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.

The two largest U.S. public pension funds -- the $304 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the $193 billion California State Teachers Retirement System -- said they’re engaging with the bank on governance issues. Calstrs, for example, will “seek engagement on their board structure, their compensation structure including incentives and a discussion of their actions on potential clawbacks,” according to spokesman Ricardo Duran. It held $1.1 billion in Wells Fargo shares and fixed-income securities as of June 30.

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.

It equates to about one-sixth of the $249 million in compensation Stumpf has taken home since he was tapped as CEO in 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from regulatory filings. That figure includes salary, bonuses and the value of vested stock awards and exercised stock options. The equity awards he’s forfeiting would have come on top of it.

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.