Wells Fargo
Policy Theatre in Practice

When policy exists and still fails

Wells Fargo is a modern example of policy theatre: extensive ethics policies and reporting channels existed on paper, while the operating system rewarded aggressive sales targets that were analytically ungrounded and incompatible with informed consent and basic account integrity in practice.

This case study shows how disclosed incentives and measurable warning signals were repeatedly treated as isolated conduct issues rather than structural governance risk — until regulatory intervention made the failure unavoidable.

Download PDF

The Scandal

Wells Fargo’s sales-practices scandal was one of the most significant banking conduct failures of the last decade. From 2011–2016, employees opened an estimated ~3.5 million unauthorized (or improperly authorized) deposit and credit-card accounts to meet aggressive cross-sell targets and daily sales quotas, and Wells Fargo reported ~5,300 employee terminations tied to sales-practice issues.

Customers were harmed in practical, personal ways: unwanted accounts, improper fees and charges, time spent unwinding and correcting records, and—where credit products were involved—potential impacts to credit reports/scores. The deeper damage was trust: the episode undermined confidence in consent, transparency, and basic account integrity, leaving lasting reputational harm that became a strategic and regulatory constraint long after the headlines went away.

Key Takeways

Wells Fargo’s retail bank became widely known for employees opening unauthorized (or not fully authorized) accounts and services to meet aggressive cross-sell and daily sales targets. What was framed internally as isolated misconduct was, in practice, a predictable outcome of a performance system built around product-count goals and volume-linked incentives. The result was real customer harm—unwanted accounts, fees, and time spent unwinding problems—and major governance and regulatory consequences.

This wasn’t hidden risk. The core drivers were disclosed for years: cross-sell positioned as primary strategy, numeric penetration goals translated into daily sales targets, and volume-linked incentives — in a banking business where value depends on risk, asset mix, and duration, not raw product counts.

Policy couldn’t govern against the performance system. Codes, training, and hotlines existed, but targets and career consequences dictated behaviour.

The “eight products per household” target was asserted, not validated — a sales ambition presented as strategy, with no disclosed definition, methodology, or supporting analysis. Yet it remained a central performance anchor from the late 1990s/early 2000s through 2016.

If product count is a top performance indicator, you need counter-metrics—active use, retention, early closures/reversals, complaint and termination rates, and risk-adjusted profitability—otherwise you’re measuring activity, not value.

Early warnings showed up in the trend lines well before the 2016 enforcement moment. By 2007–2013, internal allegations and sales-practice terminations rose sharply, but the risk kept being framed as localized conduct issues rather than a structural operating-model problem. When the issue became public through major reporting in 2013, the signal still didn’t trigger an enterprise-level reset of targets and incentives.

Oversight failed because red flags weren’t treated as enterprise risk. Sales-practice issues were handled as branch/region HR and compliance matters—tracked locally, addressed case-by-case, and explained as “bad actors”—instead of being consolidated into a single, board-visible risk picture. Even after sustained public exposure (2013 onward) and initial legal action (2015), governance responses lagged.

By the 2017 AGM (April 25, 2017), the governance failure was visible in the proxy results: ISS recommended against 12 of 15 directors, and Glass Lewis recommended against six. Several directors were re-elected with unusually weak support — as low as ~53% — a sharp break from prior years when support was routinely far higher.

The consequence was durable, not episodic. What started as “individual sales-practice” issues in the 2000s became a multi-year constraint on strategy, risk management, and competitiveness through 2016–2018 (and beyond), as the franchise absorbed remediation, governance rebuild, and ongoing operating restrictions.

This case study reconstructs the timeline and disclosure trail to show what investors could have seen in real time—how strategy, incentive design, and measurable conduct indicators signaled an enterprise risk long before the outcome was undeniable.

Key enforcement actions (selected)

2016-09-08 — $185 million
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Consent Order; Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) cease and desist order; Los Angeles City Attorney settlement (jointly announced).
2020-02-21 — $3.0 billion
- U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) resolution (criminal and civil investigations): Deferred Prosecution Agreement and civil settlement.
2020-02-21 — $500 million
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settlement (misleading investors about key performance metrics and sales practices).