Wells Fargo CEO Quits In Wake Of Consumer Financial Scandals
Wells Fargo CEO Timothy Sloan is questioned by the House Financial Services Committee earlier this month. He will step down immediately, the company announced Thursday.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan will step down immediately, the company announced Thursday.
“It has become apparent to me that our ability to successfully move Wells Fargo forward from here will benefit from a new CEO and fresh perspectives,” Sloan said as part of the announcement.
He is the second Wells Fargo CEO to resign in about 2 1/2 half years, as the big bank has been buffeted by scandals. The most prominent involved bankers creating deposit and credit card accounts for millions of customers without their knowledge.
Wells Fargo was ordered to pay $185 million in penalties and fines in 2016 for creating unwanted accounts by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Earlier this month, Sloan testified before Congress, assuring the House Financial Services Committee that “Wells Fargo is a better bank than it was three years ago, and we are working every day to become even better.”
But lawmakers from both political parties were skeptical.
And a few days later, the company revealed in a filing to a government regulator that Sloan would be getting a $2 million bonus for 2018.
That prompted California Democrat Maxine Waters, who runs the House Financial Services Committee, to call for him to be “shown the door.”
The troubles have been mounting for Wells Fargo over the years.
In an unrelated case, the consumer bureau also imposed a $1 billion fine against Wells Fargo for overcharging customers for mortgages and auto loans. The fine was part of a larger settlement of charges the bank originated and sold mortgage loans that included false information in the years leading up to the financial crisis.
Sloan took over as CEO when John Stumpf stepped down in October 2016, in the wake of outrage over the accounts scandal.
Sloan said during the hearing that as many as 3.5 million unauthorized accounts had been opened, according to an audit.
How A Lawsuit Challenging Obamacare Could Affect People With Pre-Existing Conditions
NPR’s Ailsa Chang talks with Sabrina Corlette from Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms about how a lawsuit against Obamacare could impact people with pre-existing conditions.
AILSA CHANG, HOST:
One of the central goals of the Affordable Care Act is to protect people with pre-existing conditions. That means insurers have to cover sick people. The Trump administration announced earlier this week that it supports a federal lawsuit challenging the existence of the ACA. Wiping out the health care law could mean that people with pre-existing conditions won’t be able to get coverage or will have to pay more for insurance.
To talk about all this, we’re joined now by Sabrina Corlette. She’s a professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. Welcome.
SABRINA CORLETTE: Thank you.
CHANG: So we throw around this phrase a lot – pre-existing conditions – when we’re talking about health care. Can you just first lay out exactly what is a pre-existing condition?
CORLETTE: Well, that can be very much in the eye of the insurance company. In fact, before the Affordable Care Act, many companies maintained lists of up to 400 different conditions that might cause somebody to be denied a policy or to be charged more. And that could range from serious conditions like HIV, AIDS, hemophilia, cancer or could be fairly minor – asthma, glaucoma…
CHANG: Glaucoma.
CORLETTE: (Laughter) Exactly. All of those things could trigger what was called underwriting, where they would screen somebody out or carve out the treatment that you might need to treat that condition and not pay for it.
CHANG: And where did this idea of the pre-existing condition come from in the first place?
CORLETTE: Well, most insurance companies, their business model is based on avoiding risk. They worry that people will wait until they’re sick to sign up for coverage. So to protect themselves from that, they came up with a variety of tools that allow them to screen out people who might cost them money. And that includes denying policies.
It includes charging a higher premium than they would a healthy person. It could mean that they don’t cover certain parts of the benefit package. For example, if you had a history of asthma, they might say, well, we’ll cover you but nothing having to do with an upper respiratory condition.
CHANG: Right. But it sounds like what you’re saying is, this concept of the pre-existing condition, it’s an invention by the insurance industry. This is not some medical term from the medical profession. This is an insurance-invented word or idea.
CORLETTE: That’s absolutely right.
CHANG: So in a way, though, insurers have a point. It is more expensive to cover someone who has an illness.
CORLETTE: Yes, that’s right. And they do worry that, without certain protections in place, people will not buy coverage when they’re healthy and then, you know, when they’re in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, they’ll call up the insurance company and say, please sign me up for a policy. And if that happens, then the system just doesn’t work because premiums will be too expensive and unaffordable for everybody else.
CHANG: OK. But even if the Trump administration is successful in ending the Affordable Care Act in the courts, is it politically possible at this point to completely take away protection for pre-existing conditions because it’s popular among voters in both parties?
CORLETTE: Right. So if the court rules in favor of the Trump administration, these protections will be gone at the federal level. And so Congress would have to step in and restore them. Unfortunately, we have a pretty divided House and Senate, and it’s hard to imagine them coming to agreement. That said, interestingly, the number of states have stepped up to try to enact these protections at the state level.
But there are limits. For example, states are not allowed to pass laws that affect people with employer-based insurance. That’s really a federal responsibility. So states can protect people in the individual market – folks who are buying on their own. But for most of us in employer-based plans, that really would need a federal law change.
CHANG: Sabrina Corlette is a lawyer and professor at Georgetown’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. Thanks so much for coming into the studio today.
CORLETTE: Thank you.
Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
