Looks like your prediction of a BB&T sale - along with all those July 40 calls - are about to go up in smoke. Would you care to offer a prediction based on August calls and perhaps any revised findings from your "Crystal Slim Jim"?
At least BB&T is smart enough not to have bought "The Bank To The Presidents", Riggs Bank. Looks like all those years of lending money to South American countries @70% interest with non-repayment of principal or interest finally caught up with Allbritton. One thing that BB&T could learn from Allbritton is how to "launder" money for years with complete disregard for the law. I guess their reign in banking will go down in history along side of the escapades of former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, and who could forget Richard Nixon and his "respect" for the law.
Absolutely correct but I think that JA and his hurd felt some pressure at the last annual meeting. Actually, bb&t has an advantage over some of the other banks where the stock ownership is primarily by investment companies. If an investment company had heavy ownership of bbt stock and spoke out in a negative fashion about quarterly profit/loss results, bbt would respond. If a group of private stockholders said the same thing, it probably would not be acted upon in the same fashion. In fact, a smooth talking CEO could make the problem/concern seem to go away or at the very least be delayed for a couple of quarters. Guess we will see tomorrow if the 2nd quarter of '04 shows a $.03 per share decline from the 2nd quarter of '03.
Again, I sound like a broken record. The big boys take care of them selves. Upper management, board of directors, compensation committees, etc. Stock owners really have no say so in how our money is spent. The big boys spend it taking care of them selves, not we, the little stock holders. We get the little scraps that fall on the floor. It's not right, but that's the way it is.
It is the opinion of many that the market wants large banks to merge. This was reflected in the BBT stock price increase a month or so ago. While we all want a premium, maybe if we took a low $40 price, after the merger with Wells or whoever, our merged stock price would increase into the $50's.
We run the risk loosing a large merger partner if we wait around until everyone has found a partner with many branches in our market.
If this happens, then we have to compete with the super large bank offering commodity pricing on its products. We, in my opinion have not been successful recently doing this. Wachovia pricing in my market has been super low.
Are there other opinions on this issue?
I very much doubt Allison could get a 3rd shift management job at the local Dairy Queen
with all the shame that has been brought to BBT in the last couple of years if he was to get booted.
Yes.. He is highly over compensated.. IMHO :)
Wow, what a great surprise! How are you? Hope everything is fine and you're enjoying retirement in Vero Beach. It's been over a year since reading your articulate and intelligent posts on that other board. Hope more of your feedback will be forthcoming.
And as always, you're right about Buffett. Remember his comments last May encouraging shareholder activism to fight excessive executive pay, stating that there had been more "misdirected compensation in corporate America in the past five years than in the previous century?"
And is Warren calling the kettle black? No! He is obviously one of America's richest men but also one of its fiercest critics of executive compensation and the abuse of stock option grants. Last year, he received a salary of only $100K and total annual compensation of just under $300K. Outside of John Chambers of CSCO whose base salary is $1/year, I don't know too many execs who stalwartly support performance-based compensation.
Besides executive pay vs. performance for the shareholders, what about employees, many of whom are shareholders too? Suffice to note that if the average employee's pay had risen at the same rate as CEO pay during the 1990's, the national average would be ~$115K rather than ~$32K and the federal minimum wage would be ~$25/hour rather than the current $5.15/hour.
Take care and I hope to see more of your posts!
I think that you are right that Proposal 6 was defeated. You stated that it was overwhelmingly defeated do you or anyone know the actual vote. Just wondering what the actual vote was and what percentage of the total shares were actually voted either for or against. I don't remember seeing a company press release on this and there might should have been.
Just for information purposes the company's reply in the proxy to Proposal 6 was misleading and had incorrect information in it
I would have thought most honest and above board companies would have notified their shareholders of this fact. The returns shown for the time periods are not even close to the actual returns achieved.
Would the above have made a difference in the vote and by how much?
Let's be clear about Proposal 6.
Shareholders overwhelmingly voted against Proposal 6 per the Board of Directors' recommendation. In other words, shareholders agreed with the Board of Directors' conclusion to reject Proposal 6.