A dedicated reader forwards us the hint, buried down in the middle of a Reuter's article, citing a Wall Street Journal Article to the effect that Citi has already offered to beat the Wells Fargo offer for Wachovia. To wit:
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, said Citigroup offered last week to significantly boost the price it was paying to buy most of Wachovia, and the proposal remains on the table.
As usual, our sharp readers never sleep. (Citi, well, the verdict is still out there).
Wachovia pursues Wells Fargo deal, Citi intervenes [Reuters]
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 6:03PM
I'll believe it when I see it. Sounds like retroactive subterfuge.
Where is the deal sheet for such an offer? And is it for the whole of WB as WFC has offered? Risk to tax payers/FDIC for losses?
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 6:06PM
burning
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 6:06PM
Whether true or not, at this point it is irrelevant. There was no signed sale agreement.
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 6:09PM
@3...agreed. Unless Citi comes in with a better more viable offer that doesn't have gov't money in play Citi is SOL.
WLRK would not advise their client WFC to go through with a deal if it was not legally viable to do so.
But this does make for good fodder for Bess for the week. I expect some hilarious shit from that girl - Viki Panda will give some nice ammunition.
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 6:20PM
@3 and 4 - it is relevant if Wachovia defense to its breach is based on its fiduciary duties to get the best deal for its shareholders. The board owes this duty to shareholders, not taxpayers, so element of gov't money is irrelevant if Citi's deal was ultimately better for shareholders. In short, more facts are required.
"WLRK would not advise their client WFC to go through with a deal if it was not legally viable to do so." Hmmm, not sure I would argue this before Judge Ramos.
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 6:23PM
@5..i would hope WLRK would not argue that but would they really but WFC in a losing position from the get go? I think they would see the angles.
Citi will not win. Take that to the bank.*
*Not FDIC insured.
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 6:33PM
5... To the extent Citi presents a revised offer on same or similar terms as WFC's, it would be relevant as it would constitute an entirely new consideration. Previously existing hypothetical offers not agreed upon are irrelevant.
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 6:37PM
@7...good form sir/madam.
@5...you work for a TTT firm don't you.
Wait, @5...I think thats an ambulance I hear...run along now shyster.
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 7:09PM
Too long, didn't read.
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 7:19PM
I bought 100,000 shares of WB at 1.83 last Monday.
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 8:27PM
Arre Veda..(in Ghati...)
Thinking out loud...
1) Drag this along and create unertainity in the market that will get fdic/treasury attention
2) call open(pr..) the "firms" role
3) Higher bid will get you strung out..
4) there are more banks going to fail...
Posted by guest , Oct 05, 2008 8:27PM
Arre Veda..(in Ghati...)
Thinking out loud...
1) Drag this along and create unertainity in the market that will get fdic/treasury attention
2) call open(pr..) the "firms" role
3) Higher bid will get you strung out..
4) there are more banks going to fail...
Posted by guest , Oct 06, 2008 8:11AM
@I812
What are you all prepared to do about it?
Is there a counter that will apise the markets, and maintain solvency?
This thing has to run its course, and there is nothing you can do about it but pick up the peices when it is done, similiar to hurricane Katrina!