This paper examines agency theory and its practical impact on financial decision-making at Wells Fargo. It begins by defining the principal-agent relationship and the conflicts of interest that arise when agents prioritize their own goals over those of shareholders. The paper then analyzes three key decision areas affected by agency theory at Wells Fargo: risk tolerance, frameworks and incentives for aligning interests, and the setting of performance targets. Drawing on the bank's well-documented scandals involving fraudulent account openings, the paper illustrates how decentralized decision-making, asymmetric interests, and unrealistic sales goals created conditions for opportunistic behavior. The conclusion emphasizes the need for strong ethical foundations to mitigate agency problems.
Agency theory refers to the relationship between the principal and the agent, where the principal delegates financial decision-making to the agent. In most cases, the agent is the owner or executive of the company, while the principal is the shareholder. A challenging scenario arises because these two parties hold distinct sets of interests, which causes decision-making problems. Due to this complex relationship, conflicts of interest sometimes emerge in which the agent places his own interests ahead of the principal's. This is known as the Principal-Agency Problem. It has long affected key decisions related to the firm, where the agent and principal both have asymmetric interests, causing either party to suffer in extreme cases.
To address the problem, agency theory states that the goals of managers and shareholders should be aligned, and that certain frameworks and practices should be adopted to oversee decision-making — such as employee stock ownership plans and monitoring by the board of directors (Lumen). These measures can prove fruitful because they make the agent more cautious when taking important decisions, as those decisions can also affect the agent's own self-interest (Kuypers, 2011). However, it is widely argued that goals can never be fully aligned in the real world, which perpetuates the agency problem (Kuypers, 2011).
The nature of this relationship is such that scandals have arisen in the past as a result of these problems, since the relationship is sometimes exploited for self-interested ends. Some have argued that scandals and agency risk exist primarily because of the awareness of this theory — that it should not have been taught in the first place — as this education encourages an agency mindset in which an entire firm sometimes acts in corrupt and selfish ways to attain its interests while disregarding those of the principal (Heath). At other times, the pursuit of self-interest may stem from a misunderstanding, as the agent and principal have different capacities for risk-taking, different understandings of growth, and other differing factors that can mislead the principal about the agent's intentions, creating conflicts over critical firm decisions.
Like most other firms, Wells Fargo's decision-making is impacted by agency theory in many ways. The firm's structure and performance mechanisms give agency theory significant room to influence its decisions, affecting profitability, return on investment, operating expenses, shareholder value, and other aspects of financial performance. Wells Fargo operates with a decentralized structure that grants employees considerable autonomy in making decisions (redacted, 2017). The establishment of aggressive sales goals is another aspect through which agency theory may influence firm decisions, while the historical tendency of directors to conceal problems gave employees greater confidence to pursue wrongdoing in their own self-interest (redacted, 2017). Wells Fargo experienced this problem when agents acted in their own self-interest and caused the bank to suffer greatly through the opening of fraudulent accounts — not just once, but millions of times — raising public concern about the bank's conduct and internal environment, and threatening the bank's standing.
There are several key decision areas impacted by agency theory at Wells Fargo. First, decisions involving risk create conflicts of interest because managers tend not to maximize shareholder value when their own interests diverge. Second, decisions about implementing new frameworks and eliminating agency costs affect both profitability and return on investment. In some cases, ownership is also diluted when employees are given a share in the firm. Opportunity costs, operating costs, and other factors are all involved, though improved financial performance may serve as an offsetting benefit. Third, harsh targets and goals are sometimes set to pressure employees to work in the principal's self-interest, creating a strict and punitive goal-setting environment — all in the name of agency theory. There are numerous ways in which agency theory and the conflicts it produces affect a firm's decisions.
The agency problem affects decisions about how much risk to accept and what strategies to adopt. In the banking sector, the goals and interests of agents and principals are asymmetrical, making it highly probable that the agent will prefer less risk exposure than the principal, whose interest lies in higher risk and maximized shareholder value. Numerous studies (Palia, 2007) elaborate that bank managers tend to avoid risk because doing so serves their own interests rather than those of shareholders. Managers pursue acquisitions and mergers — and Wells Fargo has acquired firms in the past — which again illustrates how managers try to reduce risk and minimize shareholder value through such decisions, claiming them to be in the interest of the firm (Palia, 2007). Decisions involving risk are therefore shaped by agency theory, as both parties have different risk tolerances — not always because of management style, but sometimes because each is acting to protect its own self-interest.
Principals have lower decision-making autonomy in banks (Palia, 2007), diluting their voice so that they can focus only on end results. In a banking institution, the means used to achieve a particular outcome may not be in the best interest of the bank or the principal, which can create additional agency problems and reduce financial performance. This dynamic was evident in previous scandals, where employees opened unauthorized bank accounts and credit cards in customers' names, producing an inflated end result. At the time, Wells Fargo appeared to be growing at a rapid pace with strong valuations, even in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (Murray, 2016). Such practices are difficult to monitor in a decentralized environment where employees are responsible for key decisions to meet individual or team goals (redacted, 2017). Employees can act opportunistically in an environment where they control the decisions needed to meet their targets (Demsetz, 1997). Agency theory thus creates more room for Wells Fargo employees to make decisions in their own self-interest, particularly when only the end result is scrutinized.
"Agency costs and incentive alignment strategies"
"Unrealistic sales goals and fraudulent employee behavior"
Demsetz, R. S. (1997). Agency problems and risk taking at banks.
Heath, J. (n.d.). Uses and abuses of agency theory. Business Ethics Quarterly.
Kuypers, A. (2011). How is dealt with the agency problem and what is the role of the board of directors in it?
Lumen. (n.d.). Agency and conflicts of interests. Lumen. Retrieved from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-finance/chapter/agency-and-conflicts-of-interest/
Murray, I. (2016, September). Wells Fargo and the principal agent problem. Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Palia, D. (2007). Agency theory in banking: An empirical analysis of moral hazard and the agency costs of equity. Banks and Bank Systems.
You’re 48% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.