Wells Fargo on Tuesday reported fourth-quarter profits and revenues that fell short of Wall Street’s expectations.
- Earnings: 93 cents per share versus $1.12 per share forecast by Refinitiv
- Revenue: $19.86 billion versus $20.14 billion forecast by Refinitiv
Quarterly profit at the San Francisco-based bank was $2.87 billion, compared with $6.06 billion in the year-ago period. Per-share adjusted earnings were 93 cents, well short of the $1.12 per share forecast by Refinitiv.
Shares fell more than 2.5% in premarket trading following the financial results.
The results, which reflect the bank’s performance for the three months ended Dec. 31, mark Wells Fargo’s first quarter under new management. Charles Scharf took over as Wells Fargo’s chief executive in October, replacing Tim Sloan and charged with navigating the bank through a host of regulatory issues that have kept costs elevated.
The nation’s fourth-largest bank, Wells Fargo remains muddled in restructuring and regulatory reforms since 2016. The government crackdown came under former CEO John Stumpf, who presided over a scandal in which Wells Fargo employees created millions of fake bank accounts to meet sales quotas.
With the bank’s reputation damaged, Sloan took over for Stumpf in 2016 in the hopes of working through the bank’s self-inflicted setbacks. Sloan stepped down abruptly in March and Scharf was named his successor in September.
Investors are eager for any insights from Scharf following his strategic review of the bank’s business practices and how he plans to improve its standing with federal lawmakers.
Investors and analysts alike also hope Scharf can bring to Wells Fargo the success he oversaw at BNY Mellon, where he previously served as CEO and helped upgrade its technologies.
“Charlie’s first earnings call is tomorrow. I think there is a lot of focus on expenses — they’re clearly running a lot higher there than at peers,” said Barclays analyst Jason Goldberg on Monday. “And I think the question is when can they start to bring down those costs and how far are behind are they — if at all — on their technology spend.”