Friday, September 30, 2016

Illinois to Suspend Wells Fargo From Bond, Investing Work – Bloomberg

Illinois is joining California in suspending Wells Fargo & Co. from handling "billions" of dollars in investment work and the underwriting of state debt after the company admitted to opening potentially millions of bogus customer accounts.

Treasurer Michael Frerichs said in a statement the he will announce details of the ban during a news conference in Chicago on Monday. The suspension includes municipal-bond underwriting, according to Greg Rivara, a spokesman for the treasurer.

"In isolation, Illinois is not as significant as California, but its part of a mosaic that's starting to take form," Charles Peabody, a managing director at Compass Point Research LLC, said in a telephone interview, noting that it's surprised industry watchers that the cross-selling scandal has begun to impact Wells Fargo's corporate bank. "And the mosaic that's being built out does not paint a bright picture for 2017 earnings."

The pullback comes as pressure builds on Wells Fargo Chief Executive Officer John Stumpf and the bank's board to resign because of the fake-account debacle. Stumpf told Congressional lawmakers this week that the San Francisco-based bank was working to help any customers who where hurt by its actions and is "deeply sorry" that Wells Fargo broke clients' trust. Stumpf has forfeited $ 41 million in pay.

A spokesman for Wells Fargo didn't immediately have a comment.

For a quick recap of the controversy surrounding Wells Fargo's Stumpf, click here.

Authorities including the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fined Wells Fargo $ 185 million on Sept. 8 for potentially opening about 2 million deposit and credit-card accounts without authorization. Federal prosecutors in New York and San Francisco have opened criminal inquiries, a person familiar with the matter has said. Wells Fargo already faces a raft of lawsuits by fired or demoted workers, customers and investors.

California Treasurer John Chiang suspended Wells Fargo for one year on Wednesday and called for Stumpf to quit. Connecticut decided last week to add Morgan Stanley to serve as lead underwriter with Wells Fargo on a state bond issue planned for next month to help ensure a successful sale. Other states such as Alaska and Oregon said they're maintaining business with Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo wasn't ranked among the top four underwriters of municipal debt in Illinois during the first half of 2016, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The company was the second-largest underwriter in California during that period, handling sales of $ 3.9 billion in securities, or 11 percent of total issuance.

The bank ranked fifth in overall municipal-bond underwriting this year through June, selling $ 13.7 billion in debt, for 5.9 percent market share, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE
LikeTweet

Trump’s unusual conflict: Millions in debts to German bank now facing federal fines – Washington Post

Donald Trump's business empire owes hundreds of millions of dollars to a giant German bank cast into crisis by settlement negotiations with the Justice Department, a relationship some lawyers say sheds light on the massive financial entanglements he could face as president.

Federal regulators are seeking a $ 14 billion fine from Deutsche Bank, Trump's top lender, to settle claims that the bank issued toxic mortgages amid the housing crisis. German media have suggested the bank has sought a state bailout that could lead to partial ownership of the bank by the German government.

A settlement could be reached before a new president takes office, but government-ethics experts say the Deutsche Bank situation is a stark reminder of how Trump could face a conflicting set of interests as the nation’s negotiator in chief.

As head of the executive branch, he'd oversee the Justice Department and the United States’ relations with the rest of the world. But he'd still have a lengthy series of financial relationships with private institutions and countries with business before the United States.

"It's certainly foreseeable that he could intervene with the DOJ so as to not upset the financing of his companies," said Trevor Potter, a former Federal Election Commission chairman and general counsel of George H.W. Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

It's "unthinkable in recent history," Potter said, that "there's the possibility of a president being able to affect his own personal financial interests, conceivably to the detriment of the general public."

Alan Garten, executive vice president and general counsel of the Trump Organization, said, "I don't see the conflict," and drew a parallel to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's global philanthropy.

"Under your theory, no one who has ever done anything before can be elected to the highest office," he said.

Ethics advisers have called for Trump, if elected, to sell his business interests or sequester them in an independent holding company to lower the risk of him being beholden to foreign powers while in the White House.

But Trump has resisted. The candidate, Garten said, has pledged only to give his companies to his children, a transition that lawyers say would not be enough to sever Trump's financial ties.

In the Deutsche Bank case, it's impossible to predict exactly how the bank's settlement discussions could intersect with Trump's financial interests if he wins the election — or if they would. But lawyers say the bank could have unusual leverage over him as it searches for a way out of its current crisis.

If Deutsche's financial health was in danger, that could also potentially threaten Trump's corporate interests, because the bank could freeze future lending to his companies. If the German government partially owned the bank, lawyers said, Trump's dual rule as a business executive and chief diplomat could come into conflict.

"The level of entanglements here are unprecedented," said Ken Gross, the former elections enforcement official and lawyer who has advised presidential candidates from both parties, speaking generally outside the Deutsche case.

"He'll have to deal with conflict entanglements almost on a daily basis, based on the holdings he has, particularly those involving international issues. It's just going to plague him, one way or another."

Deutsche is Europe's biggest investment bank and one of the world's largest financial institutions. It is also the biggest lender to Trump's real estate businesses, the candidate reported in financial disclosure filings this spring.

But the Justice Department negotiations have led to a panic over the bank's financial health. Big hedge funds have rushed to withdraw holdings from the bank, and investors have sent the bank's share price plunging about 50 percent this year.

Justice Department investigators accused the bank of misleading investors while bundling and selling disastrous mortgage-backed securities between 2005 and 2007. The bank said this month that it was negotiating a settlement with the Justice Department and had no intent to settle "anywhere near the number cited." The department declined to comment.

The bank has also been the subject of wide-ranging criminal investigations in the U.S. and other countries. The bank agreed last year to pay $ 2.5 billion in fines following a scandal over the bank's rigging of loan interest rates.

In June, the Federal Reserve said the bank's U.S. subsidiary had failed a key stress test, and an International Monetary Fund report said the bank was one of the biggest "contributors to systemic risks in the global banking system."

Trump's history with Deutsche Bank shows a deep relationship — and a sometimes contentious one.

Trump financial-disclosure filings show that Deutsche is the creditor on four of his companies' 16 loans, with principals totaling about $ 360 million. About $ 125 million of that debt was lumped into two 2012 mortgages for Trump National Doral, his South Florida golf complex.

A third loan was for Trump International Hotel and Tower, his Chicago high-rise. Trump filings state the loan was worth $ 25 million to $ 50 million, but county property records show the loan was actually for $ 69 million.

The most recent Deutsche debt, incurred last year, was a $ 170 million line of credit put toward the development of Trump's newly opened luxury hotel near the White House, the Trump International Hotel in Washington. All four loans will mature, or come due, by 2024.

Deutsche is the only big Wall Street bank on Trump's filings that has continued to lend even as Trump companies filed six bankruptcies. Since 1998, Deutsche has been a lender or co-lender in at least $ 2.5 billion in loans to Trump or his companies, a Wall Street Journal analysis found in March.

But Trump and Deutsche have also clashed. In 2008, the bank asked for Trump to make payments on a $ 640 million construction loan for the Chicago tower given by a Deutsche-led group of lenders. Instead, Trump sued, saying the bank should pay him $ 3 billion because it had undermined his project, in part, by creating "the current financial crisis."

The bank countersued, saying the lawsuit was "classic Trump" and an attempt "to avoid living up to the deal he reached with Deutsche Bank." Trump and the bank settled, and the loan has since been repaid.

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, enacted after Watergate, established strict rules requiring members of Congress to recuse themselves from matters in which they have financial interests. Presidents, however, were exempt, so as to not interfere with the wide-ranging job.

Though not required, many in the modern Oval Office — including Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and both Bushes — have sought to minimize red flags by placing their assets in "blind trusts," run by independent trustees who keep complete control.

Trump's business empire shows many ties to foreign countries. Trump has praised Russian President Vladi­mir Putin and for years shared hopes that he could develop properties there. Some of the more than 500 companies listed on Trump's financial disclosures are in countries with sensitive ties to the United States, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and China.

Trump has said he would have no involvement in his businesses because they would be run by his children. "His focus is going to be solely on improving the country," said Garten, the Trump general counsel. "The business is not going to be a factor or an interest at that point."

But lawyers say that would create only the appearance of a barrier between Trump and the businesses he's been involved with for several decades.

"It's silly to suggest there's any avoidance of conflict by having your family run the interests," Potter said. "He talks to his family all the time."

LikeTweet

Before 6 am, Donald Trump proved Hillary Clinton’s point about his temperament – Washington Post

While you were probably still sleeping, the 2016 Republican presidential nominee encouraged all of us to check out a “sex tape” and offered a baseless conspiracy theory about his opponent helping the woman from the alleged sex tape get citizenship so she could take him down.

And in doing so, Donald Trump did everything Hillary Clinton could have hoped he would, drawing out a now-week-long story about Alicia Machado, making things up and — above all — reinforcing all those very real questions about whether he has the temperament to be president.

Here are the tweets, over a 16-minute span between 5:14 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. Eastern time:

There are certainly aspects of Machado’s past that no campaign would like for its surrogates to have; specifically, she was accused in 1998 of driving the getaway car in a murder plot and then of threatening a judge. But Trump is once again playing fast-and-loose with the facts.

There have been plenty of rumors of a “sex tape,” and Machado has been described as a “porn star” by some. But, according to Snopes (some censored yet still NSFW images at that link), this is based on nothing more than Internet rumors and some grainy, non-explicit footage of Machado apparently having sex under the covers while she was a reality show contestant.

Then there’s Trump’s peddling of the theory that Clinton helped Machado “become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate.” This doesn’t make sense, given Machado became a U.S. citizen in August and the application process generally takes at least six months. So Clinton would have had to hatch this plot in early 2016 — to know just as the primaries were beginning that she would face Trump in the debates and that Machado would figure into them. (But, again, we’re applying facts to a conspiracy theory that’s apparently based upon nothing.)

More than anything, though, here we have the Republican presidential nominee, less than 40 days before the election, doing the very same things that have led voters to severely question his temperament.

At the Sept. 26 presidential debate, Hillary Clinton knocked Donald Trump for his treatment of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. Here’s what you need to know about Machado. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

And however well Trump is doing in the head-to-head — and no matter how much he says that his temperament is great — it’s a very real concern for voters.

A New York Times/CBS News poll earlier this month showed just 31 percent of registered voters say Trump has the “right kind of temperament and personality to be a good president.” Fully 64 percent said he did not. That’s almost two-third of the electorate.

As much as the media gets attacked for not being hard enough on Trump, it’s clear that a strong majority of Americans have processed the many controversial things he’s said, including his comments about women and his tendency to get drawn into petty feuds. Some people can get past it and are still voting for him, yes — but it’s a clear liability.

And it’s a liability the Clinton campaign seems to be intent on driving home in the final weeks of the campaign — apparently with the able assistance of Trump himself.

Clinton said at the Democratic National Convention two months ago: “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”

Whether you trust Trump with nuclear weapons is one thing. But what’s become clear as day over the past week is that Trump can indeed be baited. The Clinton campaign has done it repeatedly — on Mark Cuban, on taxes, etc. — and he’s taken it, hook, line and sinker. We’re now on Day No. 5 of the Machado story. That’s in no small part due to Donald Trump.

This archive video from 1997 shows Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump with his now outspoken critic, former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. (Reuters)

LikeTweet

Wells Fargo chief Stumpf heads to Hill with pressure mounting – Business Insider

By Lisa Lambert and Patrick Rucker

Sept 29 (Reuters) – Wells Fargo & Co’s Chief Executive John Stumpf returns to Capitol Hill on Thursday with his job still under threat and the bank facing rising political pressure over a sales scandal that has become a major issue in Washington and on Wall Street.

The bank’s move earlier this week to claw back $ 41 million in stock awarded to Stumpf, an unprecedented rebuke for a major U.S. bank CEO, is unlikely to silence calls for him to resign over revelations Wells Fargo’s branch staff opened as many as two million unauthorized credit card and deposit accounts to meet sales quotas.

The scandal has triggered lawsuits, investigations and wiped more than $ 20 billion off the bank’s market value.

California, Wells Fargo’s home state, suspended business relationships with the bank for a year on Wednesday and said it would work with the state’s two giant public pension funds to change the management structure at the bank, including separating the roles of CEO and chairman.

The episode has been a stunning reversal for Stumpf, long regarded as a safe pair of hands in the industry for navigating Wells Fargo successfully through the financial crisis.

“I don’t know that he will survive this. I don’t think there’s any way to come out of this with the same leadership,” said Patricia Lenkov, CEO of Agility Executive Search.

Stumpf will appear before the House Financial Services Committee, his second congressional appearance in under 10 days.

Thursday’s hearing may be softer on Stumpf than the bipartisan tongue-lashing he took from the Senate Banking Committee on Sept. 20, in which Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren called him a “gutless leader” who should be criminally investigated.

Warren said on Wednesday that Wells Fargo’s decision to launch an internal investigation and claw back bonuses paid to Stumpf and Carrie Tolstedt, the former head of the retail division at the center of the scandal, were “important first steps,” but still insufficient.

“The reduced compensation represents only a fraction of the total pay and bonuses received by Mr. Stumpf and Ms. Tolstedt during the years that their compensation was based in part on inflated retail account growth and cross-selling success,” she wrote in a letter to Wells Fargo’s board of directors.

Andrew Duberstein at public relations firm Sard Verbinnen, which is representing the board, did not respond to requests for comment on the letter.

Stumpf will tell lawmakers on Thursday that Wells Fargo will eliminate sales quotas for branch staff from Oct. 1, accelerating a previous plan to halt the practice by Jan. 1, according to prepared testimony he will deliver.

Federal regulators will also be in focus at the hearing.

Since the scandal broke, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Jeb Hensarling has asked why they did not act sooner and he is expected to raise that point again.

U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen promised the committee on Wednesday that the central bank will scrutinize all big banks in the wake of the Wells Fargo scandal. Some Democratic committee members said it showed that some banks are too big to manage and should be broken up.

The most powerful Democrat on the committee, Representative Maxine Waters of California, said she had not reached that conclusion, and wanted to hear Stumpf’s answers first. She declined to say whether steps taken by Wells Fargo, including the $ 41 million clawback, were sufficient.

“We will ask some of the basic questions about how this fraud took place and why did it happen and whose decision it was,” she said. (Additional reporting by Ross Kerber in Boston; Writing by Dan Freed in New York; Editing by Carmel Crimmins and Bill Rigby)

Read the original article on Reuters. Copyright 2016. Follow Reuters on Twitter.

LikeTweet

Gold draws ‘hideout’ demand as Deutsche Bank rattles markets anew – MarketWatch

Gold futures prices firmed Friday, aiming for back-to-back session gains and limiting losses for the week, as global market jitters sparked by German financial giant Deutsche Bank boosted the haven appeal of the precious metal.

"Considering how much media attention this topic has attracted over the past few days, we consider it likely that this risk-off environment continues for a while, as investors re-price the rising probability of a banking crisis in the eurozone, or even another large-scale economic crisis," said Charalambos Pissouros, senior analyst at IronFX Global, in a note.

December gold  rose $ 5, or 0.4%, to $ 1,331 an ounce. Gold rallied late Thursday to end at $ 1,326 an ounce after tapping earlier lows under $ 1,320. Prices had tallied losses of roughly 1.6% over the previous two trading sessions. The contract is on pace to end the week down about 0.4%. It should finish September up just over 1% and will end the third quarter up around a slim 0.4%.

Attention turned away from the interest-rate watch to broader financial market performance. European stocks fell in the wake of the latest news from the financial sector, while U.S. stocks indicate a lower open.

Shares of Deutsche Bank    traded briefly under 10 euros, their lowest level on record, as global markets got their first chance to react to reports that some of Deutsche Bank's biggest clients have been pulling out funds.

Read:
Deutsche Bank crisis threatens to roil global markets

The bank, run by CEO John Cryan, has seen its cost of borrowing climb amid questions about its ability to pay a potential $ 14 billion fine from the U.S. Justice Department. That prompted a deepening debate about whether the government should step in to help the bank or risk deeper financial market ripples.

"This could keep safe-haven assets supported and may extend the losses in riskier assets, though much will depend on the incoming news around this story and whether or not DB is seen as being in need of state intervention in order to remain solvent," Pissouros said.

See:
Opinion: Gold's performance may worsen in October, history shows

Gold gained even as the dollar rose against most currencies, save for the Swiss franc and others that are also generally considered as risk-off hideouts. The ICE U.S. Dollar Index   was up 0.2% as markets looked to recent and upcoming commentary from Federal Reserve officials for clues on the pace of interest-rate increases.

Higher interest rates can boost the dollar and dull demand for dollar-denominated commodities, including gold. That means gold and the dollar often move inversely.

Fed remarks so far this week have mostly pointed to a December U.S. rate increase but some disagreement persists.

Friday's U.S. economic lineup includes data on income and spending, consumer sentiment and an inflation reading. Reaction to the data, not expected to change expectations for a gradual Fed adjustment higher to ultra-low interest rates, could be overshadowed by the Deutsche Bank developments. See the economic calendar.

Silver for December delivery   added 16 cents, or 0.8%, to $ 19.35 an ounce.

The SPDR Gold Trust ETF  was up 0.4% premarket, iShares Silver Trust   rose 1.3%, while the VanEck Vectors Gold Miners ETF  rose 1%.

LikeTweet

Deutsche Bank Has Plenty of Liquidity Amid Stress, Analysts Say – Bloomberg

Deutsche Bank AG has plenty of readily available funds even if some clients pull deposits, according to analysts, responding to a drop in the bank's shares after some hedge funds reduced their exposure.

Deutsche Bank has enough liquidity to handle more than two months of severe stress, including trading clients pulling back, Stuart Graham, an analyst at Autonomous Research LLP wrote in a note Thursday, citing the bank's filings. Prime brokerage deposits of hedge funds probably only provide 3 percent of the bank's funding, and the company has access to additional backstops from the European Central Bank, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts led by Jernej Omahen said.

Amid mounting concern about Deutsche Bank's ability to withstand pending legal penalties, about 10 hedge funds that do business with the German lender have moved to reduce their financial exposure. The funds, a small subset of the more than 800 clients in the bank's hedge fund business, have moved part of their listed derivatives holdings to other firms this week, according to an internal bank document seen by Bloomberg News.

"Deutsche has many problems, but liquidity is not one of them," Graham wrote.

The Frankfurt-based lender had 223 billion euros ($ 249 billion) in its liquidity reserves at June 30. The company's liquidity coverage ratio, which is the amount of cash and easy-to-sell assets divided by an estimate of potential outflows in a 30-day period, was 124 percent, above the minimum 100 percent regulators demand.

'Fast Depleted'

"It is not a matter of available liquidity, at least for now, but of irreversible damage to confidence in the bank," Miguel Hernandez, Geoffroy de Pellegars and Marco Busin, at BNP Paribas SA wrote in a note to clients. "Past experience shows that customer trust can disappear quickly and, past a certain point, liquidity reserves can be fast depleted."

Deutsche Bank Chief Executive Officer John Cryan said in a letter to staff on Friday that the lender's balance sheet is safer than at any point in the past two decades and there is "no basis" for media speculation on clients leaving.

The bank's shares fell 5.4 percent to 10.28 euros at 10:27 a.m. in Frankfurt. The stock is down more than 54 percent this year.

Many of the analysts differentiated between what they saw as overblown fears about liquidity and legitimate concerns about the bank's ability to generate capital.

Raise Capital?

A loss of client revenue has the potential to force the bank to raise capital in a "worse-case scenario," JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Kian Abouhossein wrote in a note Friday. Deutsche Bank will probably struggle to meet its 2018 capital targets organically, even if it doesn't pay a dividend this year or next, Credit Suisse Group AG analysts led by Jon Peace wrote.

Questions about the bank's capital position have reignited after the U.S. Department of Justice requested $ 14 billion to settle claims the firm sold fraudulent mortgage-backed securities. Deutsche Bank has said it won't pay anywhere near that amount, which is quadruple what some analysts had estimated for the fine. Autonomous's Graham said there may be a silver lining in the latest bout of concern.

"Perversely, a liquidity panic could even strengthen its bargaining hand with the DOJ," Graham wrote. "Does the DOJ want to run the risk of being branded by European leaders as responsible for inadvertently bringing down the fourth most systemic bank in the world? Logically not."

Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE
LikeTweet

Thursday, September 29, 2016

To Disclose or Not to Disclose? Wells Fargo Woes Shine Light on a Knotty Problem – Wall Street Journal

When is something important enough to a company's business that it should tell investors?

Wells Fargo WFC -2.07 % & Co.'s sales scandal provides a real-life window on the often-knotty question of deciding when a piece of information is "material" and so must be disclosed to investors. In part, that is because the rules are complex and not always well understood—many observers think materiality can be determined simply by crunching the numbers, but that isn't always the case.

Wells Fargo didn't disclose anything publicly about its "cross-selling" abuses or looming settlement with regulators before the pact was announced Sept. 8—including in its second-quarter Securities and Exchange Commission filing weeks earlier, on Aug. 3. Three Democratic senators who grilled the bank's chief executive last week now have asked the SEC to investigate whether Wells Fargo misled investors by failing to disclose the issue sooner.

While the bank's management had known since 2013 that some employees had created deposit and credit-card accounts for customers without their knowledge, the accounts were a tiny portion of Wells Fargo's business. The settlement, which included a $ 185 million fine, was less than 1% of last year's earnings. The matter was "not a material event," Chief Executive John Stumpf told a Senate panel last week.

That is true in terms of the bank's income statement. Not so its reputation or share price. The bank and Mr. Stumpf have faced a political and public furor and the stock has lost nearly 10% since the settlement, or about $ 23 billion.

Members of Congress have been skeptical of the bank's contentions that its problems didn't rise to the level where it would be required to inform investors. "If that's not material…this occurring over a five-year period of time as a systemic problem in the organization, I don't know what is," Rep. Scott Garrett, (R., N.J), told Mr. Stumpf Thursday as the CEO testified before the House Financial Services Committee.

Given the depth and breadth of the problems at the bank's retail operations, which account for about half of profit and revenue, others argue Wells Fargo should have given investors some signal a problem was brewing. "It seems pretty significant to me if the whole world's talking about it," said Philip Woodlief, an adjunct professor of management at Vanderbilt University.

The three senators—Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass). and Robert Menendez (D.-N.J.)––have asked the SEC to investigate whether Wells Fargo committed fraud by failing to disclose its fake-account problems even as it was touting to investors how many products it was selling to each customer. The senators also asked the SEC to probe whether the bank violated whistleblower protections.

"This certainly has a reputational risk to the company—it seems like that would have been material," Mr. Merkley said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal earlier this week.

Spokesmen for the SEC and Wells Fargo declined to comment.

The standards for determining whether a piece of information is material differ somewhat depending on the regulator involved. And some regulators are considering changes in existing standards around what is material information. In short, it is something of a gray area.

Generally speaking, materiality depends on whether a reasonable investor would consider the information important enough to affect the investor's decision to buy a company's securities.

Many companies and investors use a rule of thumb that something has to make up at least a specific portion of the company's business to be considered material—10% of revenues, for instance, or 5% of earnings. But companies are supposed to go beyond the numbers and consider "qualitative" factors as well.

The SEC has said a relatively small error on the financial statements could still be material if, for instance, it affects a company's regulatory compliance, conceals illegal transactions or increases management's compensation.

The key question, Mr. Woodlief said, is does a development "affect the total information available to investors?"

The rules are murky enough that accounting experts can differ about whether something is material. Jack Ciesielski, president of accounting-research firm R.G. Associates, said Wells Fargo may have viewed the cross-selling problems as an isolated issue that it managed on its own, and noted the fake accounts comprised less than 2% of all those the bank opened during that time frame. "I think it's got to be immaterial," he said.

Then again, Mr. Ciesielski said, when the bank was negotiating with regulators over the matter and knew a settlement was possible soon, then "I think they had to say something at that point."

The SEC is considering whether it should change its standards for what's material, as part of a broader look at its disclosure rules. In April, the commission asked for public comment on whether it should "consider a different definition of materiality for disclosure purposes," and on whether it should use "a combination of quantitative and qualitative thresholds" for disclosure.

Write to Michael Rapoport at Michael.Rapoport@wsj.com

LikeTweet

Economics Drove Saudi OPEC Move – Wall Street Journal

Scanning the latest intelligence on oil markets, Saudi Arabian officials came to an upsetting conclusion this month: the kingdom's oil policy wasn't working.

Saudi energy minister Khalid al-Falih's attention was drawn to an Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries' prediction that a global glut of oil would persist well into 2017, said people familiar with the matter. The data suggested that economic pain from low oil prices would last longer than the ministry first believed, as the Saudis fought an expensive war in Yemen and middle-class living standards eroded.

"The pressure was mounting," said a person close to the Saudi oil ministry. "Falih and the government realized they need to show they are not just watching their economy and others suffer."

Mr. Falih didn't respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Falih's move to reverse Saudi oil policy evolved quickly over the past several weeks, from the day he received the production figures until Wednesday, when he agreed in principle to production cuts along with fellow members of OPEC, the 14-nation cartel that controls over a third of world oil production, according to people familiar with the matter.

By Wednesday night, Mr. Falih was ready to make a compromise Saudi Arabia had refused for months: Iran, the kingdom's rival, would be essentially exempt from production limits. "Everyone sees the need for rebalancing sooner rather than later," Mr. Falih said before OPEC agreed to collectively reduce output by between 1% and 2%.

It remains to be seen if the Saudis will follow through, but the roughly 5% oil-price increase after OPEC's decision was announced would mean hundreds of millions of dollars in extra revenue for the kingdom, if the gains hold as long as a month.

This week, Saudi Arabia cut the salaries of its top officials by 20% and scaled back perks for government employees.

The kingdom's middle-class—accustomed to subsidized electricity and water—is getting those perks cut. Saudi Arabia plans to reduce spending on public wages to 40% of the budget by 2020, from 45%.

Mohammad Abdulrahman, a 34-year-old Saudi who works in Riyadh as an information technology consultant, said he and his wife had given up eating out and traveling.

"I just hope those tough measures by the government ease in the near future or oil prices rise," Mr. Abdulrahman said. "Otherwise I have to find a second job to make ends meet."

At the same time, Saudi Arabia is pressing ahead with an air campaign in Yemen against Houthi rebels loyal to the country's ousted president. The war is one reason Saudi Arabia's foreign reserves are down to $ 555 billion from $ 737 billion before prices started falling in 2014.

That economic pain began to undercut Saudi Arabia's oil policy, people familiar with the kingdom's strategy said.

Saudi Arabia had long reasoned that vast new American oil supplies and potential carbon regulations would keep oil prices well below $ 100 a barrel for a long time. Production cuts would only help competitors win customers.

Saudi Arabian production hit record highs this summer of almost 10.7 million barrels a day.

The flood of oil sank prices to less than $ 28 a barrel this winter before recovering to $ 40 to $ 50 a barrel—still well below what Saudi Arabia needs to fund government spending.

Still, Ali al-Naimi, the country's former oil minister, said the country could survive at $ 20 a barrel in February. When OPEC and Russia tried to secure a deal to hold production steady in April in Qatar, Saudi Arabia walked away and blamed Iran for ramping up production.

The equation changed in early September. OPEC concluded that the low prices weren't flushing less-competitive non-OPEC production out of the market as fast as originally thought.

Mr. Falih and other Saudi officials, people familiar with the matter said, appeared worried about how prices below $ 50 a barrel in 2017 would affect the valuation of Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known as Saudi Aramco, the state-run oil firm that the kingdom plans to publicly list in 2018. The Aramco IPO is the centerpiece of a plan to transform the Saudi economy and diversify it away from oil dependence.

Saudi Arabia offered OPEC a secret deal this month, people familiar with the matter said. The kingdom would cut production by 400,000 barrels a day. Iran was expected to hold output steady at 3.6 million barrels a day, the people said. Iran's oil minister, Bijan Zanganeh, ultimately rejected it. Iran wanted to reach 4.2 million barrels a day.

Over this past weekend, Mr. Falih talked to OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo and backed his plan for a collective OPEC cut of almost 1 million barrels a day over a year, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Falih sweetened his offer to OPEC, saying Iran could increase output to 3.7 million barrels a day, the people said.

On Wednesday afternoon, the OPEC meeting was quickly consumed by the Iranian-Saudi rivalry. A few hours in, Mr. Falih made a compromise that his predecessor, Mr. Naimi, wasn't allowed to make in Qatar: Iran, Libya and Nigeria would be treated more leniently.

It isn't clear how much Iran will be allowed to pump, though its officials have said they want to raise production by about 10%, to about 4 million barrels a day.

Most details of the production cut have been put off until OPEC's next meeting on Nov. 30 in Vienna. Olivier Jakob, an oil analyst with Switzerland-based Petromatrix, said he saw a shift in Saudi policy.

"I'm not convinced they have changed from the market-share policy but I have to think they have erased the 'We don't care if it goes to 20 $ /bbl' policy," said Mr. Jakob. "They seem less idealistic, a little more realistic."

Write to Summer Said at summer.said@wsj.com and Benoit Faucon at benoit.faucon@wsj.com

LikeTweet

Wells Fargo’s Reaction to Scandal Fails to Satisfy Angry Lawmakers – New York Times

"It appears that the company just can't make it through even this congressional hearing without us learning more and more information about what is going on at Wells Fargo," Representative Maxine Waters, a Democrat of California, said as word began to spread of the coming sanctions over military lending.

But Mr. Stumpf — whom the members of the House committee personally blamed for the persistent and widespread misdeeds — stuck to the same script he has used throughout the crisis. The problem, he explained, was an ethical lapse limited to the 5,300 employees, most of them low-level bankers and tellers, who had been fired for their actions since 2011.

At the hearing on Thursday, Mr. Stumpf apologized repeatedly for his bank's failings and repeated his earlier pledge — given last week to the disgruntled Senate Finance Committee — to accept "full responsibility" for them. But he again rejected lawmakers' attempts to cast the scandal as a consequence of broader failings in Wells Fargo's leadership and corporate culture.

"I led the company with courage," Mr. Stumpf said, while admitting that the company "should have done more sooner" to address the problem of unauthorized accounts being created by employees in the names of real customers.



Multimedia Feature

What Wells Fargo's C.E.O. Told Congress

Nine days ago, the leader of Wells Fargo faced a skeptical Senate committee for more than two hours. Today, he was denounced for more than four hours at a House panel.

After the Senate hearing and before the House hearing, the board of directors of Wells Fargo agreed to claw back $ 41 million of Mr. Stumpf's unvested stock awards, deny him his annual bonus and strip away a portion of his $ 2.8 million base salary. Mr. Stumpf said he approved of the decision. Carrie L. Tolstedt, who until recently ran the Wells Fargo retail banking operation, will lose $ 19 million in compensation.

Confronted by the lawmakers with evidence that the practice of setting up phony accounts to meet sales goals might have gone back much further than the bank has admitted, perhaps to 2007. Mr. Stumpf said that Wells Fargo was continuing to investigate the extent of the problem, how far back it stretched and who knew.

But those steps did not appease the lawmakers. Several called for Mr. Stumpf's resignation, and others asked why he shouldn't be jailed, like a bank robber.

"Something is going wrong at this bank, and you are the head of it," said Gregory Meeks, Democrat of New York, adding, "You should be fired."

Mr. Stumpf replied, "I serve at the pleasure of the board." Mr. Stumpf is the board chairman.

Mr. Meeks, at times pounding the table for emphasis, asked if Mr. Stumpf would have set free someone who had robbed a Wells Fargo Bank, then simply apologized and taken responsibility. Criticizing Wells Fargo's "criminal activity," Mr. Meeks said: "Your bank, Wells Fargo, has given the entire financial services industry a black eye."

"To the American people, this kind of feels like déjà vu all over again," said Representative Jeb Hensarling, the Texas Republican who is chairman of the committee. "Some institution is found engaging in terrible activities. There is a headline, fine, and yet no one seems to be held accountable."

As Mr. Stumpf testified, a video screen on the hearing room's wall displayed a scroll of more than a dozen fines Wells Fargo has paid in recent years, totaling more than $ 10 billion. The list included penalties for subprime loan abuses, discriminating against African-American and Hispanic mortgage borrowers, and foreclosure violations, among others.

Mr. Hensarling asked whether such fines are simply the "cost of doing business."

Mr. Stumpf answered no, adding, "I don't want our culture to be defined by these mistakes."

Wells Fargo has been in crisis mode since it acknowledged this month that its employees had, over the course of several years, opened as many as 1.5 million bank accounts and 565,000 credit card accounts that may not have been approved by customers. The company agreed to pay $ 185 million in penalties and fines to settle cases brought by federal regulators and the Los Angeles city attorney.

Wells Fargo has said it is contacting all of the customers who may have been affected. So far, the bank has contacted 20,000 customers with questionable credit cards. About a quarter of them have said that they did not apply for the card or could not remember if they had, Mr. Stumpf said at the hearing.

He also said that Wells Fargo would eliminate its product sales goals for retail bankers by the end of the week, accelerating the bank's previously announced plan to drop them by the start of next year. Ex-employees say those sales goals led to intense pressure on workers to cheat to fulfill unrealistically high quotas.

Mr. Stumpf carried with him a binder filled with material to help him form his answers, and he consulted it repeatedly as lawmakers questioned him about how many customers with potentially unauthorized accounts had been affected in their own home states. He reeled off the answers: Texas, 149,857; Missouri, 1,191; Delaware, 4,255.

The plight of Wells Fargo workers who lost their jobs for not meeting sales goals came up several times during the hearing, with lawmakers citing personal experiences from their constituents. Representative Nydia M. Velázquez, Democrat of New York, asked how many workers Wells Fargo had fired for falling short.

"My understanding is that people should not be fired, terminated for missing sales goals," Mr. Stumpf answered. "I'm not saying it didn't happen. We're doing a review of whatever, whoever might have been terminated for that."

As for those who did take the fall for the illegal account openings, Representative Brad Sherman, a Democrat of California, was particularly acerbic. "You fired 5,300 people," he said at the hearing. "You took 5,300 good Americans and turned them into felons." It is time, he concluded, to break up the big banks.

Continue reading the main story

LikeTweet

Here Are All the Pros and Cons of a CBS-Viacom Merger – TheWrap

If CBS winds up having a shotgun wedding to Viacom, what would that mean for both media giants?

A merger is in play after National Amusements, Inc. on Thursday proposed recombining the companies, which split in 2005. NAI controls both entities through "supervoting" shares held by the ailing 93-year-old mogul Sumner Redstone and his daugther, Shari.

But this arranged marriage would come with plenty of headaches even before the honeymoon. Viacom has endured months of painful boardroom turmoil, ultimately booting its chief executive and other top managers as the Redstone family jockeyed for control.

CBS Corp., for its part, is run by outspoken Leslie Moonves, who has made it clear he favors keeping the broadcast giant as a standalone company, even though he would be the likely candidate to run the merged companies.

A CBS spokesman wrote Thursday that its management had seen the NAI letter and would "take appropriate action to evaluate what is in the best interest" of the company and its shareholders. So it's safe to say that CBS isn't exactly eager to rush into the warm embrace of Viacom.

It's ironic that Viacom is seen as the weaker partner since it has a collection of once-hot cable brands like Comedy Central and MTV (and a movie studio, Paramount, that has been stuck in last place in market share among the major studios since 2011). But CBS has doubled down on broadcast and boasts the most-watched network in the world. As unlikely as it may seem, cable needs help from broadcast.

So if the Redstones ultimately succeed in pushing their case — and given their ownership stakes, it looks likely they will be — what would that mean for shareholders, employees and the rest of the media world? Here are some of the upsides of doing a deal, along with the caveats that have media insiders buzzing:

1. "Substantial synergies."

That's the phrase NAI used in its Thursday letter touting a merger. In other words, the combined companies would save so much money by eliminating overlapping operations and increasing efficiency that a marriage would yield instant benefits. Indeed, media analysts at MoffettNathanson estimated cost savings of "at least" $ 400 million.

But on the downside, that would likely mean layoffs for hundreds of employees. And "synergy" is the same buzzword that was used to sell a lot of media mergers from the Internet 1.0 era that didn't pan out, such as (cough) AOL Time Warner.

2. "Distribution protection."

Or so the analysts call it. What that means is that CBS, due to must-carry government regulations, wields enormous clout with multi-channel distributors. As consumers shift more toward on-demand viewing, that clout matters more and more. If cable operators decide, for instance, to offer consumers "skinny bundle" packages that dump MTV, CBS could theoretically press for better terms.

Theoretically is the key word there, however. TV remains a hit-driven business, and what ultimately succeeds are programs that people want to see, not struggling networks that get strong-armed onto a cable menu.

3. The Moonves Factor.

Moonves is the most successful TV executive in the business, combining a savvy sense of mainstream tastes with a dogged ability to follow through on strategic imperatives. Just look at how the network has shrewdly exploited assets like "NCIS" and "The Big Bang Theory."

Some analysts believe that he could work his magic on fading Viacom brands like Comedy Central, which has been hit hard by the exits of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

The only problem is that rejuvenating Viacom is a job Moonves doesn't seem to want. "We are doing extraordinarily well on our own with our own assets," he told an investor conference earlier this month. Translation: I don't really want the crud in your garage, Sumner.

Marci Ryvicker, an analyst for Wells Fargo Securities, understands Moonves' reluctance. "We just don't see how any exec can come in and turn this around in the next 12 months," she wrote of Viacom in a note this week. Translation: Nobody wants this crud.

But here's maybe the most important point to remember: The Redstones control Viacom and CBS. And you know what they say about possession. Ultimately, Shari and her father will get their way. The only question is what the media landscape will look like once they're done.

LikeTweet

Disclose or Not to Disclose? Wells Fargo Woes Shine Light on a Knotty Problem – Wall Street Journal

When is something important enough to a company's business that it should tell investors?

Wells Fargo & Co.'s sales scandal provides a real-life window on the often-knotty question of deciding when a piece of information is "material" and so must be disclosed to investors. In part, that is because the rules are complex and not always well understood—many observers think materiality can be determined simply by crunching the numbers, but that isn't always the case.

Wells Fargo didn't disclose anything publicly about its "cross-selling" abuses or looming settlement with regulators before the pact was announced Sept. 8—including in its second-quarter Securities and Exchange Commission filing weeks earlier, on Aug. 3. Three Democratic senators who grilled the bank's chief executive last week now have asked the SEC to investigate whether Wells Fargo misled investors by failing to disclose the issue sooner.

While the bank's management had known since 2013 that some employees had created deposit and credit-card accounts for customers without their knowledge, the accounts were a tiny portion of Wells Fargo's business. The settlement, which included a $ 185 million fine, was less than 1% of last year's earnings. The matter was "not a material event," Chief Executive John Stumpf told a Senate panel last week.

That is true in terms of the bank's income statement. Not so its reputation or share price. The bank and Mr. Stumpf have faced a political and public furor and the stock has lost nearly 10% since the settlement, or about $ 23 billion.

Given the depth and breadth of the problems at the bank's retail operations, which account for about half of profit and revenue, others argue Wells Fargo should have given investors some signal a problem was brewing. "It seems pretty significant to me if the whole world's talking about it," said Philip Woodlief, an adjunct professor of management at Vanderbilt University.

The three senators—Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass). and Robert Menendez (D.-N.J.)––have asked the SEC to investigate whether Wells Fargo committed fraud by failing to disclose its fake-account problems even as it was touting to investors how many products it was selling to each customer. The senators also asked the SEC to probe whether the bank violated whistleblower protections.

"This certainly has a reputational risk to the company—it seems like that would have been material," Mr. Merkley said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal earlier this week.

An SEC declined to comment. A Wells Fargo declined to comment on whether the bank should have disclosed its problems sooner; he couldn't immediately be reached for comment Thursday on the senators' request for an SEC investigation.

The standards for determining whether a piece of information is material differ somewhat depending on the regulator involved. And some regulators are considering changes in existing standards around what is material information. In short, it is something of a gray area.

Generally speaking, materiality depends on whether a reasonable investor would consider the information important enough to affect the investor's decision to buy a company's securities.

Many companies and investors use a rule of thumb that something has to make up at least a specific portion of the company's business to be considered material—10% of revenues, for instance, or 5% of earnings. But companies are supposed to go beyond the numbers and consider "qualitative" factors as well.

The SEC has said a relatively small error on the financial statements could still be material if, for instance, it affects a company's regulatory compliance, conceals illegal transactions or increases management's compensation.

The key question, Mr. Woodlief said, is does a development "affect the total information available to investors?"

The rules are murky enough that accounting experts can differ about whether something is material. Jack Ciesielski, president of accounting-research firm R.G. Associates, said Wells Fargo may have viewed the cross-selling problems as an isolated issue that it managed on its own, and noted the fake accounts comprised less than 2% of all those the bank opened during that time frame. "I think it's got to be immaterial," he said.

Then again, Mr. Ciesielski said, when the bank was negotiating with regulators over the matter and knew a settlement was possible soon, then "I think they had to say something at that point."

The SEC is considering whether it should change its standards for what's material, as part of a broader look at its disclosure rules. In April, the commission asked for public comment on whether it should "consider a different definition of materiality for disclosure purposes," and on whether it should use "a combination of quantitative and qualitative thresholds" for disclosure.

Write to Michael Rapoport at Michael.Rapoport@wsj.com

LikeTweet

Oil prices slip as focus shifts to details of OPEC deal – Reuters

A man walks past an OPEC logo ahead of an informal meeting between members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in Algiers, Algeria September 28, 2016. REUTERS/Ramzi Boudina

LikeTweet

CBS-Viacom merger may be closer to reality, thanks to Redstones and National Amusements – Los Angeles Times

The oft-foretold reunification of CBS Corp. and Viacom Inc. may be moving closer to reality. 

National Amusements Inc., the theater chain operator and investment vehicle of media mogul Sumner Redstone, is poised to call on the two companies to consider merging, two people close to the matter said Wednesday.

National Amusements, which controls nearly 80% of the voting shares of Viacom and CBS, is preparing a letter to send to the two companies'  boards this week, according to the two people, who declined to be named because the proposal is private.

Analysts have long expected the Redstone family to try to put CBS and Viacom back together again. Since the two media giants split in 2006, CBS and Viacom have followed starkly different trajectories, with CBS building a broadcast ratings juggernaut while Viacom's stock fell sharply. 

Reuniting the two could create a more powerful and stable conglomerate that would allow Viacom to better weather the challenges of the digital age and compete with the likes of Walt Disney Co., Comcast Corp.’s NBCUniversal and 21st Century Fox.

The latest development comes shortly after a major shake-up in Viacom's executive ranks. Viacom’s interim chief executive, Thomas Dooley, announced last week that he would step down Nov. 15, leaving a vacuum at the top of the company.

Just days later, Rob Moore, vice chairman of Viacom's struggling Paramount Pictures studio, was ousted from his position. Moore had supported a plan to sell 49% of Paramount to a Chinese investor to secure cash and find a strategic partner, but Viacom scuttled that idea. Paramount is on track to lose $ 450 million in the current fiscal year.

The continued struggles at Viacom and lack of obvious CEO candidates may have accelerated National Amusements' efforts to spark merger talks, said media analyst Tuna Amobi at S&P Global.

"The handwriting has been there," Amobi said. "It seems to me they have no choice so far in terms of where the companies are and the difficulty of attracting a CEO for Viacom. Ultimately, if you’re National Amusements, you have to look at the best scenario to create value at both companies as a whole."

Many experts have said that a merger was the ultimate goal of Redstone's daughter Shari Redstone, who has risen in power amid an intense battle for control of her 93-year-old father's $ 40-billion media empire. That fight saw the ouster last month of Chief Executive Philippe Dauman, who presided over years of struggles at Viacom, along with multiple board members. 

Shari Redstone has a strong relationship with CBS Chief Executive Leslie Moonves, who is widely respected as one of the most savvy programmers in Hollywood. Should CBS take over Viacom, Moonves probably would run the combined operation, giving him oversight of a cable TV empire and a major Hollywood studio. It's well known that Moonves has long wanted to run a major movie studio.

Viacom, which owns cable channels such as MTV and Comedy Central as well as Paramount, stands to benefit most from a recombination, given its sagging stock price, declining cable ratings and struggling movie studio. It would likely be up to Moonves to return the company's assets to their former glory. 

It's a delicate matter for Moonves, however. Investors in CBS, which has enjoyed a strong run as one of the few freestanding media companies still in existence, may be less inclined to welcome such a transaction given the stiff challenges facing Viacom. The broadcaster owns the premium cable network Showtime, a small film unit and 50% of the CW network, and airs popular shows such as  "The Big Bang Theory."

Indeed, Moonves has downplayed the merger speculation, saying at a recent investor conference that there were no direct discussions underway between the two companies.

Nonetheless, National Amusements had been expected to encourage the companies to consider a deal, said Marci Ryvicker, senior analyst for Wells Fargo Securities who follows the media industry. 

"We view this as a pretty reasonable thing for NAI to do as a CBS-Viacom merger is a possible option," Ryvicker wrote in a Wednesday report. "Not one that we like at the moment, but the fact that it is being explored is reasonable and not surprising to us."

She cautioned that even the encouragement of the controlling shareholder wouldn't necessarily guarantee a deal. Sewing the companies together would be a tricky financial maneuver, with Viacom's valuation as one obstacle for CBS. Viacom's current market value is about $ 14.5 billion.  

Analysts said CBS would be unlikely to pay much of a premium, if any, to take over Viacom. 

"There’s greater risk for CBS, so there has to be a greater reward," said Los Angeles investment banker Lloyd Greif. "It has to be on Les Moonves' terms."

Redstone split his media empire a decade ago in part to appease two strong-willed executives — Moonves and then-Viacom CEO Tom Freston, though Freston was forced out nine months after Viacom became a standalone operation. Viacom was on a stronger financial footing then than it is today.

Amobi cautioned that merging the two wouldn't be a cure-all for Viacom's woes.

"It doesn’t take away from the major challenges Viacom faces," he said.

Viacom is expected to form a special committee to review a possible merger in light of the coming National Amusements letter. CBS has not yet convened such a committee.

LikeTweet

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Oil Extends Rally as OPEC Deal Jolts Markets; Asian Futures Rise – Bloomberg

Oil extended gains following its steepest one-day surge since April after OPEC agreed to a preliminary deal that will cut crude production for the first time in eight years. Most Asian index futures signaled advances, along with forwards on the Malaysian ringgit.

U.S. crude continued to climb above $ 47 a barrel after its 5.3 percent jump Wednesday spurred gains in American energy stocks and commodity-linked currencies. Copper futures also advanced, while Australian government debt tracked declines in Treasuries amid concern an increase in the value of oil could stoke inflation. Futures on equity gauges in Japan, Australia and South Korea rose the Canadian dollar strengthened further. One-month non-deliverable ringgit forwards jumped 0.7 percent with the yen pulling back.

Markets were taken aback by initial reports of the oil-output deal, with Saudi Arabia and Iran wrong-footing traders who had expected a continuation of the pump-at-will policy the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries adopted in 2014. OPEC agreed to trim production to a range of 32.5 million to 33 million barrels per day following an informal meeting in Algiers. Many of the details are still to be worked out and the group won't decide on targets for each member country until its next gathering at the end of November. Concern over a global glut has weighed on crude prices for at least the past two years.

"The energy sector is going to be a key contributor to the rally we see after the OPEC decision," Tony Farnham, a strategist at Patersons Securities Ltd. in Sydney, said by phone. "All we've seen at this stage is the intention to do something, I'd like to see it more concrete and then still they have to abide by it. But, it is the first step."

For more the proposed deal, see our live blog from Algiers here.

Taiwan has a monetary policy review Thursday, with economists predicting interest rates will be left on hold, as markets there resume following a typhoon. Japan reports on retail sales and trade, while Australia updates on job vacancies. Vietnam releases a slew of data, including trade, retail sales and a reading on third-quarter gross domestic product.

Commodities

West Texas Intermediate crude for November delivery gained 0.2 percent to $ 47.12 a barrel as of 8:45 a.m. Tokyo time. Brent oil for November settlement surged 5.9 percent Wednesday to $ 48.69 on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange. The global benchmark closed at a $ 1.64 premium to WTI.

"The cut is clearly bullish," Mike Wittner, head of oil-market research at Societe Generale SA in New York, said by phone. "The number of actual barrels that will be taken off the market is unclear. What's much more important is that the Saudis appear to be returning to a period of market management."

While some members of OPEC will have to reduce output, Iran won't have to freeze production, said the country's oil minister, Bijan Namdar Zanganeh. The lower end of the production target equates to a nearly 750,000 barrels-a-day drop from what OPEC said it pumped in August. The deal will likely reverberate beyond the bloc, burnishing prospects for the energy industry and boosting the economies of oil-rich countries such as Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Copper futures gained 0.6 percent to $ 2.2005 a pound, rising for a second day, while gold for immediate delivery climbed 0.1 percent to $ 1,323.35 an ounce, snapping a two-day decline.

Stocks

New Zealand's S&P/NZX 50 Index, the first major equity gauge to start trading each day, added 0.5 percent, climbing for a second day. Futures on the S&P 500 Index were little changed at 2,163.25 after energy stocks led gains last session in their biggest surge since January.

Futures on Australia's S&P/ASX 200 Index rose at least 0.4 percent with those on the Kospi index in Seoul, while contracts on Hong Kong's Hang Seng and Hang Seng China Enterprises indexes dropped 0.3 percent in most recent trading. Nikkei 225 Stock Average futures were bid up 0.4 percent to 16,530 in the Osaka pre-market and Chicago-listed contracts increased 0.3 percent to 16,595 early Thursday following a 0.5 percent advance.

As well as the OPEC deal, investors also mulled comments from Federal Reserve officials Wednesday for clues as to the timing of U.S. interest-rate increases.

Chair Janet Yellen told lawmakers that the majority of the central bank's policy-setting group sees a rate increase as likely this year. Meanwhile, Chicago Fed President Charles Evans said an extended period of low rates will leave policy makers with less room to navigate future shocks and reiterated that the "lower-for-longer" view is taking hold among businesses and investors.

Meanwhile, traders are looking for signs that the world's largest economy is strengthening and awaiting the next earnings season, which will kick off in about two weeks. A report Wednesday showed orders for durable goods in the U.S. were little changed in August, while shipments of capital equipment declined for a fourth straight month, indicating lingering weakness in manufacturing. A revised reading on second-quarter growth, pending home sales as well as measures of personal income and spending are due later this week.

Currencies

One-month NDFs on the ringgit rose to 4.1086 per dollar, with Malaysia Asia's only net oil exporter.

The Loonie extended gains into a third day, strengthening 0.2 percent as the Norwegian krone traded steady following Wednesday's 1 percent jump. The Australian dollar was near its strongest level since the start of the month, while the yen weakened 0.3 percent to 101.01 per dollar, on track for a three-day slide.

The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index, a gauge of the greenback versus 10 major peers, slipped for a fourth straight day, losing 0.1 percent to be headed for its lowest close since Sept. 12.

Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE
LikeTweet

Stumpf’s Pay Cut Eclipsed by Fury as Yellen, California Join In – Bloomberg

Wells Fargo & Co. Chief Executive Officer John Stumpf gave up $ 41 million to buy a reprieve from the bank's widening scandal. Then it got worse.

The company was battered anew by regulators and politicians throughout Wednesday, less than 24 hours after Stumpf agreed to forgo years of stock awards to quell public uproar over the bank's unauthorized creation of customer accounts. Lawmakers called the CEO's payment a first step. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen vowed to probe a "disturbing" pattern of misconduct at big banks. California barred the firm from handling bond deals for the state.

"Wells Fargo's venal abuse of its customers by secretly opening unauthorized, illegal accounts illegally extracted millions of dollars," California Treasurer John Chiang said in a news conference in San Francisco. "This behavior cannot be tolerated and must be denounced publicly in the strongest terms."

The worsening backlash raises the stakes for Stumpf as he prepares to testify Thursday before the House Financial Services Committee. His decision to return compensation won't affect the panel's scrutiny of the bank, said a spokesman for the committee's chairman, Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling. Senators already thrashed the CEO at a hearing last week, with Elizabeth Warren calling him a "gutless" leader and demanding he resign.

"I don't know that giving back the money saves his job," said Ralph Cole, a money manager at Portland, Oregon-based Ferguson Wellman Capital Management Inc., which sold most of its Wells Fargo stake earlier this year and now owns about 100,000 shares. "Maybe they won't be satisfied until they have his head."

'Unanswered Questions'

Chiang, a Democrat who's running for governor in 2018, urged other states to follow suit as he banned Wells Fargo from underwriting state debt and handling its banking transactions for 12 months. Chiang, 54, also threatened a "complete and permanent severance" of business with the firm if it doesn't change practices.

Yellen, appearing before the House committee, declined to respond to the most heated questions about Wells Fargo — such as whether it's too large to manage — but promised "a comprehensive look at the biggest banks."

"There are still dozens of unanswered questions," Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, said in a statement after Stumpf's forfeiture was announced. "We still don't know how many customers were harmed and how long this fraud continued."

Investor Silence

Still, the political reaction contrasts with that of investors, which analysts have said hold the greatest sway over Stumpf's fate. None of the bank's biggest shareholders has publicly asked for him to step down. Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s Warren Buffett, who controls a 10 percent stake in the bank, has said he won't comment on the situation until November.

For now, pressure from shareholders is mostly coming from public pensions and organizations such as CtW Investment Group, which speaks for a consortium of retirement funds managing more than $ 200 billion. It urged the board last week to reclaim pay and add more directors with expertise in employee incentives.

After guiding the firm through the financial crisis, Stumpf generated shareholder returns that were the envy of the industry. Even after ceding its crown this month as the world's most valuable bank, Wells Fargo's stock has one of the highest price-to-book values in the industry. The shares rose 0.5 percent to $ 45.31 on Wednesday.

The forfeiture may yet buy Stumpf more time to defuse the political uproar. The company will probably "be able to manage through the scandal with the current executive team intact," KBW analysts led by Brian Kleinhanzl wrote in a note.

Inadequate Steps

During last week's Senate hearing, members of both parties scolded Stumpf for blaming the unauthorized accounts on low-wage branch workers, who have said they were struggling to meet unrealistic sales goals.

Stumpf, 63, told employees in a memo on Tuesday that he was too slow to respond to signs of misconduct. He said he voluntarily surrendered the millions in unvested stock and that the board accepted. Former community banking chief Carrie Tolstedt will forgo about $ 19 million in unvested stock. And neither Stumpf nor Tolstedt will get a bonus for this year.

"These are important first steps," Warren said in a statement. "But I do not believe these actions are adequate." She asked the board to brief her office on its decisions and review.

Board Review

Wells Fargo's board said its independent directors will lead a company investigation into the matter, working with the human resources committee and the law firm Shearman & Sterling LLP. The inquiry may result in further compensation changes or employment actions, the company said.

That could include evaluating whether top executives such as Stumpf should keep their posts, according to a person with knowledge of the panel's deliberations.

Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE
LikeTweet