Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

PRBLX finally dumps WFC


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.


«13

Comments

  • Now if Buffett and Munger could grow the gonads to unload WFC.
    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
  • thanks much for noting this

    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
  • edited May 2018
    More details/explanations about the WFC dumping was mentioned in their cover letter, which I didn't read last night, but am including below as an FYI.


    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.
  • Unfortunately, they sold near the bottom but it could get worse. If I was a WF customer, I would have switched banks a long time ago.
  • edited May 2018
    Tarwheel said:

    Unfortunately, they sold near the bottom but it could get worse. If I was a WF customer, I would have switched banks a long time ago.

    Yeah. I was railing against them holding it like 2 years ago, and ended up selling on principle and moving into TWEIX. I'm not an 'ethical' or 'social' investor but given Parnassus' investment strategy/philosophy they should have dumped it MUCH MUCH sooner than they did. (They were quite nice when I called them about it, I might add.)

    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.
  • edited May 2018
    I'm glad Parnassus made a stand. Unfortunately they still made it for the wrong reasons. WF wronged their customers. This is not a "social" thing. It was reason enough to sell WF.

    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.


  • They forgot to add, we will still do what we want.

    That's true of most fund companies. Not to mention I hate how mutual fund reporting is always months behind when they are actually published.
  • Let us not forget what their ticker symbol (WFC) stands for "We Fleece Customers!"
  • Old_Skeet said:

    Let us not forget what their ticker symbol (WFC) stands for "We Fleece Customers!"

    "Fleece" is a polite word for it, yes. Which is fine, since this is a friendly forum. :)

  • >> 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.

    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.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • edited May 2018
    That should make you very happy, as WFC is a perfect example of the system playing by your preferred rule set.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • "Perhaps you are have forgotten to take your Ambian"

    Atta boy, Maurice: When all else fails fall back on personal insult. Typical.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Yes, your preferred rule set is in fact an insult to all but your precious 1%.
  • Back to your corners, fellas......
  • edited May 2018
    We are all equal opportunity offenders...

    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.
  • Ted I think it was proudly announced majorly heavy purchase of WFC some time ago --- Ted?
  • The 1% is exempt from morality. But you knew that...
  • edited May 2018
    @Old_Joe IMO, something worse than literal 1% phenomenon is going on for some time now. There are folks who are not in the 1% but who THINK they are 1%, aka superior, more deserving, doing god's work, etc, but it does not just stop there. They treat the 99% - with utter disdain. I'm not as eloquent in explaining but will try with example.

    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.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @maurice. I think I get you. You must be posing as a right wing nut case. No intelligent conservative would post such nonsense. Oh SORRY,,, intelligent conservative is a contradiction in terms. No such animal. Goodby.
  • edited May 2018
    I guess discussing morality makes you a "communist". Beyond despicable how these "democratic", "capitalistic", "pigs" - please note I did not say "capitalist pigs" because that means something else and they are "pigs" first before anything else - take such a DICTATORIAL approach to any debate on the subject. THEY are actually the Putins of America, but have cloaked themselves as "conservatives".

    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....
  • @V.F. well done!
  • @rforno - I invest in mutual respect...
  • edited July 2018
    WF is the 3rd largest holding in both DODGX (don’t own) and DODBX (do own). In the latter (a balanced fund) WF accounts for 2.5% of holdings. WF is up 12% over the past year. I respect the decision of a manager to unload a company that has exhibited such poor ethical standards as WF. In some of the cases cited the reason for selling doesn’t appear to be based as much on ethical standards as the fact that a criminal investigation + civil lawsuits presents a whole new series of unknowns - detracting from the company’s desirability as an investment.

    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.