isla.girl

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. "

Know your audience. The folks who don't know these basic concepts aren't generally posting on a specialized blog - you can see from the level of discourse that you're dealing with an informed audience.

And you're incorrect that each individual person had a say so in this situation. The acquisition was a management decision. When those loans started going bad and tanking he value of the CMOs, the employees did their best to cover mounting losses, but ultimately couldn't do enough to keep up with internal losses and unprecedented external influences. The real world does not work like academic theory - would that it were that simple.

"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". Clearly the deal was far from done, it didn't even have legal documentation behind it yet.

I don't want to inflame, so I'll go elsewhere. Enjoy.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

There will be a Wachovia shareholder vote, according to Wachovia:

When will this transaction be consummated?
We expect this transaction to close before year-end, subject to approval from Wachovia shareholders and the appropriate regulatory agencies. It has been approved by directors of both companies.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

USC - I think perhaps I didn't pull enough of your quote. My point was that you appear to absolve executives of responsibility for the core, fundamental issues that brought this company down. In multiple posts you imply that this is a problem of an incompetent workforce: "but if everyone is showing up to work on the time, prepared, knowledgeable, ready to work, perform their job functions, clock out, and handle their personal affairs...like say 70% American, they wouldn't have the problems." The facts simply don't bear this out. I'm sure this company has the same internal problems as every other bureaucracy, but the executives made a really bad decision and their decision was unchecked - that's the problem. I refer to Bush because unchecked arrogance has also caused significant national problems - that arrogance is the order of the day. Your opinions and arguments and research are great contributions, but you don't have to define and explain the basic concepts - it can come off as insulting the audience.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: More on Wachovia / Citi

USC - I'm not sure if your overly simplisitic explanations are naive or condescending, but either way you're off base.

You say of executives: Those are usually people who have worked for 20 years or so and are supposed to monitor and make adjustments.

In reality those were the people who moved in the upper echelons of a powerful industry, lead by a man who was one of Bush's rangers. But the right checks and balances were not in place - on the board or in executive management - to counter his hubris (sound familiar?) and as a result he made the acquisition that may have eventually sunk a great bank. May have - now that it's been hijacked, we'll never know if they would have made it or not.

I'm voting my shares down. Won't make a difference, but I'll feel a little better.