new york and you can see the brazil president is speaking. president obama is focusing on the refugee crisis and urging leaders to do more to help families displaced by war and persecution. we will bring you that live when it happens. >> and the wells fargo chief executive is about to testify before the senate banking committee after they agreed to pay a record $1.5 million to authorities, including the consumer financial protection bureau after a review found employees may have opened more and 2 million accounts credit cards without consumer commission. a five-year timeline will be to prevent attempts misconduct and we will cover this over the next hours. let's head to the markets in new york where julie hyman has latest about a half-hour before the open of the

u.s. session. >> we see a little bit of a bounceback. stocks were changed and they bounce to gains and losses as investors head into central-bank action later in the week. they may be watching capitol hill and the u.n. but they will also pay a lot of attention to the central banks. we see them all up in the neighborhood of .1%. the 10 year yield pulling back slightly today. 1.68% is where it stands. if you look at the rate hike expectations for september, we have trended lower over the course of the year. they are standing right around 30%, a little shy of that. . we also have a split among primary dealers with the federal reserve, unusual. two of the dealers calling for a

rate increase at the meeting and the remainder saying there will not be an increase. going into the meeting, even though the rate hike odds are still debate about what the federal reserve will do tomorrow. onwe are preparing to hear capitol hill, i wanted to look on wells fargo and see how the shares are doing. they are rebounding today and we have had analyst's come in and say the drop has been overdone, and they talk about what the recent activities, the recent regulatory action against the central-bank mean for it. those shares rising as we await testimony. home builders, wanted to check on their progress today. we got the confidence index, an 11 month high, and today, we got numbers that started higher than anticipated. homebuilders are down.

want to show you what is happening to the european at woody's race away from the end of the tuesday session. stocks are up, longest winning streak since three days of dance that ended september 5. we are ahead of the decisions against bank of japan. volatility for four out of five days. we are up by one quarter of 1% today. executive was named the m a will be the new ceo and she will succeed andrew when he retires, singling out the you maker, the truck only major global pharmaceutical company led i a woman. currently leaves the consumer health business, charged with cutting edge treatment for cancer and infectious diseases through clinical tests to boost earlier and shares were

pair the stock has climbed by 40% for the nine-year and the 10 year. behind astrazeneca's 140. look at shares down 2.6% in one of the biggest operating service offices. the founder and chief executive sold 30 million shares today at 275 proceeds, 100 million pounds or raised, roughly 4% of the issued share capital. still holds roughly 28 percent of ordinary capital. shares have fallen 7.5% today, themost since just after referendum here.

theve the chart showing breakdown of the inverse correlation between sterling and the ftse 100, the equity ,enchmark, what we have seen the ftse 100 rises. losing in correlation for the thought -- for the last five days, the longest streak since the referendum itself, focusing on the strength of the uk economy rather than the weakness of the pound and that is giving the ftse 100 a boost. it is boosting the prospect of earnings for the company. on track for the fourth consecutive increase, the since 2013.tch vonnie: we are awaiting

president obama, set to dress the united nations in new york. michelle of brazil without to push ahead with measures to the economy, particularly unpopular because it gives a pre--- a free hand to act. setsenate banking committee to grow the ceo, who is about to give his testimony first before the senate banking committee and we will bring that to you live. .et's check in on the news >> the attack wash the fragile russia cease-fire further in. the syrian military had declared the truth had failed but the u.s. and russia were prepared to work.

north korea choosing to take another step to develop missiles the united states. a new typend tested of engine for long-range rockets. they conducted the biggest ever nuclear tests. : for and south korea economic sanction. france arrested eight people in connection with the truck attack bush left 86 people dead. the suspects are linked to the attacker killed by police after a crowd.is truck into the islamic state claims responsibility for the attack. one of the most outspoken will not be investigating his drug war anymore. allies in the senate voted to remove the head of the justice and human rights committee and more than 3000 people have been killed in less than three months since he took office. global news 24 hours a day powered by more than 2600 journalists and analysts in more

than 120 countries. this is bloomberg. for your let'sou get back to live pictures on capitol hill. the ceo of wells fargo test before the senate banking committee about the banks opening of unauthorized accounts. in prepared remarks, he says he is sorry, too slow to tackle abuses. here with us now is the banking -- he is obviously apologizing, but since you apologizing for the bank bosses behavior? >> a good question, his prepared remarks took it further than what he prepared to say earlier. congress will want to know how far this reached. has so far blames it on june employees for the most part. takess he is sorry and

full responsibility but he stopped short of saying high at presumably led to that. does he take any culpability on his own shoulders? >> a good question. he did in his remarks and it is not clear how much he will stand behind those remarks or how much farther beyond them he will go. likeis what senators would him to do, they would like to say this rests on me and my management team. one minute -- one member of the management team has since decided to retire. calls to pull back her pay. so far, they have not said anything about the pay. do you think that will be addressed today? will he have to address whether he can start to look into

clawing back to executive? lexie certainly will. many senators, elizabeth warren perhaps chief among them, have wells fargo to call back the pay. so far, he has not said anything about that other than to say it is a board matter and the board is considering it. that will be chief among the questions that senators will have, and whether he gives is an answer, i am not sure. risk manager has taken leave of absence on the eve of this testimony. that was yesterday. claudia anderson began a six-month unpaid leave on monday. that is second nature executive. is this point to investigations or not? them they did not link

when we spoke yesterday. a lot of people are linking them. she was the top manager in the banking commission. she had been in place at the top risk manager during the entire course that the behavior occurred at the regulators had began at least as early as 2011. was managing the risk the entire time. unpaid leave would leave many people to believe -- >> to let viewers know, that is the democrat brown ranking member from ohio, the second speaker of the testimony. you hear from the chairman alabama, saying the culture has to change at the top. very quickly, does anything come

of the hearings? >> i do not think so but for a ceo to sit in these hearings, it is not a comfortable position. there is some impetusceo for the ceo and the bank to change its culture. they obviously do not want this to happen again and regulators are taking a harder look now behind the scenes as we speak. you would expect there would be a change to the culture and sales practices. it is worth saying he said in his prepared remarks that something's have already changed. the question will be what more changes, how they keep a sales buture to drive revenue temper that so employees do not feel like they need to open accounts to meet goals. will thishat extent

impact the bank's business? it's retail customers? at what point will we learn whether or not customers flee the bank to some of its rivals? >> we have to look for the next series of earnings releases. we get third quarter in mid-october. most of this is probably too new to see any sort of funny: i will stop you there. let's listen in. >> i am chairman and chief executive officer of wells fargo , where i have worked for nearly 35 years. lead thisrivilege to ,ompany, founded 164 years ago and it has played a vital role in the financial history and development of our country. we employ more than 268,000 team members, 95% of whom are in the

united states. adultsevery 600 working is a member of the wells fargo family and we've a presence in all 50 states. that we failedry fulfill our responsibility to our customers and team members and to the american public. i have been through many challenges at wells fargo but none of which pains me more than the one we will discuss this morning. behaviorsales practice in our retail banking business goes against everything regarding our core principles, ethics, and culture. it runs counter to our vision of helping our customer financially and it does not -- is not representative of wells fargo as

an institution. i am here to discuss the situation today, tell you about the actions we have taken and our commitment on how to move forward. our entire culture is centered on serving our customers and in this case, we let our customers down. our retail banking practice issues, sales issues, are not of of our hard-working and talented team members who deserve thanks for helping our customers with financial needs. i want to make it very clear yourwe never directed to wanted our team members to provide products and services to customers that they did not want. not good for our customers and it is not good for our business. it is against everything we stand for as a company.

that said, i accept full responsibility for all unethical sales practices in our retail banking business and i am fully issue,ed to fixing the strengthening our culture, and taking the necessary actions to restore our customer trust. let me tell you here today, senators, the wells fargo board is actively engaged in the issue . if the board has the tools to hold senior management accountable, including me and the former head of the retail banking business. areboard actions taken named executive officers will be appropriately disclosed and i want to be clear on this. respect the decision of

the board. under new leadership, we have already begun taking steps to ensure the sales culture of our retail banking business is our customerd with interest. announced13, 2016, we a major decision, that we will end product sales goals for everyone in the retail banking business. we want to make certain that nothing gets in the way of doing what is right i our customers. the new leadership primary mission will be to provide the best possible service to our customers. threelso announcing today new initiatives that will reinforce the commitment to our customers. first, we are expanding the tope of our account review

include both 2009 and 2010. contact everyl single one of our deposit customers across the country using the same process that we agreed to in the city of los angeles for our california customers. third, we have begun contacting hundreds of thousands of our "parts, including those for whom we have already funded fees to confirm whether they need or want their credit card. we recently started sending ,ustomers a confirmation e-mail and within one hour, of opening any new deposit account, and an acknowledgment letter before submitting a credit card

we recognize now that we should have done more sooner to eliminate unethical conduct or incentives that may have unintentionally encouraged the conduct. we took incremental steps over the past five years in an attempt to a dress the situations, but we now know were not enough. in 2011, a dedicated team began to engage in monitoring analytics, specifically for the purposes of ruling out violations. in 2012, we began reducing sales goals they need to qualify for incentives compensation. we created a new corporate wide sales practices. revised we further plans to align with ethical performance.

in 2015, we added more enhancements to training and began a series of town hall meetings to reinforce the importance of ethical leadership and always putting customers first. years, we the five identified potential inappropriate sales practices, investigated those, and took disciplinary actions that included terminations of managers and team members for sales policy violations. 5300 terminations over the five years have been widely reported. despite all of the efforts, we did not get it right. we should have realized much sooner that the best way to solve the problems in the retail banking was to completely eliminate retail bank product sales goals.

missed was the possibility a customer could be charged fees in connection with accounts opened. accounts that are not used are .utomatically closed we assumed this could not happen and we were wrong. we took steps to refund fees and make changes so this would not happen again. 2000 6 -- 2016, we began working with a consulting which conducted extensive, large-scale data analysis of all , depositn accounts accounts, nearly 11 million credit card accounts that we had opened from 2011-2015. of the 93 million accounts reviewed, approximately 2%, 1.5

million deposit accounts and 565,000 consumer credit card accounts, were identified as accounts that may have been unauthorized. to be clear, we did not find the accounts have been unauthorized, but because it could not rule out the possibility, these accounts were further review to determine if any fees have been charged. pwc calculated a possibly had000 of these accounts incurred $2.6 million a fees, which have been refunded to those customers. account isauthorized one too many. this type of activity has no place in our culture. we are committed to getting it and when% of the time

we fall short, weeks after responsibility and we do everything we can to make it right with our customers. i will close by saying again, i am deeply sorry we have not lived up to our values in this way. i want to take the opportunity to thank to budget 68,000 team tohors who sit -- who work serve customers. commitment personal to gain back investor trust and the confidence of the american people. >> according to your testimony, wells fargo began making internal changes in 2011 to address a note -- openings of unauthorized accounts.

did they started 2011 or could there have been unauthorized activity before then? why 2011? mr. stumpf: i think we all know not every team member will do everything right every day of every minute. we do a lot of training of our team members and coaching. they each signed an annual ethics statement and i cannot guarantee it did not happen before that time. to manage itg within the business and that is why announced today that going back to 2010 at 2009, at that time, you might recall we were putting in wells fargo teams together and we just thought we do not want to leave any stone unturned. fired employees

in connection with these practices. what were the criteria for termination and were any shortnel actions taking of termination and if so, what were they? i am sure you did not fire everybody. did you to supply -- discipline and so forth? mr. stumpf: thank you for the question and it is a good one. we have a number of triangulation's around how to understand when there might be proper behavior. threeeone shows up with savings accounts, they probably do not need that. we have ethnic lines, a culture in the company. , raise youromething hand. we look at a number of situations and some of them were perfectly legitimate. trustose who broke our and were dishonest and put

customers at risk, a bright line. we are a regulated institution who behave inople this way and sadly cannot work here. >> your testimony also does not adjust when the violations were brought to the attention of senior management, specifically, when did you find out that thousands of your employees were opening unauthorized accounts or phony accounts? did it take that long? when did you find out? >> thank you again. business has their own audit and investigations and sales practices and efficacy and so theh, contained within retail bank. after they had been working on the issue, this was way too many people, 1% of our people.

team members in our banks, after the business was dealing with this couple of years, it was then brought to the holding company and corporate assets, corporate audit, corporate compliant, the second line of defense got very active and that is why i became much more aware of the issue. ceooes it bother you as the that this was not brought to your attention sooner by your employees? turn the clock back and i have thought about this 1000 times, of versailles wish i would have done something earlier. he did not get on this fast enough. recognizing that the vast majority of people were doing the right thing.

go back to the minute -- the question a minute ago. i do not believe you specifically answered it. senior management learned about the problem? mr. stumpf: i can speak for myself and i know other corporate executives at the corporate area outside the business, i can speak to myself and i believe others in 2013, before that, it was being dealt with with the audit and compliance with the business -- business unit. collects the board of directors of loss fargo been awarded. belions of dollars, it could 100 -- hundreds of millions. a compensation for a success in furthering the company's objective of cross-selling products and reinforcing a

strong risk culture according to the 2015 statement. explain to the american public today here, what accountability and a large bank looks like when an executive departs with millions of dollars in compensation? after thousands of employees defraud customers. mr. stumpf: i will try to get to all of those. president obama is addressing the united nations right now. crisisolk on the refugee and doing more to help those affected by persecution. right now, we will go back to testimony on capitol hill with .he wells fargo ceo john stumpf throughout the

entire time from 2000 2016, customer loyalty scores continue to improve. today, they are top of the >> even by independent studies of large banks. we do a study every year and today, fish -- we have people engaged in this, balances and customers had grown. in this particular area, she did ,ot do enough and we decided the chief operating officer decided that we would go in a different direction. but i want to be clear. retire whenble to she was told that we would go in a different direction, she chose to retire and got no retirement severance benefits and her compensation she received in the has beene of it

granted but not yet invested, and other compensation will be considered by the board of directors in the independent process they have and i will respect and accept any decision they make. >> you have the ability to clawback? mr. stumpf: i am not an expert in compensation but i will get you whatever. >> you are the ceo of the company? are you the chairman of the board? mr. stumpf: yes. >> the buck stops here. mr. stumpf: i am the senior officer. >> are you going to look into about what the person did? her responsibility and the big rewards she is getting that happened on your watch? the board of

directors, the compensation of theee, i'm not part process that i want to make sure that is a very independent with and nothing that i say would prejudice their deliberative process. they have all the tools available to them, whether she would have retired or been fired. collects a lot of banking based on integrity or trust i or customers in the bank self? they do business with you and put their money there. they trust you. what has happened to the banking system, not everywhere, but what has happened? mr. stumpf: you think about it the way i think about it here and trust is the core element of any relationship and surely in the financials business. we know we have work to do in the area and i and 10 to do all i can to help in that area. >> do you believe you violated

that trust? mr. stumpf: there is no question with some of our customers we have violated trust and we have to work hard to rearm that. >> i will make my questions short and ask you to be as concise as possible. start with your response to the senator. you became aware of the widespread fraud. i became aware that the problems the local business was working on in rooting out the behavior by 1% of tea makers give or take, i do not want to minimize that, that we were not making enough progress. >> when did you become aware more precisely? i do not remember the exact time, it was sometime

in 2013. that.nk you for you mentioned that you are before 2011o back because of the merger. the emphasis on cross-selling merger at to the least, right? fargoas been a wells business plan. what year was the merger? that was 1998. merger, clearly you are going back to 2009. why stop at 2009? we hear from people it has gone on longer than that with the pressure and the sales goals. why are you only willing to go

we want to. stumpf: make it right by any customer. regulators.th we made a decision to go back 2010 and 2009 and we want to make it right by any customer. >> does that mean you're willing to go back to earlier than 2009? >> i cannot tell you that today. i do not know about records and so forth but i want to make sure any customer who had harm of any kind, that we will do right by them. >> you have records before 2009. is that a pledge from you to go back earlier than that if in fact there were customers harmed? mr. stumpf: i will take that under advisement. >> i accept your good intentions if you are going back to get restitution to those customers

but why stop there? if you know, if you really want customers arehe made whole, you should go back as long as you possibly can. mr. stumpf: again. we have considered that as i will take that under advisement. >> i hope you more than considerate. discussion on the act? you minimize your influence to us at least. you are the chairman of the board. board goesthe through a process and i respect that. but are you going to recommend to the board -- backup, i would assume we are more familiar with the pros and the cons of performance. you are aware she is slated to get news reports, up to $120 million spirit you are aware that most of the 53 hundred team low income workers,

as low as 11 something an hour, maybe up to 16 or $17 an hour. low paid workers. you are more familiar than probably any board member is familiar. your position in the board, would you make a recommendation to the board that they should call back? i will answer the question i just want to put something in perspective. ,he lowest paid worker we have our least cost area is 12 dollars an hour. our height cost area lowest paid worker is 6.15 dollars an hour. not include the benefits around health care, which we paid virtually all of it for low pay people. most people who lost their jobs because they violated our code

of ethics, they were dishonest, those were good paying jobs. people lost their jobs who are bankers, bank managers, even area president, these were good i think the averages were 35 to $60,000 areas if you just want to take an average. with respect to your specific on the humanm not resources and compensation committee. it is an independent committee. they will take that under deliberation. i do not want in any way to prejudice their activity and i will accept and respect any decision that they make on anything. that.nk you for saying to make a not willing

recommendation based on how this , call theme public good paying jobs at $17 an hour but i will put that aside, but whatever these are in were making, they the bottom percentage of the workforce, they made mistakes, they were dishonest, they apparently deserved to be fired. you are not willing as the ceo to make it public recommendation to make a public statement that sorry -- carryam toasted -- you are not willing to say publicly to the committee or to anyone over $100 million when she announced a retirement in the last several weeks, that any of it should be clawed back? i will let the process proceed and the board , i made an met

affirmative, in my testimony. >> that is unfortunate. he said in your testimony if august of 2015, we began working to ok and reimburse customer fees. is that your decision or where you directed to do so by regulators? mr. stumpf: that was in concert -- consultation with regulators and in the office. after finding out in late 2013 of the problems, through the rest of 2013, through all of 2014, in the first several months 2015, it never occurred to you you should bring in without the regulator suggesting it, it never occurred to you to bring in somebody to really find out what has issues were going

on, how do we find out what is going on? mr. stumpf: that is a good whytion and i thought about in early of 2015, about the time we were considering or talking about who we bring in, that we finally connected to. we had not connected before. what happens when an account is opened that is not funded, the system eliminates it within a couple of months. if it does not get funded, it is not used or started, or closed, , and no dawned on us excuses, and we were wrong, it never dawned that there could be , a 30 day cycle would

have been completed and there could have been a fee associated with that. it was the first time the light bulb went on. candor butiate your in 2011, employees were filed, 2013 was the peak number, 2014, 2015 -- 2015 throughout the year, nothing happened, it did not seem to ever occur to management to do any of this. then today, and i do not question your integrity, but you come in and make all of these announcements. since alln five years of this has been happening today. you make announcements and you apologize we appreciate that you make announcements we're doing the right things. but it begs the issue of where was management when so many thousands of people were fired and stories were written, regulators were starting to come in.

this is a huge profit center for the retail banking writ large in terms of unauthorized accounts and everything else but it does not seem quite right. it did not occur to anyone in the board apparently. it did not occur to top management they should do something more affirmatively until that august 2015 date when the regulators sort of helped you suggest and come to that conclusion. corker: thank you for being here. as an observation, i know you have a whole host of people here sure one of i am those people, is a communications person. i would make the observation, i know you talk daily with board members and you have been on -- i have been on boards before myself. i would suggest as an observation to not invoke some degree of clawback for yourself , committeeinvolved

malpractice from the standpoint of public relations. at a minimum, i am sure that will take place. i would be surprised if it does not. you found out about this through reading the l.a. times, is that correct? do not recall back in 2013 exactly the time frame. inearned about it later 2013. but it sounds: yourit was brought to attention after our story in the newspaper and that's when the focus again. i am not criticizing that. mr. stumpf: we had dismissed a number of people and that had caused it. i know public:

boards today, intense scrutiny with all kinds of committees set up. when did the board realized you had a unit committing fraud? it seems to me that is one thing you flag quickly. mr. stumpf: the team members you are absolutely right, they did not do what is right. senator corker: i am asking you when they became aware? and 2014.: later 2013 senator corker: they were not even aware of the l.a. times story? mr. stumpf: i think that was later in 2013 have to go back but it was sometime later in 2013 and surely in 2000 or team read thisor corker: i -- 2014. i read a story.

i do not know her. i do not know if any of this was true. who isn you have someone that involved in micro details, not raisingse of their head up to 10,000 feet and understanding the kind of culture being created by slogans like these? bank,ms to me without a with all the data you used in withoutng customers, the rhythms, you guys can pick this stuff up so quickly. it is hard to believe there is not some report within the bank that would cause this to jump out at people and say that something really bad is happening here. mr. stumpf: i think that is a good question. in the retail business, where you have 1000 -- 100,000 people in seats at any one time in our

there is a lot of turnover. i'm not justifying. senator corker: there is a compliance officer. all banks have these and you all regulate to death. that is their job. this is something you would think would be flagged and jump out at someone in that job. mr. stumpf: and that is what i was trying to lane, that in her business, surely she was reporting situations where there were ethical breakdowns. level in the corporate 2013 because progress was not and as the corporate research is started, we have seen improvements. again, therer:

does seem to be a big disconnect. she left after 27 years and i think it would be good for the to explain the entire compensation. i think it is a little different than most people think based on some of the comments that have been made. i assume her departure was based on this issue, is that correct? >> it was based on a number of issues and this was one of them. business to take the in a different direction. senator corker: she was in essence terminated over the issue. mr. stumpf: no, she retired. a discussion with her in june or july, said we want to go in a different direction, we want to put a focus on this issue. a variety of things and she was eligible for retirement and she decided to retire. upator corker: my time is and out of respect for other members, i will stop there and i

had other questions. thank you for being here. >> thank you for being here. let me try to clarify a bit more your position going forward with respect to issues of compensation. formally recused yourself from deliberations? mr. stumpf: i am not even discussions, nothing required. i am happy to do that. i am not involved in that. i am not part of that. it is done in an executive session without me and has always been done that way. this,n you learned of what did you do? this has been asked in several different ways.

did you inform the regulators of the growing problem? .> thank you yes. i should've mentioned that earlier. our primary regulator was informed that the time. i cannot recall the exact it was, but i can -- sometime in 2013 and i know in 2014, various committees of the board were made aware of this. the examination, the corporate responsibility. you take any steps to internally notify employees of this type of behavior, which, going back, 11,000 people, 12, 13, did you communicate that or did you keep the discussions internal to the board? i do a team member

town hall every quarter where i and thereous cities will be a couple thousand people in the audience and we webcast that broadly across the company. about ethicsalk and doing what is right for customers and the vast majority do it. i was trying to really bring home that. >> given specific evidence of used, those specific practices were not focused upon and made it clear they were not tolerated and it would seem there is a generic discussion of, follow the rules. again, at the time

that the escalation happened in 2013, there were many different meetings and things happening. i mentioned in my oral testimony about talking about sales efficacy, having manager meetings talking to leaders, putting more controls in place. not fast enough or far enough and i apologize for that. >> it seems the emphasis on meeting sales objectives was unremitting. you have specific examples of things that you knew were happening or should not be happening. what i'm hearing is more or less a generic, make those and by the way, we have ethical rules in place. there is a tone,

and emphasis, and what they say is more important sometimes than anything else. for a time there, this was there was nout specific stop this stuff. said "stop this stuff." the thing is i would rather have a customer with two. it's that and want andneed value, then four products that are not used and valued. in the first case, the customer wins and we win and we all do well and in the second case, everybody loses. we lose money and it does not help us. so we tried very hard and we are not as active as weak and have an talk about, the goal here is not products.

too long to make that happen. seems they took too many for simple stats that should've been taken to be taken. it was only as a result of what countyely los angeles and the regulars and others did that forced the issue. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for calling this hearing. been learning is so deeply disturbing at so many different levels. discover wells fargo had a sales culture that was plainly antithetical to what is best for customers. we discover that management had far too few common sense to prevent viace -- wells fargo

executives completely out of touch. in a 2011 boards article, rated the best at cross-selling its products. we discovered wells fargo was not only -- not always cross-selling carried you know the customer does not want the product. -- this is not in cross-selling, it is fraud. that is what it is. was waydiscover there too little time to prevent it from continuing even after it was discovered. wells fargo employees continue to years. my understanding is something on the order of over $29 in bonuses for her between 2010 and 2015 were awarded because of strong crossover ratios. yet we know in some cases, she

was hitting numbers by the fraudulent accounts. it is unbelievable. do you engage -- mr. stumpf: i am not a criminal officer and i do not know, i am not a lawyer, i know this. ethics,ke our code of they were dishonest, and we did everything we can to support law enforcement in these issues. sen. toomey: i am not a law enforcement officer either but i think most people understand the meaning of fraud. fraud is a knowing misrepresentation or knowing concealment of a material fact act to can -- make another

in this way -- how does this not meet that definition? mr. stumpf: if that is the definition, -- i can tell you this. it is absolutely wrong. we found this out and got rid of those people in that behavior has no place in our culture. if that means fraud, then that means fraud. >> at what point did you alert regulators and law enforcement that you probably had criminal activity happening on a large scale? >> again, it was 1% of our people, senator. i know it is eager than my hometown. i do know that. but we had the vast majority who did the right thing but let's talk about those here at time, and we made a very right line. if it happened one time -- sen. toomey: i only have five minutes.

mr. stumpf: i am sorry. when it was required, we did every year according to the rules. when did you disclose in filings that you had this material that could have huge damage to your reputational value? >> i cannot answer that. i would have to get to our legal team. i would have to get back to you on that here and i do not know. the fcc has required disclosure of the circumstances and i do not know how this could not be deemed material. i think the market cap lost 9% and that is pretty material. from a financial isspective, $2.6 million, it

two $.6 million to much and 180 $59 was not -- sen. toomey: i get that the dollar amounts may not qualify a as material to a bank the size of wells fargo but the reputational damage done to the bank clearly is material. that has been manifested by this huge adverse movement in stock prices. you mention in your testimony, and you state unequivocably that there were no orchestrated efforts or scheme as some have called it, by the company. thousands of people conduct the same kind of fraudulent it is a stretch to believe that everyone of them independently conjured up the idea of how they would commit this fraud. very probable that there was some orchestration that happened at some level? i am not suggesting it was you personally. but doesn't it defy common sense to think there was not some

orchestration of this? i do not know how or what motivated or why people did we did fire managers and managers of managers and in the case an area president. is way too many. i do not want to minimize it, but i also want to make sure that we recognize the vast majority of people did exactly what we wanted them to do to help deepen customer relations and help them succeed financially and also, we put a number of other controls in place besides taking sales goals off the table, we now did not open any deposit account today or any credit card without a signature. there are a couple of cases a or where they cannot will have a dual notice and we are doing mystery shopping and giving customers one hour notice by e-mail o