Wells Fargo earned $2.00 per share in Q2 2026, up 25%, but the core lending and deposit franchise grew net interest income just 1.8% — the growth came from a Markets build-out, venture-capital gains and a 5.9% smaller share count.
Revenue
$22.6B
+8.6% YoY
Net income
$6.4B
+16.6% YoY
Diluted EPS
$2.00
+25.0% YoY
The headline and the engine point in different directions
Wells Fargo earned $6.4 billion in the second quarter of 2026, or $2.00 per diluted share, against $5.5 billion and $1.60 a year earlier — earnings per share up 25%. Revenue rose 9% to $22.6 billion while costs rose only 2%, and the bank's efficiency ratio (noninterest expense divided by revenue — the share of each dollar of income eaten by running the bank, where lower is better) improved from 64% to 60%.
That is a good quarter. But three things sit between the 25% EPS number and the underlying franchise, and each is visible in the filing itself:
A smaller share count. Net income available to common shareholders rose 18%, not 25%. The gap is buybacks: Wells Fargo repurchased 84 million shares for $7.1 billion in the first half of 2026, taking diluted average shares outstanding down 5.9% year over year, to 3,074.6 million.
Venture-capital marks. Of the $1,191 million increase in fee income, $728 million came from one line — net gains on equity securities — which the filing attributes to "improved results from our venture capital investments, including higher realized and unrealized gains, partially offset by higher impairment losses." These are portfolio revaluations, not customer revenue, and they can reverse.
A one-off in the prior year working the other way. Pre-tax profit rose 25%, but net income rose only 17%, because the effective tax rate went from 14.3% to 17.4% — the filing cites "higher pre-tax income and lower discrete tax benefits related to the resolution of prior period tax matters." Last year's quarter had tax benefits that did not repeat; by our arithmetic that cost roughly $250 million of net income this quarter, about $0.08 per share.
Key metrics
Metric
Q2 2026
Q2 2025
YoY change
Total revenue
$22,622M
Read 0 community reports on Wells Fargo, or write your own.Write a report
The core lending business barely grew its spread income
Net interest income — the difference between what a bank earns on loans and securities and what it pays on deposits and borrowings, and still Wells Fargo's largest revenue source — rose $609 million, or 5.2%.
Almost two-thirds of that came from one place. The filing's own Table 1 strips out the trading operation inside Corporate and Investment Banking: Markets net interest income was $501 million this quarter against $104 million a year ago, a $397 million increase. Net interest income excluding Markets — the lending, investing and deposit-gathering franchise that most people mean when they say "the bank" — grew from $11,604 million to $11,816 million. That is 1.8%.
The same fact explains why the margin fell even as the dollars rose. Net interest margin (spread income measured against the assets that generate it, so a measure of profitability per dollar of balance sheet rather than in total) dropped 25 basis points to 2.43%. Management's stated reason: margin decreased "driven by growth in lower-yielding assets in our Markets business as well as growth in interest-bearing deposits."
So the balance sheet is growing much faster than the income it throws off. Average assets rose 15.2% year over year to $2.23 trillion, average loans 12.0% to $1,026 billion, and average deposits 10.1% to $1,466 billion — but net interest income grew 5.2%. A trading book is a low-margin, high-volume use of a balance sheet, and that is what is being added.
Fee income: what is genuinely client-driven
Excluding the venture-capital gains and a $412 million decline in "other" income, the customer-facing fee lines grew $857 million:
Fee line
Q2 2026
Q2 2025
Change
Investment advisory and other asset-based fees
$2,821M
$2,499M
+$322M
Investment banking fees
$939M
$696M
+$243M
Deposit-related fees
$1,357M
$1,249M
+$108M
Commissions and brokerage services fees
$687M
$610M
+$77M
Card fees
$1,222M
$1,173M
+$49M
Lending-related fees
$405M
$373M
+$32M
Mortgage banking
$256M
$230M
+$26M
Net gains from trading activities
$1,393M
$1,376M
+$17M
Net gains from equity securities
$847M
$119M
+$728M
Other
$377M
$789M
−$412M
Two of these deserve a caveat. Advisory fees rose on "higher asset-based fees reflecting higher market valuations" — that is the stock market doing the work, not new clients, and the filing is explicit that company-wide advisory assets grew from $1,119.3 billion to $1,224.9 billion during the quarter on $101.0 billion of market impact versus $4.6 billion of net inflows. The inflows are at least a genuine improvement: the same quarter last year saw $2.4 billion of net outflows.
The $412 million drop in other income is a comparison artifact, not deterioration. It reflects a $253 million gain on the merchant services joint venture acquisition booked in Q2 2025, plus $148 million of lost lease income after Wells Fargo sold its rail car leasing business in Q1 2026. The rail car sale also removed $93 million of lease expense this quarter, so the profit effect is far smaller than the revenue effect.
Segments: the growth is concentrated in the capital-markets businesses
Segment
Revenue Q2 2026
Revenue Q2 2025
Net income Q2 2026
Net income Q2 2025
Consumer Banking and Lending
$10,288M
$9,688M
$2,290M
$1,923M
Commercial Banking
$3,118M
$2,933M
$1,176M
$1,088M
Corporate and Investment Banking
$5,425M
$4,673M
$2,329M
$1,737M
Wealth and Investment Management
$3,892M
$3,438M
$537M
$420M
Corporate
$413M
$559M
$75M
$354M
Corporate and Investment Banking is the standout: revenue +16.1%, net income +34.1%, driven by net interest income up 25.2% (the Markets build-out) and investment banking fees up on "higher debt and equity underwriting fees." But $181 million of its pre-tax profit came from a negative provision — a release of previously set-aside loss reserves, attributed to "lower net charge-offs and a lower allowance for commercial real estate loans." A year ago the same segment took a $103 million provision charge. That $284 million swing is larger than the $91 million decline in the company-wide provision, which is worth noticing: group credit costs fell only because CIB released reserves, while Consumer Banking's provision was flat at $945 million and Commercial Banking's swung the other way, from a $43 million release to a $131 million charge.
Wealth and Investment Management grew revenue 13.2% and net income 27.9%, but expenses rose 10.3% because advisor pay moves with fees — "higher personnel expense driven by higher revenue-related compensation expense." Most of the operating leverage here is borrowed from the market.
Consumer Banking and Lending grew revenue 6.2% on "wider deposit spreads and higher deposit and loan balances" and repricing of consumer account service charges. Note a comparability wrinkle the filing flags in both directions: certain business customers were transferred from Commercial Banking into Consumer Banking in Q3 2025, which inflates Consumer's growth and depresses Commercial's. Commercial Banking's 7.0% expense decline is partly this transfer, not purely cost cutting.
Corporate net income fell from $354 million to $75 million, absorbing lower funding credits to the segments as rates fell.
Credit quality is improving, with one pocket that is not
This is the cleanest part of the quarter. Net charge-offs — loans written off as uncollectible, net of recoveries — fell 11% to $883 million. Commercial net charge-offs were $156 million, 10 basis points of average commercial loans, against $247 million and 18 basis points a year ago. Consumer net charge-offs were $720 million, 74 basis points, versus $750 million and 81 basis points, with lower credit-card and personal-loan losses partly offset by higher auto losses. Nonperforming assets fell $559 million from year-end to $7.9 billion, or 0.77% of loans, "driven by lower commercial real estate nonaccrual loans."
Commercial real estate, the market's main worry about large US banks for three years, is visibly healing here: criticized CRE mortgage loans (loans flagged internally as elevated risk) fell from $13.4 billion at the end of 2025 to $11.8 billion, "primarily driven by the office, apartments, and industrial/warehouse property types," and criticized CRE construction loans fell from $1.7 billion to $1.2 billion.
The exception runs the other way. Criticized commercial and industrial loans rose from $15.9 billion at year-end to $16.9 billion, an increase the filing says was "predominantly driven by loans in the technology, telecom and media and the equipment, machinery, and parts manufacturing industries." That is a $1 billion deterioration in a specific corner of the corporate book, and it is the one credit line moving against the trend.
Overall reserve coverage slipped from 1.45% of loans at year-end to 1.40%, with the allowance itself roughly flat at $14.4 billion — coverage fell because loans grew, and because the CRE allowance came down on "improved credit performance," not because the bank thinned its cushion on a static book.
Takeaway: Strip out the venture-capital marks and the 5.9% reduction in share count, and this is a quarter where the core deposit-and-lending franchise grew its spread income by 1.8%. What has actually changed at Wells Fargo is how it uses its balance sheet: average assets are up 15% and the CET1 capital ratio is down 87 basis points, funding a Markets and investment-banking build-out that is producing most of the growth. That is a real strategic shift with real returns so far — CIB net income up 34% — but it is a different, more cyclical earnings mix than the one investors have been underwriting, and it costs capital.
What to watch from here
A 10-Q does not carry management guidance, and none is given here. What the filing does supply:
Rate direction now cuts against the margin. Wells Fargo states it is positioned so that "we would expect to benefit from higher interest rates as our assets would reprice faster and to a greater degree than our liabilities, while in the case of lower interest rates, our assets would reprice downward and to a greater degree than our liabilities resulting in lower net interest income." With the margin already down 25 basis points and management naming "the impact of lower interest rates on floating rate assets" as a drag, further cuts pressure the 1.8%-growth core rather than the Markets business.
Wealth fees for next quarter are largely already set. Advisory fees are struck on "the market value of the assets at the beginning of the quarter," and advisory assets closed at $1,224.9 billion, up from $1,119.3 billion three months earlier. Absent a sharp market drop, Q3 asset-based fees start from a higher base almost mechanically.
Buyback capacity remains, but the capital cushion is thinner. $22.7 billion was left under the $40 billion authorization at June 30. The stress capital buffer is 2.50% and is expected to hold through September 30, 2027, putting the CET1 requirement at 8.50% against an actual 10.26% — a 176 basis point cushion, narrowed from 211 basis points at December 31, 2025, when the ratio was 10.61% against the same 8.50% requirement. The ratio was 11.13% a year ago. Repurchases can continue at this pace for a while; they cannot continue indefinitely alongside 15% balance-sheet growth.
Cost discipline is real and still has room. Headcount fell 7.2% year over year to 197,466, and expenses grew 2.1% against 8.6% revenue growth even while the bank absorbed higher technology spending (+13%) and a 36% jump in advertising. The efficiency ratio at 60% is the best comparison in this filing, and management keeps citing "the impact of efficiency initiatives" in every segment.
Our read: earnings quality is the thing to track, not the earnings level. The expense line and the credit book are both genuinely good and are doing so without help from one-offs. The revenue line is increasingly dependent on markets — both the trading balance sheet and equity valuations feeding advisory fees and venture-capital marks — which means the next quarter in which equity gains reverse will look far worse than this one without anything changing in the underlying bank.