Looks like they finally cut Wells Fargo from its otherwise excellent holdings recently -- which now (on principle) puts the fund back 'in play' for me both in taxable and retirement accounts I used to hold it in my Roth, but swapped it for TWEIX a few years ago.
From their 3/31 commentary...
The Fund remains underweight financial services because most companies offer inadequate upside potential at current valuations. That said, proceeds from the Wells Fargo sale were invested into two competitively advantaged financial institutions. The first is American Express, the world’s largest card issuer by purchase volume. American Express has built a global payments network that generates high returns on equity and maintains its prestigious brand through its best-in-class customer service, innovative digital platform and strong security.
First Republic, a private bank focused on attractive markets, such as San Francisco, New York City, Los Angeles and Boston, was the Fund’s second addition. The bank’s excellent customer service attracts affluent individuals and successful small businesses, which leads to outsized loan growth with pristine credit quality. First Republic’s recent rollout of an innovative student loan refinancing program should attract the next generation of affluent customers and accelerate the bank’s growth.
Comments
I find this to be a real ethics problem for such an organization. Oh, well.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/06/warren-buffetts-wells-fargo-problem.aspx
yeah, two months in the past
too late for my interest, as a former shareholder, for decades
too satisfied w DSEEX and putting increased donations to causes
Wells Fargo
During the first quarter, the portfolio managers responsible for the Parnassus Funds’ investment in Wells Fargo decided to sell the stock. We did so after learning about even more problems at the company. The latest news is that Wells Fargo’s wealth management business is under federal investigation. Even more troubling was a consent order released February 2nd by the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. Per this order, Wells Fargo cannot grow its balance sheet until the fourth quarter of 2018, and potentially longer if the bank does not sufficiently improve its governance and risk management. The Federal Reserve has access to far more information about Wells Fargo’s operations than we do, so we take their stern rebuke to mean that the bank still has a long way to go on its path to redemption.
Now that we’ve ended our investment with Wells Fargo, I wanted to explain why we held onto the shares for as long as we did. The key reason is that we thought Wells Fargo’s remedies would be more effective than they have proven to be so far. An encouraging early step came in October of 2016, when the board of directors replaced former CEO John Stumpf and clawed back tens of millions of dollars of his compensation. Other senior executives deemed most responsible for the “fake accounts” scandal met a similar fate. On the direction of current CEO Tim Sloan, the bank then proceeded to make major changes to incentive programs and internal reporting related to risk and customer complaints.
From the day Wells Fargo’s ethical lapses became national news back in September of 2016 to this most recent quarter, our team has engaged with management. Along with plenty of chastisement, we offered specific, constructive advice and encouragement. We did this because a reformed Wells Fargo is clearly good for society, as the bank has millions of customers and hundreds of thousands of employees. Given Parnassus’ fairly large ownership stake in the bank and 34-year history of responsible investing, we thought we could make a meaningful impact on management’s sense of urgency, if nothing else. I’m disappointed that our team didn’t get the results we expected from our engagement, but I’m proud of our efforts nonetheless.
Finally, I want to thank those of you who expressed your displeasure at our decision to engage with Wells Fargo, rather than to sell earlier. There were many of you, and we heard your voices. The voice of our customer is very important to us, and we appreciate when you raise it.
The fund now looks quite nice, imo, and has never fallen off my 'attractive' list ..... after this news, I may switch back to it in my Roth.
The reason cited now is WF is under federal investigation. So they are expecting price of stock to drop and hence selling. While that's always a good reason to sell, it would be true of any company stock and not just WF.
So IMO a little misleading to say they are finally selling WF, because then we equate it to any other stock in the portfolio there is a catalyst to sell, and not because WF is what WF is. While I'm glad, Parnassus still in the doghouse for me. I was looking to Artisan myself out into Parnassus but their WF position kept me away. I'm still on the fence.
Finally, I want to thank those of you who expressed your displeasure at our decision to engage with Wells Fargo, rather than to sell earlier. There were many of you, and we heard your voices. The voice of our customer is very important to us, and we appreciate when you raise it.
They forgot to add, we will still do what we want.
When I was kvetching some time ago about Parnassus and WFC I looked and looked for their take, rationale, etc., got zero response to two emails sent to them (had quite a lot of moneys with them, for us), and I guess I missed this explication about engagement and pressure.
Atta boy, Maurice: When all else fails fall back on personal insult. Typical.
Just one time I want all individual investors to sell WFC. Let's see how long Wall Street banks keep selling it to each other. They wronged the individual. It's our individual responsibility to END WFC. Collectively we just rant, we don't do anything.
But first, close your dang accounts with WF. Includes my own Brother and Sister. I really feel like putting my fist through the wall every time I think about this.
These guys expect some of the 99% to clean their toilets but not earn a livable wage. On top of that, they want to spit chewing gum in the latrine on purpose/because they can, and want someone else to have to use their fingers to pull it out. And if those unfortunate people complain about it, their reaction is to shit more on them.
These kind of pseudo 1%-ers are effectively trying to curry favor with the actual 1%-ers, because they want to some day be the 1%-ers. The hell with everyone else. I've said the word to describe these kind of people many times, so I wont say it again.
To continue my story above, these 1% then clamor for tax cuts because they will "trickle it down" to the little guy, but somehow by opposing any legislation to raise the minimum wage to a livable wage. Let THEM do this God's work for which they are to be rewarded first. Oh wait, "trickle down" means "piss on the poor". WTF was I thinking?
I might have stated the hardest thing in life for anyone to do is to not be a hypocrite. It is very easy to only look at your life and don't give 2 farts about anyone else. But these 1%'ers, both pseudo and real, have made a career out of it, and will be the real reason for America's downfall it that happens. It wouldn't matter then if they try to blame the 99%.
Soviet Propaganda. Some idiots need a history lesson. There is no "Soviet" anymore. Putin is the democratically elected - COUGH, BARF!!!" - ally of our President. I had to say "our" " not "their" otherwise I would be called more nasty things. Not that it will stop people will zero intellect from doing so, because that's about the only thing they can do.
I invest in mutual funds....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/27/a-black-woman-says-wells-fargo-didnt-want-to-cash-her-check-shes-suing-for-discrimination
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3375122-wells-fargo-wealth-management-sales-goals-reported-focus-probe-wsj
man
I won’t criticize D&C for continuing to hold the fund. The question that’s often asked (and never fully answered): When one starts excluding from their investment portfolios stocks of companies with whom they have basic moral / ethical disagreements, where does it stop?
Is marketing to the public destructive weapons better suited for warfare any less objectionable than peddling unwanted insurance or misleading a home buyer at closing? In the second instance, money is lost. But in the first, the consequence is often loss of life. Is marketing a highly addictive often abused medication any less objectionable? How about exporting high paying U.S. jobs to low-wage third world nations? Should you rid from your portfolio those corporations known to have cheated on taxes in the past or to have deprived workers / retirees of previously earned pension benefits? Finally, what do you do when the manager of your highly successful high-octane mutual fund voices support for (and contributes to) a candidate or office holder whom you detest?