USC-Col 2006-Honors Finance/Econ Grad MD

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

I don't know who the chick from CNBC is...but I bet he is. He better at least be dating her outside of work with that must face time. Okay just one date, after being on with her on television.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

Informed are people who are know about the subject, and every one here is not informed or else they would have known the definitions, basically provided when I didn't sleep through finance 101 and was interested in asking questions and creating discourse with professors.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

Isla girls, the entirement point of academic theory is applicable to the real world. That's why they don't teach social laws because you can't apply to them everybody. They teach you thingeys such as financial definitions, such as financial theory, finanical morals and perspective, while obtaining your degree. Experst are doctors and masters, but you have to be knowledgeable upon leaving college to apply the theory in a business situation. And with experience and reading you should be able to do what's necessary to perform business related actions. Responsible, non corrupt, financial decisions while working with people's money is universal with every aspect of society. I was right about the excluvisity agreement, the entire deal isn't done. Wells Fargo took advantage, and citigroups will probably win something legally dependent on the situation.

How Much Will a Wells-Wachovia Deal Cost Taxpayers?

I think the Wells Fargo deal was a brilliant move. It was a stupid move by Wachovia because they an opportunity their own company. Now they're are definitely either Wachovia or citgroup. If I was Citiggroup I would just just sue for the amount of what a quarter of their deposit, and If I was Wells Fargo I would oblige. I just don't think its a bad of a deal. When Wachovia is sold off, the shareholders now will get some return on the deal. Specifically the senior shareholders. The FDIC can save face just in case another bank falters. Wachovia prove incompetency, only in the instance that they signed an agreement with Citigroup. However on the flip side, if their were no agreement, their would be no Wachovia. Because Wachovia would have been bankrupt, and nobody would have gotten a huge chunk of assets, and the FDIC would have had to insure the Wachovia depoisitors. wells Fargo is a really good company as well. Citigroup is. Its just removing its problems at one time while the crisis is occuring. If they wrote off 46 billion and only incur a 9 billion dollar loss or a 3 billion dollar costs in this quarter. As well, as the credit criss is easing up. Then that's just smart from the executives and others within the company. Wachovia just didn't do completely what needed to be done to maintain themself as a seperate entity, but did do what needed to be done to save face with shareholders. As far as job cuts, concern as well, they don't have to look for entirely new employees. They can just get rid of employees who don't do their jobs, and eliminate the human resource issues that were published in previous articles. The branches will defintely retain branch managers and tellers. From there its the executive decison. Their would just be necessary cuts from an ordinary buyouts of a company with a new regime who is intersted in operations of their own company. I think the creditor will defintely get everything in the detail. As far as Wells Fargo is concerned they market traditional mortgages, so the new branches will definitely sell very good mortgages. The option ARMs weren't a terrible idea. They were just misused for personal, selfish gains by consumers, mortgage brokers, and loan officers. They were what caused risk for the bank as well as the mortgage backed securities by the bank(s). I just can't believe that option ARM's and Pick a Pay mortgages can be the primary mortgage marketed by your bank for sale and then be surprised when you ended in the circumstances. The only difficulty is that they won't need the staff from a failed bank who was able to be takenover. The staff of Wells Fargo is good enough and can definitely have more office space.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

No if every company bearuacy had the same problems as this companies internal board or whatever...then they would drop from 53. to 9.oo per share in less than a year, and would basically miss the boat completely in regards to what is going in the company. That deal is done for if you pull up the actual transcripts. Or else they wouldn't have made it public, including hte citigroup acquisition transcripts

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

It doesn't come off as insulting, if they don't actually know the definitions. And if its insulting, well i don't care. My intent wasn't to insult but to point out facts. Thirdly, I didn't absolve the executive branch of all responsibliity. I am saying each individual person has a say so in it.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

This is the actual transcript that details the transacaton seekingalpha.com/artic... you don't have a vote if your a shareholder...the board met...the ceo's met done deal...they just don't account for it...until 2009 1st quarter on the accounting books...prankit and steele colloaborated on how well the deal is. ..

The Lowdown on Citi / Wachovia

You can't be forced into bankrupty. Bankruptcy is either a legal process or unfortunately a resuling action in which a company is unable to fullfill all its obligations and liabilities. Those preferred shares are still on the book. The preferred shares are still owned by preferred shareholders. There still there. Some of the holders may have just sold their shares already. If you do a little research, you'll understand why shareholders can't have leverage. Shareholder provide equity financing. Thus leverage provides ______. Stearns by preventing bankrupty and selling its assets were able to give a return to not only creditors which would have only been the case in the event of a bankruptcy but some of stock holders as well.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

I'm not off base or condescending...I'm just either disagreeing or agree with opinion on an investors website. I just believe that I should myself knowledgeable somewhat of industry events and economical events. I am not putting everyone down or putting myself above everyone in this site.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

Executives in any industry isla girl are persons who are either elected by the board, selected by the CEO, or placed by executive search firms. All I said was the majority, such as in the case of the CEO of both Bank of America, Robert Steel, adn Citigroup for that matter have been in the industry in different forms. Executives of large powerful corporation ordinarily aren't 20,30, or 40 something...their usually those that are elected by seniority. I actually didn't detail anything related to George Bush...although he is an executive of the executive branch of our government. Hubris is actually an english term that has to deal with poetry...I would have to consult an English Lit or lang major to effectively understand. You don't have a choice...you can make a decision about those parts of the bank, the Fed, Citigroup, and Wachovia have already made their decision and acted on it. They're already discussing how their going to move the accounts from the bank to the other. Wachovia is the same as Bear Stearns, they just weren't near bankruptcy and still have remnants left. The Bank is still there; its just not owned by the Wachovia corporation. The assets have been taken over by Citigroup. Similiarly to Indymac is no longer a bank owned or a part of Indymac, the FDIC took over the bank and its operations and made a federal bank.I don't know what your talking about with regards to Bush ranagers. In other words, its hard pressed to believe that a firm will name me, an early 20 something though cum laude graduate from USC Columbia, with a corporate finance emphasis as well as a double major in finance, and business economics, an executive of a firm especially i'm a live life to the max and free spirtied as I be. I mostly like will get a role that supports the firm adn contribute to the firm's profitablity by doing whatever is assighned to me. An executive with regards to a corporation is usually someone who is older been in the industry for a while, and have performed different functions within the industry.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

They bought the assets using the FEd as a backstop. The deal is finalized. They said they will close on the deal in December. Read finance.yahoo.com. The deal is done. If they've already removed them from teh Dow, and replaced it with a spanish bank, and the CEO comes out and says we're going to be a brokerage, insurance firm, and citigroup says the branches are going to citibank..that's it. I would have to ask a legal expert of some kind, but I don't believe their is any say so by the shareholders of Wachovia. The company hadn't gone bankrupt it just got rid of the majority of its business. If the company goes bankrupt, then what you do doesn't matter. The common shareholders don't have seniority until after the debtholders and preferred shareholders get their piece of the pie. In other words, wachovia shareholdes don't have any say so with regards to the banking operations at all. Only Wachovia retrospect to the insurance or the brokerage firm, correct me if I'm wrong. Wachovia isn't done for. Its not a bank, period. It just a traditional advisory firm pretty much. Its just AG Edwards plus Wachovia insurance.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

I agree if the 11 other banks had survived and not took money from the FDIC insurance fund. Yes, Wachovia would still standing including the bank despite the land poor leadership as you've described. However got complacent during the global credit crunch and failed. The FDIC couldn't take a hit on a bank as massive as Wachovia. It was the fourth largest bank by assets. It would have wiped out the FDIC insurance fund if the bank had failed. Goldman Sach took measures to prevent this from happening to their firm. WAchovia didn't. Look what Bank of America did in acquiring assets of merrill lynch. Look what Jp Morgan Chase did. Wachovia flatly did nothing but allowed itself to fail. I admit if this happened prior to the Indymac collapse, I do believe the Fed would have stepped in moderately, and Wachovia's value would have been stablized somewhat, but realistically it didn't.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

It just seems that WAchovia is going to be like AXA so to speak strictly a financial advisory firm...especially when you only have brokerage and an insurance left....I haven't checked but AXA isn't public. I don't know if private equity will be involved or what...but that is all he is doing. It just won't be tah dah...Wachovia, any more. He didn't spew any bullshit. He just gave a 10 second summary of what he is doing with the company. And Cramer apologized for wanting to have a professional affair with Steel, just kidding. He just put his faith in Steel and not the actual company which is tremendously biased for Steel. In other words, he bought stock, maybe an engagment ring in Steel, not in Wachovia. So Steel is great, but the company still wasn't. That's all I got from the segment.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

Wachovia was a great bank. Its no longer a bank. It is now Citibank...they sold the operations off. I didn't see Cramers gurgitation of cowshit. Please post the link for my amusement. Your company operations messed you up. The executive person can only monitor the company. Those are usually people who have worked for 20 years or so and are supposed to monitor and make adjustments. II am not saying the executive pay is justified or gung ho executives. Its still responsible for each member or the organizatoin to do their part. Obviously everyone didn't. It is the responsibility of the inner workings to handle the units. As a former NJROTC member, I can explain that the highest up in the chain of command is just the chief. Each individual person has to be in order for the squad to look for the platoon to look good for the company to look good and for the batallion to look good. The top person is responsible for making decisions and enforcing according to what he sees fit. He sold off the majority of the assets and is going to do his best to retain the brokerage and insurance aspect of it. Remember that wouldn't be there if that was not for the AG Edwards deal last summer. I can't speak for Steel. I can't attest anything that Steel did till after he did it.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

401k doesn't make sense to go all in at that time. A 401k is for your retirement,and provides easy money depending on vesting schedule from teh company's contributions. Throwing it all in doesn' tmake any sense...becuase they're retirement savings. 401k just give you an option to have a collateralized loan, basically that must be repaid later at the expense of setting yourself back in retirement savings. It also has some tax-deductibility that you can take advantage. Why would you put it all in a stock? Why wouldn't you use financial advisors or whomever responsible for handling the money in your 401k on notice that you want to ivnest some of those funds. Diversification is finance 101. No one can say anything really to that or assist because a call to customer service will explain the risks of a 401k maximazation in a failing stock...