Comments on: Wells-Wachovia: That's $270 billion less we're on the hook for

By: Paul Volcker agrees with me (kind of sort of) |

Paul Volcker agrees with me (kind of sort of) | — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:06:38 +0000

[...] nobodies, so it means nothing), but way, way back in October, I posted a rapidly-obscure comment to one of Justin Fox’s posts on the Wachovia-Wells Fargo merger. Here’s the text of my comment from October 3: Has anyone noticed that, with these bargain [...]

By: Justin Fox

Justin Fox — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:14:12 +0000

@RBBrittain & Ken Houghton: Bank One was definitely acquired by JPMC, although the acquisition was in part an extremely expensive way to hire Jamie Dimon. But that may be true about Manny Hanny acquiring Chemical and not vice versa. I wasn't paying any attention to banks yet then (in 1991).

By: Ken Houghton

Ken Houghton — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:17:37 +0000

Actually, if you're tracing in reality, Chemical was acquired (viewing management of the new firm) by Manny Hanny.

So realistically it's MannyHanny, an admitted antitrust violator (NationsBank), and the acquirer of another antitrust violator (whoever ends up with Wachovia).

By: Jan

Jan — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:07:21 +0000

I have been banking with Wachovia, since it was South Trust. If Citi gets Wachovia, I will close out my account. I hope Well Fargo gets it.

By: RBBrittain

RBBrittain — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:18:00 +0000

Chemical? I thought JPMC was really Bank One; at least that's where Jamie Dimon came in. So shouldn't it be Bank One, NationsBank (or NCNB if you go a little further back), and Norwest?

By: richardhooker

richardhooker — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:18:56 +0000

Has anyone noticed that, with these bargain basement acquisitions, we're going the wrong way in terms of overall risk? We put federal resources for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG because they were "too big to fail." Have the new big three of Chase, Wells, and BoA simply created just three more "too big to fail" financial institutions? Couldn't we argue convincingly that the growth of creative and complex financial instruments directly correlates with the centralization of the financial system and the creation of mega-institutions with massive amounts of capital? That the sheer size of these institutions also allows them to more indomitably push back against the regulations and controls that are, well, in everybody's best interest? Sure, these mega-mergers are getting taxpayers off the hook for now, but aren't we reproducing the problem in order to solve the problem?

By: Barbara Kiviat

Barbara Kiviat — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:51:41 +0000

I was at lunch the other day when the House didn't pass the bill the first time around. I guess I didn't want it enough. Not that, as a member of the media, I'm allowed to want it.

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:41:42 +0000

Goes to show you what happens when you're on a redeye from the Left Coast . . . the finance guys do something incomprehensible again.

By: williambanzai7

williambanzai7 — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:15:57 +0000

Thats ok because we need the money to increase AIG's credit line.

By: JRVJ

JRVJ — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:36:52 +0000

Justin,

I find it funny that when Citi was buying Wachovia, everyone was pointing out how banking operations would be controlled by 3 banks (JPMorganChase, BoA and Citi/Wachovia).

Now it's JPMorganChase, BoA and Wells Fargo/Wachovia.

In fact, I'd be happy that this is how things shook up, because this means that Citibank is in position to swoop in and gobble up any other distressed bank which needs saving - at which time we'll all be able to refer to banking operations in the U.S. being controlled by 4 banks.....