Return to Transcripts main page
QUEST MEANS BUSINESS
Senators Tell Wells Fargo CEO to Resign Amid Scandal; Fed Debates Interest Rate Rise; Trump's Son Likens Refugees in Syria to Skittles; Prestowitz: The TPP Won't Improve Our Security; Shelby on Wells Fargo: We Don't Know How Deep This Is; Elumelu: Investment in Africa Needs New Approach; Angelina Jolie Files for Divorce from Brad Pitt. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 20, 2016 - 16:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00] RICHARD QUEST, CNN ANCHOR: There's a dog on the podium on Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrials small movement. The dog is actually
shaking hands. The market close just seconds away and I think it will be a hefty gavel bringing trading to a close. I was wrong. It was a wimpy
gavel. But trading is now over. And it is Tuesday. It's 20th of September
Tonight, the chief executive of Wells Fargo takes a bruising on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELIZABETH WARREN, U.S. SENATE DEMOCRAT: You should resign. You should give back the money that you took while the scam was going on and you
should be criminally investigated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: I'll be speaking live to the chair of the Senate Banking Committee about the high jinx on capital here. Also, let the Fed's fun and games
begin. The September meeting is now under way. We'll have analysis of the hawks and doves.
And Donald Trump Jr. sparks outrage when he compares refugees to candy.
I'm Richard Quest live from the CNN center tonight where I still mean business.
Good evening. Tonight there are calls in Washington for the chief executive of Wells Fargo to resign. John Stumph, who you see here, with
his hand bandaged. He was bandaged for his appearance on Capitol Hill after he injured it playing with his grandchildren. He suffered some more
painful blows as the session went on. And he took a thorough drubbing from all sides of the Senate Banking Committee. It was not a pretty sight as
Mister Stumph was put under attack. In his prepared remarks, he insisted he is sorry. He said he will take responsible for the millions of fake
customer accounts that his employees created to meet the banks sales goals.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN STUMPH, CEO, WELLS FARGO: I'm deeply sorry that we have not lived up to our values in this way. I also want to take this opportunity to thank
our 268,000 team members who come to work every day to serve our customers. Today I'm making a personal commitment to rebuilding our customers and
investors trust, the faith of the team members, and the confidence of the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: For the committee, the hearing wasn't about apologies, it was all about accountability. John Stumph testified that he earns more than $19.3
million a year. Now we know already that Carrie Tolstedt, who led the Wells Fargo retail banking division during the scandal, well if you look at
her retirement pay day, and you look at the options and everything else rolled in, she earns $124 million. She earned $27 million of that in the
two or three years when the scandal was underway. So millions going to both. Senator Elizabeth Warren is leading the charge among those who want
the money clawed back. And she went right after Stumph pointing out his personal holdings in Wells Fargo stock. He alone had grown by more than
200 million, while in her words, a scam was going on.
WARREN: Have you returned one nickel of the millions of dollars that you were paid while the scam was going on in.
STUMPH: First of all, this was by 1 percent of our people and --
WARREN: That's not my question. It is about responsibility. Have you returned one nickel of the millions of dollars that you were paid while
this scam was going on.
STUMPH: The board will take care of that.
WARREN: Have you returned one nickel of the money you earned while the scam was going on.
STUMPH: And the board will do --
WARREN: I will take that as a no then. You have not resigned. You haven't returned a single nickel of your personal earnings. You haven't
fired a single senior executive. Instead, evidently your definition of accountable is to push the blame to your low level employees who don't have
the money for a fancy PR firm to defend themselves. It's gutless leadership.
And when it all blew up, you kept your job. You kept your multimillion dollar bonuses, and you went on television to blame thousands of $12 an
hour employees that were just trying to meet cross sell quotas that made you rich. This is about accountability. You should resign. You should
give back the money you took while the scam was going on and you should be criminally investigated by both the Department of Justice and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
[16:05:08] This just isn't right. A cashier that steels a handful of 20s is held accountable, but Wall Street executives who almost never hold
themselves accountable. Not now, and not in 2008 when they crushed the worldwide economy. The only way that Wall Street will change is if
executives face jail time when they preside over massive frauds.
QUEST: Very strong words from Elizabeth Warren. Bill Cohan is a former Wall Street banker that contributed to the "Daily Beast." He joins me now
from New York. Bill, sorry I'm not there with you in person to shake your hand and say hello, but you largely would agree with Elizabeth Warren in
the sense that, particularly in this case. I mean, this is the first time that, to some extent, that John Stumpf has been required to answer
questions in a public forum.
WILLIAM COHAN, AUTHOR, "THE PRICE OF SILENCE": You're right, Richard, and I wish you were here too with me. I'll tell you I don't normally agree
with Elizabeth Warren. I think she is too much of -- has gone too far in some claims and accusations, but I think in this case of John Stumph, she
is absolutely correct. She's incredibly articulate today. Incredibly strong willed today, and she's absolutely right. He should resign. I
wrote a column in the "New York Times" last week on this very topic.
He should resign. He should take accountability. If this is not a clear cut case where somebody should take responsibility. A higher up, and not
the 5,300 low level people who have been accused and who been fired. And frankly, Richard, this is a situation where Warren Buffett, who is the
largest shareholder in Wells Fargo, should take a leadership role and have John Stumpf be shown the door.
QUEST: The other thing I found particularly troubling is that until today, Stumph has never subjected himself to questioning. Now admittedly today's
questioning was in a party political forum as opposed to a news conference. But the statements he made have never being tested before today.
COHAN: That is true. You know he did, in 2008, you may recall, he was very outspoken when the Treasury made ever Wall Street firm take some of
the tarp money. He was very outspoken in not wanting it. Saying his bank did not fit into the same category as the other Wall Street firms, and
therefore should not be forced to take the money. Of course, he ended up having to take the money. He paid it back quickly as many Wall Street
banks did. But he has basically been out of the spotlight. This is unfortunately his turn in the spotlight. It is particularly egregious,
Richard. Because it's evidence of a sort of a culture gone wrong when 5,300 people behave poorly, then it's time for someone at the top to be
QUEST: Is it your gut feeling that he can't survive this? And actually he will have to go, it's just a question of when?
COHAN: You know, I know what the right thing would be to have happen. The right thing would be for him to resign without being forced to resign.
That would be the right thing to happen. But you know, as Elizabeth Warren has said, there has basically been no accountability on Wall Street for
close to ten years now, perhaps longer, and I'm not sure that this will be an instance where there will be some. Wall Street executives have a very
effective way of sliding by every single time without being held accountable.
QUEST: I can see to some extent when it was LIBOR, when it was 4x that's all to do with high finance, if you like, in the markets. This, even
though it affects people and their interest rates, but this is about ordinary people and their bank accounts. So I'm left wondering if you
don't resign over this, what do you resign over?
COHAN: Well said, Richard. I can't think of a better reason for somebody to resign.
It is worth noting that scandals in LIBOR also affect the common man. Because every loan in the world is based off of LIBOR pricing. So if that
is manipulated, then that affects you take out loans. But you're right, that seems more esoteric, more in the weeds. But you're right, the time
has come for accountability. Just when Wall Street was trying to get their act back together, trying to convince people that it wasn't the evil
institution that people like Bernie Sanders or even Elizabeth Warren, tend to portray it as.
[16:10:00] Along comes this scandal, which, you know, and with John Stumph not taking responsibility. With not being held accountable. To say
nothing of the executive, the woman who was allowed to quietly resign and walk off with as much as $100 million, if it ends up that way. It's
inexcusable. And again, if I were Warren Buffett, the largest shareholder in Wells Fargo, I would say, it's time to go, John. You've had a nice run,
but you're going to have to find your sword on this one.
QUEST: Sir, good to see you. We always appreciate your forthright views on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. We're grateful.
COHAN: Thank you.
QUEST: Later in the program, we're going to hear from the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Richard Shelby. He is one of the most
respected senators and he will be joining me live from Washington. I believe were going to give him plenty of time to discuss this in great
So to Wall Street. Stocks eked out a small gain. The Dow ended -- very small -- it was up and down a bit. A bit of a yo-yo sort of day, 9.79, 10
points on the day. Investors are eyeing on the Fed. It's announcement on whether or not to raise interest rates on Wednesday.
Now, what is happening with the Fed? it is a classic case of a battle between, on the one hand you have the doves, on the other hand you have the
hawks. Or the other way around, whichever way you want to put it. You'll be where of course, which they are. Now, the doves want to basically hold
rates where they are for the moment. The hawks want to raise rates now. From their perches, they have very different views of the economic
landscape, but these two birds are going to determine the direction of U.S. interest rates. Whichever one wins the tussle currently under way.
So let us begin with the hawks. Now the hawks, you can hear them there, they see job growth and strong job strong. The average growth of 232,000
jobs added over the last three months in monthly numbers. The consumer, a vital part of the U.S. economy, and they see consumer spending up for four
months in a row. And they are warning that the current low rates of interest are encouraging excessive risk taking. And on a macro prudential
basis, may lead to instability.
The doves see things very differently. The nice gentle cooing of the devils that we can hear in the QUEST MEANS BUSINESS studio. Now they point
to sluggish growth, 1.1 percent annual rate in the second quarter is well below the historic average for the U.S. in a recovery, or at least at this
stage of growth. Inflation is still low. Two percent is the Fed's target, which is the second part of the mandate. And it's not close to being
fulfilled, at least on the headline level. And wage growth, despite the numbers we got last week, showing the best for something like 20 odd years,
wage growth is still not back to pre-crisis levels.
So who is winning in this battle at the moment? The market believes that the doves are cooing louder than the hawks. The investors are putting a
chance of a rate rise at around 18 percent. Randall Kroszner, is a former member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. Now professor, at the
University of Chicago's School of Business. Randall, are you sir, before we question you, we need to know what perch you are on. Are you a hawk or
are you a dove?
RANDALL KROSZNER, FORMER FEDERAL RESERVE GOVERNOR: I am flying between the two, but I'm moving more in the hawkish direction. As I think some of the
members of the FOMC are.
QUEST: When we asked the QUEST MEANS BUSINESS audience what they thought, by a large majority, they thought, I think I said this to you before, that
rates should rise now. But realistically, nobody believes that they're going to rise in this meeting because it's too close to the election.
KROSZNER: I don't think it's because of the election, I think it's because of uncertainties about the economy. We still haven't seen wage pressure
yet, exactly as you said. So it is hard to make the case that you must raise rates now. But actually what's been interesting is we've seen one of
the doves fly to the hawkish side.
Eric Rosengren, who was there when I was there, when we brought rates down too near zero back then in 2008, has been very, very dovish, but is now
concerned about those financial stability issues. And so when I think things are starting to weigh more in the hawkish direction.
QUEST: If we look at inflation, there are numbers within the inflation range that are starting to get -- I mean some of the headline numbers are
starting to get up towards 2 percent, 1.6, 1.7 percent. So 2 percent on some measures is not that far off.
[16:15:00] KROSZNER: That's right. But many of those measures have been hovering around 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 for quite some time without seeing a lot of
pressure moving northward. And that's the question, when will the pressure come in? Is that something is going to be just a few months from now, or
is it going to be a year from now. Many people last year thought that with unemployment rate nearing 5 percent, we would see a significant amount of
wage pressure and wage inflation by now. We've seen a little bit, but not really that much.
QUEST: I was reading Janet Yellen's Jackson Hole speech, the other day, talking about -- what I am seeing, and help me, because you were on the
FOMC. What I'm seeing is incredibly difficult risk time for the Fed. If it doesn't move and inflation takes off, it'll be too late and they'll have
to stomp on the brakes faster. But at the same time the evidence is just not there to realistically do it now.
KROSZNER: And that's why I think some of the other considerations that are some of the financial stability issues, at least in my mind, seem to have
where I would give a fair amount of weight. Usually monetary policy is a short run kind of thing. There is some sort of shock. You move rates down
significantly. But then you can move them back up in not too long a period. Remember, it's been seven, eight years since we've had this
extraordinary policy. And we're still just barely above zero. The chance that there can be some unintended consequences like the inability of
pension funds or insurance companies to make good on payments that they made promises about, to pay 4 percent or 5 percent returns when they're
getting closer to zero is really tough.
QUEST: Randall, I've got you much as a hawk, but I see you on the hawkish branches' Let's see if you stay there. You're just swinging both ways as
the trees move in the wind. Good to see you, sir.
KROSZNER: It is data dependence.
QUEST: It only took 2:30 to 3:00 minutes to get to data dependence. Thank you very much, sir. Good to see you.
KROSZNER: Good bye.
Randall Kroszner in Chicago. Data dependence, of course, is the key phrase that the Fed uses.
Now to a very disturbing story. We heard many aspects of the U.S. presidential election, but after the break, I'm going to show you how this
candy, the so called Skittles entered the race for the White House after Donald Trump Jr. made what some say, was a tasteless analogy. It is QUEST
QUEST: Welcome back to QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. This is a package of Skittles, which is an American candy. Donald Trump Jr., the son of the
Republican presidential candidate, asked the world a particular question.
[16:20:05] And the question was this, "If I had a bowl of Skittles, and I told you that just three would kill you, would you take a handful?"
The question itself wasn't controversial. Skittles is a well-known candy, and he was merely asking about a bowl of sweets. It was the analogy that
he was making. He wasn't talking about Skittles. He was talking about these people. He was talking about Syrian refugees. Mars which makes
Skittles, was robust in its rejection of the analogy." They said, "Skittles are candy, refugees are people. It's an inappropriate analogy."
They then went on to say "We respectfully refrain from further comment, as that could be misinterpreted as marketing."
CNN's Senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, joins me now live. Whatever the intended, what on earth could he have thought he was going to
get away with by comparing refugees fleeing for their lives with candy.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, Richard, to use a healthier analogy, the apple doesn't far too far from the tree.
Donald Trump Jr. is very much sounding like his father when he makes a kind of comment. As a matter of fact, there was a backlash in terms of response
from the company that makes Skittles, saying that Skittles are candy, refugees are people. Then Donald Trump Jr. retweeted that and basically
said, thanks for clearing that up sarcastically. Not really taking this back at all. And the Trump campaign has essentially said, aren't there
more serious things we could talk about.
Let me break this down for you, Richard. What is going on here is that Donald Trump and his campaign, and even his family, are taking a very hard
line stance on immigration. Donald Trump was talking about this earlier today at a rally, earlier today here in North Carolina. Calling for
extreme vetting of immigrants coming in from countries that have connections to terrorism. Now the question becomes -- we've had this
conversation many times -- well, does that mean places like France where there have been terrorist attacks and so forth.
But Donald Trump has all but in the last 24-hour since the terror attack in New York, Richard, called for some kind of profiling of Muslims and Arabs
in the United States. And so this is a very serious debate. Obviously, what Donald Trump Jr. did with that tweet was very frivolous, very trivial.
And there has been a serious response. So there was a speechwriter for president Obama, John Favreau who tweeted a picture of that refugee boy --
that bloodied Syrian refugee boy.
So he certainly doesn't speak for all Americans, but he certainly speaks for a lot of Trump supporters out there.
QUEST: Jim Acosta, look, here is a question. On the weekend bombing in New York, or the explosion in New York, and the ones in New Jersey and the
pipe bombs, are we seeing yet any whole evidence suggesting this very hard line that Trump is now taking, versus the more nuanced approach of Clinton,
is having an effect?
ACOSTA: All you have to do is look at the polls right now. Whatever Trump has been doing or Hillary Clinton has not been doing over the last couple
of weeks, is working for Donald Trump. The polls they do show that more Americans trust Hillary Clinton to have the temperament to be commander-in-
chief. But they're very close when it comes to who would be better dealing with terrorism. There is a segment of the American population, a strong
one, that wants to deal with a hard lined stance. This problem of international terrorism and these lone wolf attacks that have been breaking
out all over the world.
And to get at the politics of this, Richard, with the Trump campaign I think would tell you is I think they don't think the politics they're that
far off when it comes to politics. They look at what happened in Europe, with the Brexit, the anti-immigration backlash that you've seen. The anti-
refugee backlashes you seen in Europe. And they don't think they're that far off when it comes to their posture here in the United States. And
while that skittles tweet may seem just sort of ridiculous, the intent behind it, they are not backing off of at all, Richard.
QUEST: Jim Acosta in North Carolina, much appreciated, Jim, thank you very much.
As we continue tonight, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly for the final time as the U.S. president, Obama said his fellow work leaders
have a choice. They can cooperate with each other or they can retreat into division and isolation. And it was a passionate defense of an integrated
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, U.S. PRESIDENT: Today a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself. So the answer cannot be a simple rejection of global
[16:25:02] Instead we must work together to make sure the benefits of such integration are broadly shared. And that the disruptions, economic,
political, and cultural that are caused by integration are squarely addressed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Clyde Prestowitz served as counselor to the Secretary of Commerce in the Reagan administration. He's now founder and president of the Economic
Strategy Institute. And one of the great thinkers and forward leaders on the issue of trade. Good to see you. Welcome to QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
Thank you, sir, for giving us time. It's going to be downright difficult to get Trans-Pacific passed, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say
impossible to get Transatlantic passed.
CLYDE PRESTOWITZ, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, ECONOMIC STRATEGY INSTITUTE: Well, I don't know about Transatlantic, I think it will be very difficult
to get the Trans-Pacific done. But I think there's a good reason for that. I think that the Trans-Pacific is not a very good deal, particularly not
for the United States. And I don't think that the failure of a Trans- Pacific deal means that necessarily means that global integration is halted or in any way harmed.
QUEST: But the way in which the administration will have to move very fast after election, and before inauguration, could you see them managing --
obviously you're against it in the sense of what you just said, but can you see a coalition being put together that could get it through?
PRESTOWITZ: I think it is possible to get it through, a number of senators voted to give the president negotiables authority, and so there is a
presumption that most of those will stay with him on passing the Trans- Pacific deal. I mean I think that he -- it is always dangerous to go against the president on something like this and predicting, but it will be
difficult I think.
QUEST: What is your fundamental opposition? We heard Donald Trump believes, just obviously, that these trade deals are bad deals for the
United States. And he points to NAFTA has being a classic example. Hillary Clinton just thinks this one just as in a very good deal. What's
your fundamental opposition and objection to Trans-Pacific?
PRESTOWITZ: I don't think that it is going to achieve any of the objectives that the president is talking about. He mentioned in his
defense yesterday that growing inequality is a problem, and that the benefits of global integration need to be more broadly shared. Well, the
way that TPP is set up, it is more likely to increase the gap between the haves and the have nots than it is to share the benefits. The main things
that result in difficulties with global trade, such as currency manipulation, such as subsidy of investment are not included in the TPP
QUEST: Right, good to see you, sir, we'll need your help as the lame duck session continues and they battle through. We'll look forward to having
you back to talk more about it. So thank you very much.
PRESTOWITZ: Thank you.
QUEST: As we continue tonight on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, the Senate Banking Committee Chairman, Senator Richard Shelby, will be joining us to talk
about the Wells Fargo chief exec, John Stumph's appearance before his committee. The question for the Senator will be whether he got the answers
he required, after the break.
[16:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest. There is more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in just a moment. Before we get to it though, as always, this is CNN. On
this network, the news always comes first.
The United States has reached an early conclusion that it was Russian war planes that bombed an aid convoy and warehouse belonging to the Red
Crescent. That's what two officials from the U.S. has told CNN. The Red Cross says around 20 civilians were killed. Russia and Syria denied they
were behind the attack. Speaking at the opening session of United Nations General Assembly, the Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon condemned whoever was
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BAN KI-MOON, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: These caravans delivering life- saving aid was heroes. Those who bombed them were cowards. Accountability for crimes such as this is essential. I appeal to all those with
influence, to end the fighting and get talks started. A plan to the transition is long overdue. After so much violence in the world, the
future of Syria should not rest on the fate of a single man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: A U.S. official says the wife of the terror suspect, Ahmad Khan Rahami, is cooperating with authorities. She said she left the United
States before the bombings last weekend in New Jersey and New York. She's currently in the UAE and is apparently coming back to the United States
Violent clashes in the Democratic Republic of Congo have left at least 17 people dead. Protesters took to the streets demanding that the government
set a date on elections. They accuse the president of trying to extend his time in office, which is due to end in December.
South African students have clashed with riot police in Johannesburg, the day after the government announced the possible 8 percent fee increase for
students beginning next year. The government said the price increase is necessary because of funding challenges.
Pope Francis has gathered with the leaders of other religions for a conference promoting peace. The Pope led prayers in Assisi in Italy. He
then denounced those who wage war in the name of God. The event marks the 30th anniversary of the First World Day of Prayer for Peace.
The actress, Angelina Jolie, has filed for divorce from her husband, the actor Brad Pitt. Jolie is citing irreconcilable differences and asking for
physical custody of their six children. The couple have been married since 2014, but have been together a considerably longer.
I've often said that banking is based on trust and trust was broken at Wells Fargo. Those are the words of the Senate Banking Committee Chairman,
Richard Shelby, as he gaveled in a hearing on the fake account scandal at Wells Fargo.
Like his Democratic colleague, Elizabeth Warren, Senator Shelby had serious questions for the chief executive, John Stumph, about accountability and
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD SHELBY, U.S. SENATE REPUBLICAN: Explain to the American public today, here, what accountability at a large bank looks like when an
executive departs with millions of dollars in compensation after thousands of her employees defrauded customers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:35:08] QUEST: Senator Shelby joins me now from Washington. Mr. Chairman, thank you sir, we're grateful and honored to have you on the
program tonight. So I'm very grateful. Let me begin by asking you, did you get satisfactory answers to the questions you wanted answered today?
SHELBY: Not complete answers. Mr. Stump said in the hearing he didn't have certain information that was not in his area, but he did say he would
furnish a lot of these answers to the committee, and we'll see if he does in the next few weeks. I believe he will, but the investigation is
ongoing. We're looking for answers. We're looking at, perhaps, this going on at other banks. I trust and hope not, but it wouldn't shock me.
QUEST: Do you accept his apology as being genuine?
SHELBY: I would think Mr. Stumph is a decent man. I think he has a good reputation in the banking committee. I've known him a long time. I
believe his apology is sincere. He's sorry that happened. It happened on his watch. Because he is the CEO and as he said, the buck stops with him.
But on the other hand, no one, no senior executive, even a junior executive, we've heard, has been held accountable for dealing with all that
many accounts. Wells Fargo has had a sterling reputation, but you can ruin it quickly.
QUEST: If the principal of the buck stops at the top and accountability -- I'm going to ask you the question, sir, that I asked one of my earlier
guests. If you don't resign over this, and sort of at a loss as to what you do resign over?
SHELBY: That's up to the chairman of the board of Wells Fargo, Mr. Stumph and the board of directors at Wells Fargo to do this. You know, people can
call for his resignation, but we don't know what happened yet. We don't know how deep this is. How pervasive it is, but I think with a stock drop
like this, people are taking notice.
QUEST: And this idea of a claw back, I mean, admittedly she did it in a very colorful fashion. But your colleague, Senator Warren, I mean it was
difficult to extract from Mr. Stumph that he hasn't paid anything back. Do you think there should be claw back, either from Mr. Stumph or from the
executive responsible, Carrie Tolstedt?
SHELBY: If there is wrong doing that has gone on by the vice president, who retired, or the chairman, that is one thing. Claw backs are there for
reason. That's up to the board. But I think they have to determine the culpability of all that first. Who is in charge on the day-to-day
operations? What did they do? What did they know? Everything that goes with it. I think we're not there yet, but I think a lot of people are in
QUEST: Are you determined, Mr. Chairman, to stay with this? It is early days in the Wells Fargo case, but once the spotlight moves on and other
issues become the issue de jour. So do you consider this important for you and your committee to stay with?
SHELBY: Absolutely. We have to stay with it because the basis of banking, as I've said before, is trust and integrity. People have got to trust the
bank and trust the bankers. Most people do and they have a lot of them have sterling reputations, but when they're tainted we have to get to the
root of it. And what I asked today is this going on at other banks, similar conduct? We don't know, but we should check and see.
QUEST: Will you be calling heads of other banks to tell you what they have been doing, or indeed what they have invested into their own banks?
SHELBY: Well, we will be calling them, and if we find that there's wrong doing, or alleged wrongdoing at these banks. But we don't know that yet.
That is up to some of the regulators and other law enforcement to point that out and bring it to us. We'll do our job though.
QUEST: It is particularly troubling, isn't it?
QUEST: Eight years after the crisis that this could happen in the period when everybody is supposedly on best behavior following most ethical
SHELBY: It is troubling. It is devastating to the banking community.
[16:40:01] And that is why they have to get to the bottom of this, they have to root it out wherever it is. We went through all of the mortgage
fraud and everything through the banking system. Everybody didn't do this, a few did, but they taint the whole industry.
QUEST: This idea of regulation, what more can you regulate. Dodd-Frank came in to address many of the previous deficiencies. Now there is talk
about maybe there is too much regulation and there needs to be a lighter touch on regulation. I'm assuming you are certainly not going to back a
call for any less regulation?
SHELBY: Well, let me tell you this, you notice the hearing today the people that started the investigation and found the wrong doing at Wells
Fargo was the Los Angeles attorney, it was not the comptroller of the currency, the regulator. And it was not the
consumer agency. They came late to the party.
QUEST: I also see now late to the party arguably are the criminal investigations.
SHELBY: We always have to look to where there is fraud. Is there criminal fraud? I don't know that. There could be. And if it is criminal fraud,
looks bad, let's see where it leads to. If it is criminal fraud that is for the investigators and the criminal division of the Justice Department
to look at.
QUEST: Finally, Mr. Chairman. When you heard about this, and the first time somebody, one of your assistants put this on your desk, 5,000
employees terminated, a couple million accounts opened, what was your immediate gut reaction?
SHELBY: My gut reaction something is wrong, it is probably deeper than we know and it has been a long time coming to the forefront. We should have
known about this years ago.
QUEST: Mr. chairman, we are very grateful. Thank you, sir. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us. Chairman of the senate banking committee.
You will always hear the top names here on "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS."
QUEST: President Obama met his Nigerian counterpart at the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. President Buhari says he can't thank the United
States enough for the help with the economy and security.
The relationship has changed the African country for the better. President Obama is set to host his second U.S.-Africa business forum this week.
Joining me from New York is Tony Elumelu, he is chairman of the UBA group and founder of the foundation that carries his name.
Tony, sorry, my apologies, sir, that I can't be with you in New York, I'm at the CNN center so I would to be with you to shake your hand. Warm words
from the U.S. president, do you think the relationship between the two countries has improved dramatically post-election?
[16:45:06] TONY ELUMELU, CHAIRMAN, UBA GROUP: I think the relationship between Nigeria and the United States has drastically improved for good
reasons. I think back home, the president of Nigeria has done very well in tackling terrorism, and here Africa and Nigeria are very appreciative for
President Obama's trade and investment initiative for Africa. And the initiatives, so between the Africa and America, there has been tremendous
improvement, so yes.
QUEST: In we take a look at this globalization issue at the moment, and we're talking earlier, the transpacific trade is in trouble, transatlantic
trade treaty is in trouble, are you worried there is an anti-globalization movement picking up steam? Which could harm Africa just as the continent
is getting started?
ELUMELU: No, I think this is Africa's time, the issue is that Africa has been ready for business, we are more ready for business than before. And I
know we begin to call Investors and business finance from the U.S. and other parts of the world. Investors like higher incomes on investment, investors like a safe
investment haven. And Africa is beginning to present a very good investment destination for investors.
So global investors actually are looking in our direction. When I talk to friends they tell me they want to come to invest in Africa.
QUEST: What does Africa and maybe Nigeria specifically, what new policies or changed policies, whether on economics or transparency, or security,
what more would you like to now see being done?
ELUMELU: In addition to all that's been done, there are security and there is corruption, we need as a businessperson we need to see more government
policies. We need to see an improvement in the ease of doing business. I speak as someone that invested in 21 African countries.
I have studied macroeconomic stability across some of the countries, but we need more. We need to see African leaders to move to the up cycle of
private development because what is good for private sector is good for African society.
QUEST: Tony, you're going to have to forgive me my last question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? You knew it was
coming. Who in your opinion is better for Africa?
ELUMELU: I think given the good foundation that president Obama has laid with trade and investment for Africa, and taking into account congress
passing the Electrify Africa Act, what we need in Africa is actually someone who is able to continue the good work that has been done. We don't
really need a massive change per se. We need someone who can scale up the next plan in the trade and investment protocol agreements. A relationship
that president Obama and his team put together, whoever can do that be it Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, that is Africa's candidate for the office.
QUEST: A true diplomat's answer. I allow you that one, it's good to see you. Thank you for joining us.
ELUMELU: Thank you, Richard.
QUEST: As we continue, sources close to the former president George H. W. Bush, Bush 41, you've got to be sitting comfortably here. They say he will
vote for Hillary Clinton in November. Representatives of the Bush family are declining to comment publicly on this. But the report has been around
for some time.
The former president, Bush 41, said he will vote, the told a room for about 40 people, that he would vote for Hillary Clinton.
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have amassed a Hollywood fortune. They are the number one Hollywood couple in the world, well they were. They've
split and now they have to figure out how to divide the lot. The sorry story after you have enjoyed a chance to make, create, innovate.
[16:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: One of the most famous mergers in celebrity history has come to an end. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are filing for divorce, well, she's
filed against him.
According to Forbes, the Hollywood power couple have earned more than half a billion dollars together. And they collaborated on films like "Mr. and
Mrs. Smith" which grossed about half a billion worldwide.
They have six children, a huge net worth, and apparently according to the document filed in court by Angelina Jolie, irreconcilable differences.
Splitting the fortune could be perhaps somewhat tricky. Sian-Pierre Regis is in New York. The founder and editor and chief of "Swagger." First of
all, sir, where you surprised?
SIAN-PIERRE REGIS, FOUNDER AND EDITOR, "SWAGGER": Don't all Hollywood couples come to an end at some point, Richard?
QUEST: Oh, you cynic.
REGIS: I'm a huge entertainment cynic. And so I am not surprised, I mean there have been word in the water for quite a while here. But you never
really know what to believe and what not to believe. But they have six kids, as you said, half a billion dollars, they are on different sides of
the coast at any point in time, of course this was probably going to come to an end.
QUEST: The reality is, I'm not expecting the financial side to be as controversial as people think, there is more than enough money to divide
between the two of them, and the children will get it all eventually anyway. So it really doesn't make that much difference. This question of
Jolie going for physical custody, not legal custody, and describing it as being for the health of the children, is she suggesting something that is
unsavory or untoward?
REGIS: They have not said anything. Both sides are keeping very mum as to why she wanted physical custody, but is willing to share legal custody.
But lots of people are saying does he have anger issues? Is there something else at play? But of course with the lawyers saying it is for
the health of the family, that to me seems like a coded nod to maybe somebody about Brad that she wants to keep her children away from.
But it could be just as much as listen, he's going to be abroad for quite a while, working on different movies, and it makes most sense for her to take
care of the children. She is more involved in the U.N. not doing movies as much anymore, so she is likely closer to home.
QUEST: I was looking at the statement, more closely than I have, the usual phrase has not been seen yet, you know, we love our children, we are both
committed to raising our children together, we will remain -- you know the usual bromide that is always put in these sort of statements, we have not
seen that yet.
REGIS: Yes, Brad just put out a statement just a couple hours ago and it was very quick, it just said, listen, yes, it is happening, and I care
about the health of my children, please stay away. It was very simple, the hired Laura Wasser, who is a divorce lawyer. She often takes a year
sometimes to work out settlements and deals. It is likely that this has been mulling in the water for a while, they're fine. They are done and
it's over and they want to keep moving.
QUEST: I spent my life in the business world. You spend your life in the entertainment world, is the entertainment world in mourning tonight?
REGIS: It seems that everybody on twitter is in mourning. If this couple can't last, then nobody can last, these are humanitarians, how can they
split apart. Not surprising. I think we will get over it and everybody is waiting to see who Brad's next wife is.
[16:55:03] QUEST: Oh, stop it, Regis. I will not have you taking us down into the gutter quite so quickly. Sian-Pierre Regis, excellent to have you
on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, even if you have taken us down to the gutter faster than we intended.
Don't forget the newsletter. I've written about John Stumpf. The newsletter is at CNNmoney.com/quest, where you can subscribe. We'll have
the Profitable Moment after the break.
QUEST: Here is our Profitable Moment. So John Stumpf got an absolute roasting on capitol hill. There is no getting away from it. Called
gutless, saying he should be criminally investigated. The man was excoriated by senators as he gave his testimony.
The thought I had as I watched and listened is really very simple. If you don't resign over this, what do you resign over? Think about it. The fact
that it happened on your watch, you take responsibility. The fact that you should have known and you didn't, you take responsibility.
The fact that no senior staffer has been fired or resigned, you take responsibility. The fact that you're the chairman, and the chief
executive, and it's your board of directors, you take responsibility. Whichever way you look at it, the man or woman at the top has to take
responsibility when everything goes wrong, which, by every definition, this has happened.
So yes, he should resign. That is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight, I'm Richard Quest in New York. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I
hope it is profitable, back in New York tomorrow.