U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2008, 10:44 AM
NCN
 
Location: NC/SC Border Patrol
21,135 posts, read 21,836,257 times
Reputation: 23216

Advertisements

The Wachovia/Citibank was not a done deal until the shareholders voted on it, according to the news a couple of days ago. It is the shareholders that did not want the Citibank deal, because they were having to take the loss.

It was said that the Wachovia managers were having their arms twisted by that little man we are all seeing on TV so much. The shareholders were never going to approve this.

Bottom line: Our government needs to stay out of free business dealings. Vote no on the bail out.

And yes, I will lose a lot of money, but I would rather it be me losing it than to pass it on down to my grandchildren.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2008, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
5,137 posts, read 15,321,862 times
Reputation: 1008
The problem is that the execs already signed an exlusivity agreement with Citibank w/out the shareholders.

A judge can rule the same ruling like what happened with BofA and the LaSalle deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN View Post
The Wachovia/Citibank was not a done deal until the shareholders voted on it, according to the news a couple of days ago. It is the shareholders that did not want the Citibank deal, because they were having to take the loss.

It was said that the Wachovia managers were having their arms twisted by that little man we are all seeing on TV so much. The shareholders were never going to approve this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 10:49 AM
 
Location: West, Southwest, East & Northeast
3,446 posts, read 6,580,464 times
Reputation: 867
The simplest way out is to let the shareholders of Wachovia vote. They are the owners of the company afterall. I would hope that Wachovia's Board would recommend "against" the deal with Citi and "for" the deal with Wells Fargo. Anything else would be just plain wrong. Let the owners of the company decide.

PS - I don't think the Fed wants to disappoint Warren Buffett or the Berkshire/Hathaway shareholders...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 10:51 AM
 
140 posts, read 285,939 times
Reputation: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kooter View Post
Bob Steele, WB CEO, has a fudiciary responsibility to take the best deal for his shareholders. That is a CEO's number one responsibility - its shareholders.

If the Fed demands that WB take the Citi deal it will still require a vote by shareholders and I strongly suspect that WB's BOD would suggest voting against the Citi deal. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that WB shareholders would vote against the Citi deal regardless of what the WB BOD suggests.

Citi can sue, but I really think the pressure on the Fed would be overwhelmingly against the Fed requiring WB's shareholders taking a worse deal. Lastly, with the WFC deal there is no Fed involvement, which is something the Fed should want.

The whole deal with Citi was forced and went down in a matter of mere hours. The Fed was just wanting take care of things at the speed of light, not caring about the true outcome and what is best for everyone.
Bob Steel, conceded to those 3 board members who all the sudden are being "invited" to join Wells board.
This yet another perfect example of Wachovia's (I'm referring to First Union managment here not the old Wachovia) good ol boy netwrok of corruption that have failed this company miserably over the years with failed acquisitions (the Money Store, Corestates, Wachovia and Golden West).
Even worse their lack of patience (defeated by their own greed again) is making this deal even mosre risky and dangerous to both shareholders (uncertainty and volatility) and esp for Charlotte. All they had to do is wait until the shareholder would have turned down the Citi deal to avoid the excluivity claims from Citi -which is w/o a question a breach in their agreement- to have then Wells to step in.

It's more dangerous to Charlotte b/c if Citi does prevail their wrath over the QC will be fully justified now and thousands of jobs will be gone in lesser time than anticipated.

It's more dangerous to Charlotte b/c if Wells wins, for sure there will be a huge compensation to be paid to Citi -esp b/c its new CEO will fight to the death the original deal since its his first major one- and the need for more expense savings will be far greater (note Wells have already quoted their estimate on $5 billion, more than the $3 billion from Citi), making bigger cuts more likely.
I do not agree the Wells deal would be that much better for Charlotte either b/c there is no need for 2 HQs. A regional base will be left here at best, they are just saying the right things now to get both employee and shareholder support but at the end the takeover city always take the worst part of the deal, or go ask San Francisco after NationsBank took over BoA (payback is a biatch unfortunately for us).

I can not believe the negligence and recklessness Wachovia's management is still allow to operate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 10:57 AM
 
Location: West, Southwest, East & Northeast
3,446 posts, read 6,580,464 times
Reputation: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef Giorgio View Post
Bob Steel, conceded to those 3 board members who all the sudden are being "invited" to join Wells board.
This yet another perfect example of Wachovia's (I'm referring to First Union managment here not the old Wachovia) good ol boy netwrok of corruption that have failed this company miserably over the years with failed acquisitions (the Money Store, Corestates, Wachovia and Golden West).
Even worse their lack of patience (defeated by their own greed again) is making this deal even mosre risky and dangerous to both shareholders (uncertainty and volatility) and esp for Charlotte. All they had to do is wait until the shareholder would have turned down the Citi deal to avoid the excluivity claims from Citi -which is w/o a question a breach in their agreement- to have then Wells to step in.

It's more dangerous to Charlotte b/c if Citi does prevail their wrath over the QC will be fully justified now and thousands of jobs will be gone in lesser time than anticipated.

It's more dangerous to Charlotte b/c if Wells wins, for sure there will be a huge compensation to be paid to Citi -esp b/c its new CEO will fight to the death the original deal since its his first major one- and the need for more expense savings will be far greater (note Wells have already quoted their estimate on $5 billion, more than the $3 billion from Citi), making bigger cuts more likely.
I do not agree the Wells deal would be that much better for Charlotte either b/c there is no need for 2 HQs. A regional base will be left here at best, they are just saying the right things now to get both employee and shareholder support but at the end the takeover city always take the worst part of the deal, or go ask San Francisco after NationsBank took over BoA (payback is a biatch unfortunately for us).

I can not believe the negligence and recklessness Wachovia's management is still allow to operate.
Talk about negligence and recklessness - how about the Fed and the FDIC!!! Now that was pretty damn bad - talk about rush-to-judgement or throwing the baby out with the bathwash... All they cared about was doing something even if it was wrong. Clean the papers off the desk - next, okay done - next, okay done - next, okay done!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
5,137 posts, read 15,321,862 times
Reputation: 1008
It was the FED/FDIC that told Wachovia that they needed to close with a company on THAT WEEKEND.

Talk about pressure...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 11:01 AM
 
Location: West, Southwest, East & Northeast
3,446 posts, read 6,580,464 times
Reputation: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by renriq02 View Post
It was the FED/FDIC that told Wachovia that they needed to close with a company on THAT WEEKEND.

Talk about pressure...
"Close"? The deal was not expected to close until year-end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
5,137 posts, read 15,321,862 times
Reputation: 1008
Companies can close on a deal quickly, but the transition is a lot longer.
There also expected to fulfill the parts of the deal.

Wachovia was supposed to sign the final merger papers this week.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kooter View Post
"Close"? The deal was not expected to close until year-end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 11:08 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,040,314 times
Reputation: 22370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kooter View Post
Talk about negligence and recklessness - how about the Fed and the FDIC!!! Now that was pretty damn bad - talk about rush-to-judgement or throwing the baby out with the bathwash... All they cared about was doing something even if it was wrong. Clean the papers off the desk - next, okay done - next, okay done - next, okay done!
EXACTLY! That is the point I have been trying to make all morning. Wachovia was told they were going the way of Lehman. Now what would you do if you were CEO? I am right there w/ you, Kooter!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2008, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Huntersville
1,852 posts, read 4,667,896 times
Reputation: 525
Nothing was finalized, it had several hurdles of which shareholder voting would have been the biggest. Wachovia was not Bankrupt or insolvable, thus the Shareholders still had rights. if there was such an exclusivity deal in place and even then I am sure it had time frames and loopholes, the shareholders could have sad no. Citi is probably looking for money, the Fed can't force the Citi deal (they could but it would be So VERY UGLY) to happen. But Citi is probably do some compensation for the money it spent. I think at worse thats fair. But maybe they shouldn't have lowballed them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top