% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

BB&T Corporation Message Board

  • pigmanpu pigmanpu Apr 27, 1999 6:49 PM Flag

    BB&T saves $25million!!!

    Looks like we saved a few dollars in the Matewan transaction.
    Wonder what the due diligence uncovered?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • We still await your response to our message #1199, about the change in the Matewan purchase numbers. Thank you.

      • 1 Reply to Hans_und_Franzky
      • after re-reading your post, I must confess that I
        can't cipher. I was wrong with the $25 million figure.
        I ran out of fingers and toes to cipher on, I only
        have 21 you know.

        However, being the simple
        minded "inbred" poster that I am, I figured that if BBT
        was determined to make this purchase that they
        "saved" $33.9 million from their original offer. Now I
        know that's not according to GAAP, but where I was
        raised if you pay less that the original price you
        "saved" a little money.

        Now my post that you
        responded to also questioned what the due diligence
        uncovered. I don't know, I'm not an insider, but it must
        have uncovered something. Was it $33.9 million in
        problems? I doubt it. Surely, the management of BBT
        wouldn't continue this purchase if there were. Did
        Matewan's Management represent something that wasn't there?
        Don't know that either. But time will tell won't it. If
        this is a bad purchase, we will see.

        management has done an excellent job to date. Why question
        this one small deal? Will it break the BBT bank? NO.
        Your post sounded like someone peed in your morning
        cereal and you were having a bad hair day. So chill out
        and take a valium.

    • deal a good one for BBT stockholders?

    • The name of the organization was MainStreet
      Financial Corporation (formerly MainStreet BankGroup,
      formerly Piedmont BankGroup). It was a holding company
      comprised of ten banks retaining their local identities.
      The largest of these banks was Piedmont Trust Bank
      located in Martinsville, VA. There was an effort made in
      late 97, early 98 to consolidate several of the
      charters of these "independent" banks into a "brand-name";
      hence the MainStreet Bank found in the Richmond metro
      area. If the BB&T merger had not taken place, DC area
      banks would have consolidated next as MainStreet Bank -
      Capital region, followed by the Southwest Virginia banks
      as MainStreet Bank - Southwest. Since the merger was
      announced in August, these efforts were obviously

      With the merger of the MainStreet holding company
      completed March 5, these "independent" banks are now owned
      by BB&T. Systems conversion and name/sign changes
      take place in July.

      Hope this has been

    • I think the actual name was Main Street Bank in the Martinsville, Collinsville, VA area.

    • You seem to well informed on financial matters.
      Business Week magazine reports that the Financial
      Accounting Standards Board voted to eliminate pooling of
      interest accounting for mergers, perhaps by the end of
      2000. This means the acquiring company must write off
      good will (the difference between the book value of
      the acquired assets and the price paid) At one time a
      30 to 40 year write off was allowed, but Business
      Week reports a 10 year write off will be required in
      the future. Will this bring bank mergers to a halt,
      since companies with high stock valuations have
      heretofore been using these values to purchase companies
      with lower values ? Will there be a window of
      opportunity for BB&T and other acquiring banks to act prior
      to the end of 2000? Could this precipitate more
      merger activity by companies trying to get in before
      they have to start taking large writeoffs? As the
      gurus on CNBC say, "I think this could be a major
      "secular" issue going forward".

    • BBT today also announced ANOTHER $10 million
      buyback. Assuming it does go through, that buyback ought
      to bring some upward motion to the price and some
      compensation to the downward pressure you correctly identify
      as a usual consequence of a new acquisition.
      Considering other factors in the current market as well, BBT
      ought to see a little upward trend, and so far today
      we've seen that.

    • you are referring to ? According to Reuters, BBT
      is lowering the price it will pay for Matewan from
      $157.9 million to $124 million....a difference of $33.9
      million. According to the convoluted "logic" that you and
      a couple other messengers to this board offer up,
      BBT has "saved" about $33.9 million now, and is,
      therefore, based on your "logic", EVEN BETTER OFF THAN
      HERETOFORE. IMHO, that is a lot of baloney.....and highlights
      some of the inbred cheerleading that some people post
      on this board. Has the thought occurred to you that
      BBT is purchasing $33.9 million less in equity and
      assets ? How will the "savings" show up on BBT's
      financial statements......using GAAP

      You are the only folks I know who own stock in a
      banking company, cheer at the great wisdom of the
      company's leader when an acquisition is announced, vocalize
      your "faith" in the leader, find out later that the
      acquiree is not really a choice target, and then cheer
      even louder. Let's face it folks, BBT management made
      an INITIAL DECISION that was a bad one. But, IMHO,
      all the cheerleading just goes to demonstrate that
      many of the people who post to this board are BBT
      employees and several people have pointed
      out noticing that some of the
      cheerleaders disappeared during the Matewan due diligence
      period, when they had insider information about
      newly-discovered problems at Matewan...... AND THE REST OF US DID

      A poster by
      the weird name of Attilla the Hunee attempted to tell
      us that Matewan was a poor market choice for
      BBT......and you yahoos shouted him off this board, because he
      had done some excellent analysis that you didn't
      argee with, and because he evidently had some knowledge
      of Matewan's market that we did not have.

      • 1 Reply to Hans_und_Franzky
      • You say that management made an "initial
        decision" and it was a bad one. That certainly remains to
        be seen. I can`t recall too many instances that have
        been "bad ones" involving this bank. I am neither an
        employee or insider but simply a person that has made good
        money by being part of this outfit. UNTIL management
        and the BOD leads us into something we cannot recover
        from (which is doubtful) they will continue to have my
        confidence and support. Time will tell if they are correct
        and my money is on them. At the very least, they have
        made attempts to correct what they believe to be a

    • Logically, the stock price should get a little
      kick from this news.
      Technically, the stock isn't
      that far from its 52 week high of 40 3/4, and stocks
      breaking their highs have a tendency to run up for a
      while. There are almost 5 million shares short for BBT
      (12 days of average trading volume). I would not be
      surprised to see BBT go up 1-2+ pts soon especially when
      the foolish shorts realize their mistake.

34.52-2.43(-6.58%)Jun 24 4:03 PMEDT