Wells is positioning the company to "increase shareholder value." In laymen's terms, that means
a. sell the company for a premium (most likely scenario)
b. if the sale doesn't happen, position the company to succeed independently (hedging his bets).
I suspect a sale in the next 12 months is most likely:
1. STI no longer makes mention of a desire to remain independent. This subtle wording change is significant & has followed the patterns of statements by other companies prior to being bought.
2. Coke stock has been seen as a poison pill for sale. Selling the stock eliminates that takeover obstacle, and provides cash for the bank to use to further its banking business if no buyout occurs (or buy back more STI stock). Look for more sales throughout the year to eliminate the obstacle totally.
3. STI is buying back its own stock. Clearly it feels an upward turn is coming. A merger would do that.
4. Cost reductions (staff cuts, outsourcing, etc.) will improve STI's earnings-to-expenses ratio in the short term and thereby raise the stock price & buyout premium. Major cost slashing & outsourcing may be harmful in the long run, but that won't matter if the company is purchased.
It's all about "shareholder value", not "keeping employees happily employed", not "maintaining a southern tradition with Coke ownership", not "helping Atlanta keep a corporate headquarters of a large bank", not "remaining independent". The best value for an investor is to be bought out with a premium. Wells is doing a great job to position the company to make that possible.
NOW you've changed to one of your other names to rant about how good your sti_good_bank name is. I thought you'd gone away but you're still here with us aren't you Schizoid.
I AM THE GREAT OZ!!! PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!
Kiss my a__, imbecile. sti_good_bank is one of the most knowledgeable posters on this board. His insights into Suntrust are keen and insightful. Your observations, on the other hand, are usually either trite or inappropriate. Since sti_good_bank is the only relevant voice here, people like you can basically shut the hell up unless you can offer something better.
Why don't you tell us about this deal Wachovia "couldn't refuse".
We all know your intelligence is on par with Einstein and Hawking but it's a little hard to believe the brain-trust at SunTrust couldn't come up with a deal Wachovia liked but YOU'VE got one they couldn't have turned down.
PLEASE, share it with ALL of us.
It is obvious that you "cant see the forest for the trees".
The fact that SunTrust was a difference organization under Humann AFTER he bought Crestar is proof positive that Humann was "in over his head."
HE continuted to run STI just like it was the Trust Company of Georgia.
I know Phil Humann well. I did not mean to assert that Phil is an arrogant individual.
But I believe that Phil acted arrogantly in his handling of THIS situation.
I disagree. I think STI could have made an offer that the WB board could not refuse regardless of how much Baker stood to gain with an First Union merger.
I dont know what kind of relationship Phil had with Baker prior to this incident, but I dont think Baker could ever look Phil in the eyes again or anyone connected with STI, for that matter.