Wells Fargo and Wachovia!

Here is what I am thinking:

i like this better than the Citi deal… That would’ve been a clusterf*ck since they were acquiring us ‘a la carte’ so to speak

True, Trapper.  And Citi does not have a good track record of integrating acquisitions.  WFC looks better, but there are many details still to come.

citi had no business buying anyone. their in as bad a shape as any other down trodden bank.

Well I’m glad I stayed put.  Retention bonus II - here we come

bank ur retention bonus and pray you have still been growing your business

Going down again!

At least Danny didn’t give a endless number of "um “um” “um” “um”

Wells has small brokerage.  Wells Fargo Investments.  I believe that is they name they would go with if the deal goes through.

Citi can have a temper tantrum all they want, but in the end, shareholders are not going to accept $1 per share when there is a $7 offer on the table.

C is no chump

How do you get around the fact that no WB shareholder will vote for the C deal unless it is sweetened? C I think is up the creek.

Gordon  - i think what Broker Fee is saying is that Citi will ultimately up their offer.

There was an interesting comment in todays NY Times, to the effect that a Wells deal might be better for Wacho shareholders AND taxpayers short term, but long term it may be worse for both. This is based on the question of what happens to C if they dont get those deposits, which they apparently need. Can you freakin imagine? You think we have a mess on our hands now? Watch what happens if Citi blows up!!!

I don’t think C can afford to up their offer.    They could be the next bank headed to $10 a share and in need of help.  

wsj is reporting citi and Wells are in talks to break up Wachovia into pieces, with Wells getting the brokerage.

and wells getting the southeast and cali branches. Don’t know how receptive wells will be to this deal.

whatta mess…either company who ends up with wachovia ends up losing

In the frenzied legal activity this weekend over the battle for who will acquire Wachovia, Wachovia sued  Citi in federal court claiming that the exclusivity agreement between it and Citi was voided by Section 126(c) of the bailout law. It seems nearly everyone thinks this provision was slipped in at the last minute--either at the behest of Wachovia or Citi or the FDIC, no one is sure. But, once again, nearly everyone is wrong.

Section 126(c) seems aimed at clearing away contractual obstacles to a strong bank acquiring a failing bank. Wachovia argues that the law undoes the exclusivity agreement with Citi. Citi argues that the law undoes Wachovia's merger agreement with Wells Fargo and leaves the exclusivity agreement in place because the CIti deal had FDIC support.

Here's the section:

"(c) UNENFORCEABILITY OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS.—Section 13(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1823(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

(11) UNENFORCEABILITYOFCERTAINAGREEMENTS.—No provision contained in any existing or future standstill, confidentiality, or other agreement that, directly or indirectly—

(A) affects, restricts, or limits the ability of any person to offer to acquire or acquire,

(B) prohibits any person from offering to acquire or acquiring, or

(C) prohibits any person from using any previously disclosed information in connection with any such offer to acquire or acquisition of, all or part of any insured depository institution, including any liabilities, assets, or interest therein, in connection with any transaction in which the Corporation [FDIC] exercises its authority under section 11 or 13, shall be enforceable against or impose any liability on such person, as such enforcement or liability shall be contrary to public policy."

There’s a lot of debate over what Section 126(c) means—here’s Steven Davidoff’s excellent discussion of the issues—but one thing that shouldn't be under debate is when it appeared in the bill. This section wasn’t a last minute addition to the final draft of the law. It was in the bill rejected by the House on September 29th. Word for word, not one jot changed. Apparently no one noticed it until it was invoked by Wachovia in this deal, but it's easy to overlook these things in hundreds of pages of legal mumbo-jumbo.

Whatever this provision means, it was written long before the Wachovia deal was in place.

if any legacy age fcs have good meetings with rival firms, please share the details!

Good meetings to report on but I don’t want to name names. I have a lot of detail and will be glad to share if you pm me.  In fact, just about every friend I’ve made in this business these last years has been ‘out’ for coffee or lunch a lot more lately.  Firms continue to be very aggressive especially for top quintile producers.  Watch for the ‘up front’ portions to drop the cash amount back 10-30% and replace it with stock.   Many will move to ‘cash in’ imho. Deals come in a bit end of year. I think we may more reality soon.   

One thing I have seen with the legacy AGE guys for sure lately is this

LOS/T-12 ratio moving against them.  Big firms not chasing the 10+ LOS FA who’s not near or over $500k ish mark at the least.  I know one advisor at AGE, 23 LOS, $385k was flat out told by SB AND MS locally… no deal, no seat,  no interest. . They think they can cherry pick the bigger brokers which is probably true.   These guys were paying and chasing this not that long ago.

Lower producers though will find some love at 2 regionals I know will go 65-80% up front and strong fixed payout for first 24

I’m in month 14 done very well and have been offered a very good contract by MS as a new train with salary for two years. If you have a good TTM as a rookie you have value … thank God.

Probably the 23 years in the biz scared them off more than the TT. 23 years in the biz you would expect more production. I am interested in who the regionals are, although I can guess Stiefel and RBC are in the mix.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081007/business_us_wachovia_wellsfargo_citigroup.html?.v=8

Of course MER reps haven’t seen anything yet. Management knows that its a terrible time to move a book right now.

I heard that BAC and MER are $100’s of Millions of dollars apart on what they want to give the brokers.   

good regionals, smaller deal, but good payouts… add Wedbush, Opco

I agree, it’s hard to move a book, but not everywhere. Loads of my clients I think would or could view a move as a positive… me making a choice to re-align with their best interest in mind.  

Well now you can move your book to Wells Fargo and not even have to prepare ACATS. Citi just backed off on the negotiations. They are letting Wells have it.

I was not expecting this outcome for Wells and WB. It would see good on the surface for us, even though the desperation of Citi leads me to believe they’ll be getting a bailout sooner than later.

I think going back to an independent would have been great, but for how long?  And then you may not have as good as choice of dance partners.

I think Citi is in trouble, as evidenced by how hard they pursued a crippled Wachovia.