Live Feed from the hearing:

Wells Fargo embattled CEO John Stumpf returns to Capitol Hill for the second time in 10 days, for a hearing with the House Financial Services Committee - the same committee which yesterday spoke to Janet Yellen - scheduled to start at 10 am EDT and likely to last much of the day. Despite Stumpf's belated clawback of $41 million in unvested stock, which took place only after a tremendous congressional and populist outrage, his job is very much under threat and the bank is facing rising political pressure over the recent cross-selling scandal in which the bank opened 2 million unauthorized accounts, that has become a major issue in Washington and on Wall Street. His prepared remarks can be read here.

Earlier today the WSJ reported that three senators, Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) wrote a letter to SEC Chairman Mary Jo White urging the regulator to probe further into whether Wells Fargo and its senior officials “violated laws by misleading investors and firing whistleblowers while the bank oversaw the creation of millions of unauthorized, fraudulent accounts.” As reported by the WSJ, the three senators, all members of the banking committee, said the situation at Wells Fargo does “justify an investigation into at least three types of securities law violations,” according to the letter. The first focuses on whether the bank’s executives violated the internal-controls provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act by signing off on inaccurate financial reporting.

The senators also asked the SEC to look at whether the bank committed securities fraud by failing to disclose problems with fake accounts while promoting its so-called cross-sell ratio to investors. Finally, the letter urged the SEC to inquire whether the bank violated whistleblower-protection laws by firing employees who tried to report misconduct.

The latest bad news for Wells follows yesterday announcement by California, Wells Fargo's home state, that it 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.

As Reuters adds, 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.

While 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, it will still be very contentious and will focus on the bank's decision to clawback a part of his compensation only after his appearance in the Sanate.

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.

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.

Among the things the apologetic Stumpf will tell lawmakers on Thursday is 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.

Below are several sellside opinions of why today's grilling will be even tougher than the first one:

FBR (Edward Mills)

• House cmte likely to be “even tougher” on Stumpf than Senate as “volume” is often higher in the House; watch for whether Stumpf’s forfeiting $41m in equity awards, forgoing salary, not taking bonus in 2016 allows for better performance, or whether members push for more action
• One “potential benefit” to Stumpf: House finished work late last night; may reduce attendance for today’s hearing
• Notes some cmte Democrats called on Yellen, Fed to break up WFC, asked for return of Glass-Steagall, noted WFC enforcement action showed the bank is not only too big to manage, but also too big to regulate
• On Calif. statement: Damage may not be contained to just that state; has been concerned about wider ramifications since WFC appeared unable to contain initial fall-out from CFPB enforcement action
• Now entering “the next phase,” with any possible regulator -– state or federal -– looking to see how it can take its own enforcement action or start investigation
• Investors yesterday may have been focused on Stumpf’s performance today, rather than Calif. actions

COMPASS POINT (Isaac Boltansky)

• Sees today’s hearing likely “more contentious, lengthy, and unpleasant” than last week’s Senate hearing, as ~60 House cmte members “stretch to secure their sound-bite”
• Watching Chair Jeb Hensarling, Ranking Member Maxine Waters, along with Keith Ellison ("progressive pillar,’’ most likely to meet “tone and tenor” of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Q&A last week); John Delaney (former CEO of financial services firm CapitalSource); Scott Garrett (facing tough reelection race)

MACQUARIE (David Konrad)

• Timing isn’t right to become “more constructive” on WFC shares, even though valuation is near historical relative value
• Headline risk may persist longer than a few weeks, especially for “relatively expensive” stock with “perceived safe haven status”; cites past underperformance of peers during litigation issues (JPM Whale, GS Abacus)
• While determining floor is “challenging” given uncertainty of headline risk, earnings power, look at earnings run rate/multiple points to ~$42

KBW (Brian Gardner)

• Yesterday’s hearing with Yellen didn’t uncover new info information or open new lines of political battle, though it bolstered KBW belief that WFC scandal has raised regulatory risk for consumer banks
• Sees Congress pushing regulators to be “relentless” in examining banks with cross-selling practices, “severe” in punishing mistakes
• May be bipartisan coalition possibly ready to break up banks in 2017

Here, courtesy of WSJ, are 5 things to watch for at today's hearing:

1. Expect a Contentious Hearing

Mr. Stumpf can expect an even more contentious day in the House than he did at the Senate last week. And that’s despite the fact that the Senate hearing brought calls for his resignation. Given members of the House Financial Services Committee all face re-election in November, they have even more reason to look to score points at Mr. Stumpf’s expense. “The Wells Fargo scandal has emerged in the dead heat of the election season defined by populist anger,” said Isaac Boltansky, an analyst for Compass Point Research & Trading LLC, an investment firm. “I can guarantee you every member of the committee, all 59 of them, will use their five minutes to illustrate they are tougher than the person next to them on big banks.”

2. After the Clawback, What’s Next?

Hours after Wells Fargo announced a decision to “claw back” large chunks of compensation for its top executives, politicians were already discussing what other steps they wanted the bank to take. Those will surely be debated at Thursday’s hearing. Rep. Brad Sherman (D, Calif.), a member of the House panel, told Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen Wednesday that the scandal demonstrated the bank was too big to manage and too big to regulate. “Break them up,” he said. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), whose tirade against Mr. Stumpf at the Senate hearing became the talk of Washington, made clear where she stood. “As I said last week, Mr. Stumpf should resign, return every nickel he made while this scam was ongoing, and face [Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department] investigations,” she said in a statement following the clawback announcement.

3. When Did He Find Out?

The lawmakers will press Mr. Stumpf to provide definitive responses to some key questions left unanswered at the Senate hearing, according to Congressional staffers. The most important, they say, is exactly when and how he became aware of the problems in the bank’s retail business that resulted in employees opening as many as 2 million accounts without customers’ knowledge and the firing of 5,300 employees over five years. At the Senate hearing, Mr. Stumpf failed to provide a clear answer to the lawmakers’ repeated questions about the timing, saying he learned about the problem “later in 2013.” House lawmakers are likely to demand more specific information, including whether Mr. Stumpf was left in the dark until the Los Angeles Times reported on problems in October and December of 2013.

4. What Did Lawmakers Learn From Documents?

When the House committee announced its plan to hold the hearing, it requested Wells Fargo and regulators submit a vast number of documents to help with its own investigation. The committee has received some of those documents, and it is expected to unveil some of the initial takeaways at the hearing. Wells Fargo has agreed to produce within the next month all requested documents — likely in the “thousands of pages” — and has already sent in some information, according to Congressional sources. The bank was asked to provide “all records relating to the questionable sales practices that Wells Fargo produced or made available” to local and federal regulators. The bank and the committee are currently discussing a schedule for transcribed interviews with four Wells Fargo executives including former community banking head Carrie Tolstedt. Kicking off their own inquiry, 10 Democratic senators sent a letter to Mr. Stumpf Wednesday requesting the bank provide detailed answers to 58 questions on a range of topics from chronologies of events, to treatment of employees, to consumer harm.

5. Where Are the Regulators?

Mr. Stumpf is flying solo at the House hearing. In the Senate, regulators that imposed a combined $185 million fine on the bank were also present. Those agencies, which include the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, haven’t been invited to the House panel. Why not? Members of the Republican majority on the committee say they want to focus on Mr. Stumpf. Democrats say Rep. Jeb. Hensarling, the committee’s Republican chairman and a leading critic of the CFPB, didn’t want to give regulators another opportunity to boast about their work on Wells Fargo. CFPB Director Richard Cordray did offer to testify but was rebuffed by Mr. Hensarling. The CFPB and the OCC have already submitted documents requested by the committee, which include records relating to the allegations of improper activities at Wells Fargo, as well as emails and other records of correspondence.