Stock, I didn't say that the stocks that I mentioned wouldn't outperform BB&T. I said that they probably don't use thrifts in their comparisons. If they performed better than BB&T, than perhaps you should look at them for investment. That's not my issue. I just wanted to explain why thrifts are not considered peer.
Jim, the eggnog was flowing at the time! The bank I looked at was GDW, but when I was typing in my response, I didn't bother to look at the post again and mis-typed. GDW is a thrift though, and not comparable.
Not to prolong this, but it proves the point that anybody who uses anything on this board or any other to make an ivestment decision is nuts.
Mr. BHSLDC, I tried puting the other "banks" you mentioned in your post into a comparison graph through Yahoo. Guess what, they all out performed BBT over the last year. All but one over the last two years. After that it goes all over the place, but I think all performed better than BBT when set at the max comparison - back to 1990 or so. Seems like BBT does not compare well with their peer group after all.
What does that mean? Who knows!
Better go a little easier on the eggnog. On post 6699 the comparison was with GDW. Not sure where you got GWB. Please see the attached as someone else says GDW is a bank from the following description. Please note the industry they are in.
Golden West Finl (GDW)
99.13 -2.42 (-2.38%)
as of 12/09/2003 at 04:02PM EST (NYSE Delay: 20 mins.) Manage Alerts
Company Description for GDW:
1901 Harrison St.
Oakland, CA 94612
http://www.gdw.com Phone: 510-446-4000
Industry: Superregional Banks
Holding company Golden West Financial is king of the world -- World Savings Bank, that is. World Savings, the second-largest US thrift behind Washington Mutual, offers traditional deposit and loan products through more than 250 bank branches scattered across about a dozen states (primarily in the West and in Florida) and originates residential mortgages and other loans from an additional 300 offices nationwide. Golden West also owns investment management subsidiaries Atlas Advisers and Atlas Securities, which sell insurance and administer and distribute the company's proprietary Atlas mutual funds.
Hope this clears the air.
For better investing,
As I have stated several times in the past this was not my comparison these were as listed by the Wall Street Journal. Even believe I gave the date and page number. Sorry, but normally I do tend to believe what the WSJ prints over some one posting on a board.
However, I do definitley agree that the returns on these two financials do not compare.
Hope someone does check out the comparables from year to year and gets back to the board.The number of comparables seem to vary from year to year too.
Jim, what you have presented is that you know little of the financial industry. GWB is a THRIFT. As per the link below, a thrift is a bank that borrows deposits and uses them to lend money for MORTGAGE loans.
BBT is a BHC(bank holding company). This definition in simple terms is the same as the above, with the exception that the bank uses the money lent from deposits to fund MULTIPLE types of loans (consumer, commercial, specialized, etc.). Of course, they also offer insurance, brokerage and other products.
In case you didn't know, BB&T operates in a totally different way than a thrift and under different regulations. Thus, the two are not comparable. Working for a bank and part of the group that chooses peers (sorry, I'm not one of the "good 'ol boys"), we do not choose thrifts, because of those differences mentioned above(not because they make us look bad). Look at STI, SOTR, ASO or others and see if they list thrifts in their peer comparisons. I doubt they do.
So keep apples with apples and organges with organges and I'll think you'll find your research goes along a lot better.
What about total return don't you like? Net income is important, but investors measure results by total return.
All my posts are backed by public facts. It's clear you choose to look at other pieces of information.
To open the board up, I'm trying really hard to let this be my last post on this particular discussion..my only purpose is to focus on facts, not change anyone's bias.
Regards & better returns in 2004!
You might want to take a look on page A13 of the WSJ for the date of October 28,2003. I think you'll find at the top of the page a chart with the headline "Are Bigger Banks Better?" subtitled "Net Income and Total Assets for U.S. Banks". BB&T is 13th on the list and listed directly below in 14th place is Golden West Financial. The WSJ seems to compare them. I had originally compared the two listed above BB&T and the two listed below as possible comparsions for returns in an earlier post in reply to the question of what would be a good comparison on returns. In fact I believe I even stated would this be a good comparison.
Conspiracy theory (novels) or whatever. If you will look at the peer groups for the years of 2000,2001 and 2002 and compare you'll find that it does look fishy. The increase in the stocks dropped from the peer groups are better than the increases (decreases) for the stocks added to the peer group. This is fact regardless of what one believes. Be sure to check each year. After a couple of years most people begin to suspect a pattern.
Hate to tell you, but some people actually do reseach.
On your comment about the SEC my personal experience had been that unless someone reports a problem they usually let it slide unless it is grossly out of line. If you doubt this where were they on the mutual fund, the New York Exchange, Enron and all the other messes that have happened. It almost appears that they react after bad things have happened.
Lastly my original question was and still it what is BB&T doing differently today then they have been doing the last 5 years? If they are doing the same things then the results should be the same as the last five years. Wasn't looking for any insider information just trying to figure if the only variable in them was what the economy was going to do.
Yours for better investing and returns,