more information please...

Wachovia Dumps Citigroup, Merges with Wells Fargo

Some points to think about: 1. Could Citi be the one in dire straits and the FDIC be looking out for their best interest instead of the best interests of the consumers and the taxpayers in the whole scheme of things? 2. Wells didn't sign an agreement not to pursue Wachovia. 3. One could argue that the language in the exclusivitiy agreement centered around barring Wachovia from entering into NEGOTIATIONS with anyone else-- didn't see any negotiations taking place... appears that Wells simply came knocking on the door with a definitive agreement in hand- no negotiations necessary. 4. Now that the "bail out" plan has been signed into law, Citi doesn't appear to be much better off because of it- this gives the appearance that Citi NEEDS Wachovia more than Wachovia ever needed Citi.

So I have to wonder when Citi's true financials will leak out, their stock drops to below $1 per share, and the "post bail out" version of Wachovia swoops in to "rescue" them.

I think the past week alone is proof enough that anything can happen, don't you?

Did Crony Capitalism Lead to Wachovia's $54B Bailout?

I guess Diane's article could have had an impact today, had recent events not made the content absolutely worthless. Maybe "Withholding this kind of information" is necessary, because disclosing information that has yet to become applicable to reality, is common sense.

Wachovia-Golden West Transaction: A Disaster Without Peer

oh please... conservative lending standards at GW? Hearing about neighborhoods in CA sitting empty due to GW creating "partnerships" with builders to sell new homes with a Pick-a-pay loans enabling buyers to get more home than they could qualify for with a conventional loan. Not to mention that none of the legacy GW folks want to comment on the fact that the garbage in the portfolio is loans that originated prior to the merger, using those "GW conservative lending standards". Maybe someone should investigate just what was going on at GW prior to merger, and explore the possibility that interested parties at GW could have presented their financial information inaccurately to others to facilitate the sale of GW. All these GW folks keep saying that Wachovia ruined them-- appears to me that Wachovia was doing just fine UNTIL GW came along.
In additon, the only thing bringing the "elite knowledgeable human resources to handle the business" would have done is allowed legacy GW staff to continue to hide what had really been going on for a longer period of time.

Banking on Trust: What Builds Loyalty?

From your article-
"But if you've paid any attention to bank advertising over the past two or three years you will have noted that it has generally dealt with how many ATMs they have or how they've been able to cut 3.8 second from the average transaction, not, we think you will agree, massively leverageable product differences or extraordinary added-value."...

I have never seen any advertising regarding how a bank can cut 3.8 seconds from a transaction. I have seen advertising for valuable products though... such as a fixed rate mortgages and savings products.
Questions:
How did you determine how "trust" corellates with the key drivers for the rankings you provided in this article? Your website reflects a very different ranking order when it comes to Loyalty. Not to mention, your website states that the ATV's are treated in the following manner: "These category-loyalty drivers describe (in predictive terms) how consumers view the category, how they will compare brands in the category, and how they will buy and remain loyal."
Are the rankings posted in your article "predictive" or factual based on direct responses from questions asked specifically containing the verbiage to include "trust"?

Thank you.