing 1/2 million per family. That's exactly what's wrong with these programs. The costs are out of control. Suppose you just invested 20 million in an annuity at 5%. You'd get 1 million per year or $25,000 per family, without touching the principal. I bet they could take care of housing themselves with $2,083 per month."
Related article:Banks to Trump: Spare affordable housing programs
Related article:
