...........BBT like many banks, uses shareholder money to make "charitable" contributions - is this "right"? I don't agree with the eminent domain use for private development, but if one bank does not lend, another will? Banks may justify the charity stuff on good publicity and good will, but strictly, it is not the purpose of a corporation to decide what charity should receive stockholder's money. The money is supposed to go to stockholders who can decide what if any charity receives any of it.
I'll be the guy that beats you in the head. Should be pretty easy to spot me. Don't worry, after a few hits you'll be just as dumb as me.
I wouldn't be bragging about bringing my sister anywhere if I were you.
Don't try and backtrack. You clearly thought Allison had been in charge for 35 years. For being such a cheerleader of this mediocre company you would think that you actually knew more about them. See you soon
I can see where maybe I confused you. The 57 year old JA has been leading BBandT for 35 years, and CEO for 16 which ranks right up there with the tops. When I say leading, you have to know the history of the Company. When he arrived in 1971, he and Kelly Kenny Henry and that other guy whose name escapes me, he approached the then CEO with a plan for future orientation and approach, he thought BBandT should follow. He was given pretty much full reign then to implement it. So he was being groomed from that time on, and those top guys remain today except Henry some 35 years later. So it will be good to see you friday, that is if your loan goes through. I'll be the one with the Rock Ridge accent, and the blonde at my side. No brag, just fact.
35 years???? I think JA is only 55 years old +/- a year. JA has been at the helm since sometime in the mid 80s. Proving once again once a moron you are. See you next Friday. Its gonna be like Floyd/Gatti all over again. You being Gatti of course.
Hey lil Jimmie, was worried a bout you. What you say is true and predictable. In America one has the right to speak but not to be heard. So one can make a bet and not be guaranteed a response. I have never responded to any of your posts with ROEs and ROIs and all that other useless info. I'm just not as smart as you guys. Check back and see who argues figures with you. I just make money and deal with reality. If a strip club opens for business, makes money, opens a checking acct cd's, whatever I have no problem with that. If one steals anothers property to sell to or give another in violation of our founders regulations, I do have a problem with that I have no problem with JA leading this Company for over 35 years either, and so far he is the longest serving CEO of a major bank. The same people that made it legal to steal anothers property also made it legal to kill babies. I have a problem with both.
That's the nice thing about posting the truth and actual facts not what you think. They are predictable and you don't have to remember from one post to the next something different from your last post.
My bet was that none of you die hard BBT supporters would actually post any actual facts to dispute my original posts. That you would reply to the post with something off the wall and just ignore the questions which is exactly what both of you did.
Where is JA and company's morals and ethics if the last few posts are true. In case you are wondering it is ok to do business with strip clubs etc, but not with ED? Guess it is just selective memory and ethics one more time.
Jimmy one note just couldn't handle all the positive reaction to "doing the right thing"
Here's the link to the Raleigh News and Observer story today.
Is that a new business practice? Drive your share price down so you can buy another business cheaper. That might work if you were only doing that one deal, but it creates other problems even then.
It would make a little more sense to keep the share price higher if that is what you are using for capital in doing deals and are continuing to make deals.
What might make JA look better is if he were to make the earnings estimates regardless of whose forcast it is. He could also make decent increases in earnings which he hasn't done lately.
Earnings have been basically flat for several years and the share price is about where it was end of 1998. Do you think there might be some relationship in those two facts?