Turmoil ensues as Wells, Citi fight for Wachovia

As an employess for Wachovia, and speaking for many Wachovian's....why doesn't Citibank just BACK OFF and let Wells Fargo continue. We, as employees, are literally hanging by a thread hoping that we will keep our jobs. If Citibank takes over, we are likely to see MORE layoffs, and that will NOT help the economy. We've literally been to the chopping block and back for almost 2 years with Wachovia, every day hoping that we wouldn't lose our jobs, now this? And as you can tell Citibank is laying off it's own people to raise capital to fight Wells Fargo, and why? Because Citibank is outraged by the fact that someone with a BETTER plan came into play. Let it go Citibank before people start seeing how selfish you really are and start pulling their money out of your banks. I for one, will NEVER bank with Citi. And word of mouth spreads easy. I pray to God that this will end today with Wells Fargo winning us. We need more stability and we see it with Wells. Government wants to see consumer's buying more, well Government....help us keep our jobs by stopping insane arguments such as this. Wells Fargo has the better deal without Government aid, come on people! Snap out of it and see that we can move on after this.

Peace!

Wells Fargo deal will yield them 12B in Tax relief, they went in for the deal on 2nd Oct after they know the new tax law's passing.

On the other hand, it is unlikely Wachovia's losses will top 42B, which means, FDIC doesn't have to 'pay a dime'.

in other words. With Wells, the US government will gain 12Billion less in tax, that will come from tax payers like us.

With Citi, we likely don't have to pay a dime.

Funny how the news makes it sounds otherwise.

actually, according to bloomberg, wells fargo deal will 'significantly' restructure Wachovia in a merger. And Citi plans to leave the retail branches as it is.

if you are from the investment arms of wachovia, yes, more jobs will lose if CITI takes over. Otherwise, as far as branches go, more jobs will lose if Wells Fargo take over.

Wells Fargo is trying to commit an illegal act, it be a sad day for america if they get 'anything' for their own tax benefit. (I read they are planning to pay 15B to wachovia, but they will get a 12B tax benefit, so they net pay just 3B, which is worst than citi's revised offer.)

As far as whether employees keep or lose their job is not being guaranteed by either company in the agreements. So it is pure speculation by anyone as to who would cut existing employees jobs. But looking at it logically rather than emotionally, the Citi deal would help more Wachovia people keep their jobs, as they have little retail bank exposure in the areas Wachovia does and they weren't trying to buy the investment arms, which would leave those jobs as is.

With Wells Fargo, you would see lots of overlap in retail banking with Wells Fargo and therefore be more likely to see job cuts with their deal.

Agreed. All three comments above are correct. Citi deal will probably mean more job security for the workers in wachovia.

Wells fargo deal is ONLY better for the shareholders and the executives of Wachovia, as it will trigger a 216million payment to the executives if the whole company is bought out.

I read about the tax relief as well, and yes, wells fargo 'walked out' on the deal when Wachovia needed them the most, leaving them with Citi's low bid of 2.2m. But put it this way, without Citi, wachovia would had bankrupted on Monday.

and by all things proper and legal, citi was there first to an agreement as well, I doubt citi will yield anything to wells fargo, who is just buying wachovia after learning about the tax relief.

One thing that hasn't been discussed much is the FDIC's role in creating this mess. They essentially forced Wachovia into the initial deal with Citi by telling them that regulators would seize their assets if they didn't sell. Then, while Wachovia and Citi tried to negotiate the details of a binding agreement, the FDIC told Wachovia that Wells was going to make an offer, and told Wachovia to give it serious consideration. Wachovia might have been able to wait for the exclusivity period to lapse (which was the only potentially binding agreement at that point), but the FDIC again said they would seize Wachovia's assets if they didn't have a binding agreement before Oct 6.

Here is the problem...there is no good deal on the table. No matter which way you turn, the person/company on the other end is only looking out for what benefits them. They can couch it as "its better for the shareholder" or "we are really interesting in what Wachovia has to offer" all day long. At the end of the day the ultimate question they are really asking is how does this benefit me? Want an example, try asking for $60 billion in damages from a company you were only willing to offer $2 billion to buy. That's just disgusting!!

One person commented that it would be a sad day in America if Wells Fargo got the deal b/c of how they did it. Well, this person is partly correct. It is a sad day in America b/c we live in a time of unmitigated greed where it doesn't matter who you run over to get to the top so long as you get there. The financial industry as a whole is to blame b/c we have allowed this to happen never once stopping to think we would be living in a day like today. If everybody just cared a little more about the person next to them than they do for themselves, a lot of our current problems would go away.

In case you are wondering, I too am a Wachovia employee but before I was an employee I was a customer...for many years. I still am a customer. I am not a customer b/c Wachovia is the best bank out there. They make mistakes just like every other bank. Heck, all banks make their money by nickeling & diming the customer. In the end, what does that get us? It gets us lawsuits, insolvency, FDIC & FRB involvement, employee layoffs, economic catastrophe, market crashes, international chaos, etc, etc...all b/c we cared more about greasing our own palms than we did about what's better for the masses. If you ask me, there are no winners in this war and no one seems to see that.

I agree with the last poster.

there's no winner in this.

the question left is really just...
even if there's no winner, can we at least count on the regulators to at least do things fairly without having these ugly integrity problems we might have if WF gets the deal?

I am waiting to see.