The Wells Fargo Train Wreck (Still Going)

Apparently, this is the scandal that refuses to die. Every time I think we’ve moved on, something new bubbles up. This time, The New York Times published “Voices from Wells Fargo,” a series of employee interviews that left my jaw on the floor.

Employees were allegedly told open accounts by any means possible—or risk being fired. That’s rough. But can we pause and ask why “any means” included identity theft and fraud? One very legal, very ethical method would have been: do your job. Work hard. Be better. Fraud isn’t a requirement—it’s a choice.

Now, I worked in retail banking at Chase for five years. I know what those quotas felt like. I watched colleagues bend rules—not because expectations were impossible, but because cheating felt easier than grinding. One employee said they coped with the stress by drinking hand sanitizer. A full bottle. Every day. I’ve had rough days in finance, too, but not once have I thought, “you know what would solve this? Purell on the rocks.”

And then there’s the “pet account” bit. I didn’t realize Fido needed a checking account for Christmas. Honestly, if someone at the bank offered me a pet savings account, I’d be curious enough to open one—if only to see if my cat gets a debit card.

At the end of the day, this isn’t just about rogue employees. It’s a culture and management failure. And I sincerely hope this is the last time I have to write about it. But who knows—maybe next week they’ll release a tell-all called Wells Fargo: The Musical.

Fiduciary Standards and Bad Analogies

Let’s pivot to another head-scratcher: the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule. We’ve written about it before, but now Anthony Scaramucci has entered the chat—with an analogy that might make your head spin.

According to Scaramucci, requiring advisors to act in their clients’ best interest is… equivalent to the Dred Scott decision. You read that right. Because, in his view, this rule discriminates against middle-class Americans by limiting access to financial advisors who make money through commissions. Basically, bad advice is better than no advice.

Let’s test that logic: would you rather have a bad dentist than no dentist? A bad mechanic? A bad doctor? No thanks. I’d rather YouTube how to fix a cavity with Krazy Glue than trust a bad professional.

Here’s the truth: many advisors under the current suitability standard don’t have to offer advice—they only have to sell a product. There are better ways forward. Low-cost options like Vanguard exist. Larger firms could provide pro bono work. The government could subsidize financial education. This isn’t a binary choice between “bad advice” and nothing. We can—and should—do better.

Sales, Suitability, and Ken Paxton

Here’s the real issue in the industry: people can’t always tell the difference between a salesperson and a fiduciary. We assume that anyone talking about investments is a trained professional acting in our best interest—but that’s not always the case.

Take Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. In 2011, he received $840,000 in stock compensation for selling shares to friends and associates—without disclosing he was making a 10% commission. The SEC charged him with fraud. The courts, however, ruled that while he may have had a moral duty to disclose, he didn’t have a legal one. So, recommending stock to your buddy while secretly profiting? Rude, yes. Illegal? Apparently not—unless you’re also not registered to sell securities in that state. Which, it turns out, he wasn’t.

This whole situation underscores the widening gap between public expectation and regulatory reality. Investors assume they’re getting professional advice. Sometimes, they’re just getting a pitch. And while the laws catch up—or don’t—we’re all left to sort out the difference ourselves.

This website commentary reflects the personal opinions and analyses of Gainplan LLC employees. It does not describe Gainplan LLC’s advisory services or client investment performance. Views in the commentary may change anytime without notice. Nothing here constitutes investment advice, performance data, or recommendations for specific securities, transactions, or strategies. Mentioning a security or its performance is not a buy or sell recommendation. Gainplan LLC uses various investment strategies, not all discussed here. Investing in securities carries risks, including loss. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Gainplan LLC provides links to third-party websites for convenience. Clicking these links leaves our website. Gainplan LLC is not responsible for errors, omissions, or content on third-party sites and does not necessarily endorse their information. Users accessing these sites must follow their terms and assume all risks.