"Why?!? History lessons can be learned from any thing, person, or event!!"
It's simply not the same thing. Decisions over phone monopolies have no measurable impact on the national or global economy. You mess with people's money and the government's supply of tax money and some pretty screwed up legislation or czar-based decisions can come of that.
"(2) The US supreme Courts recent vote to allow businesses, not-profits, and labor unions to give money to political campaigns will play a role down the road. (Or, campaign contributions will play a role during the next elections, if not now.)"
Many could already do it in a back door way, now they can do it more openly. I hadn't considered the Supreme Court's decision related to business, but I agree that will be a monkey wrench for any potential legislation.
"But, one additional indication was that American banks wanted to be able to compete with European banks in terms of products and services offered back in the 1990s."
And the system in Europe is currently just as bad and I think possibly worse than here. And Europe is going to put the pressure on the US to create a global solution... oh, say, like "break them up". And yes, there have been opportunities to enforce regulations over the past 20 years and it hasn't happened. You could say the same for reforming health care. I think both get done, and probably with questionable legislation.
"It was greed (by business sector), it was the lack of accountability (by business sector and some in consumer sector), and poor regulations(by government sector) that caused this crisis."
Yes, the business sector - Banks (particularly those with an IB component) and mortgage brokers. Yes, the consumer sector - Consumers. They all saw flipping houses and making loans on those as the way to a fortune. They were wrong. And I agree, too many unregulated winks and nods.
"And, of course, some of the elected/appointed people who make the decision are dumb arses who spend too much time concerned with party affiliations."
Could not agree more. And given the populism going on right now on both sides, that's why I think all stuff has a good opportunity of passing, particularly given that the dems have the power and these ideas are their priorities. They're going to make a real run at making it happen. Stay tuned...
Just looking for opinions....
Barclays is on the prowl again. Barclays (BCS) is said to be in the market for a major retail bank that will boost its U.S. presence and its level of deposits. The bank is examining the impact of new regulations, including a tax that focuses on liabilities other than deposits, and has created an internal team to assess possible targets. Barclays, which scooped up the North American operations of Lehman Brothers at the peak of the financial crisis, may also seek retail operations in Western Europe. BCS -1.5% premarket (7:00 ET).
The American banking industry is weak (and now out of the ICU ward), okay maybe.
If Barclays were to find in their research that acquisitions were favorable, then an acquisition of a major regional bank may kick start the next wave of mergers, whether by foreign or domestic banks should be the additional question.
I say more American regionals look to survive and long term growth and expansion by acquisition.
It's a player. So is WFC. I can see PNC offering
1/5th or 1/4th shares per RF share. That's 11 to 13.75 share value at PNC's current share price.
Someone will be calling by the end of the year.
I predict PNC, BB&T, or WFC.
I do not agree. Banks who were in the stress test will be acquirers of the bad banks, not acquirers of each other. That's the way it's played out so far and will continue to play out as more banks fail. Once the system has been stabilized, the bigger banks will then be broken up.
(1) I doubt that WFC would be interested. From what I understand (was told) WFC is going to take their time to integrate Wachovia into WFB so that everything goes smoothly.
WFB is supposedly converting the smaller Wachovia states first in which GA, the largest Wachovia state, is supposed to be converted in 2010 or 2011.
(2) WFC is known to be a conservative bank with like-minded management. RF's management (perhaps former Amsouth) is or has (was or had) aggressive style of management when it comes to expanding deposit base and RF business.
Therefore and in conclusion, (3) I can't see RF management wanting to give up control when WFC management style has proven successful so far.
(4)WFC BOD and shareholders would rebel (and that's putting it nicely).
(5) and FINALLY, I think there is the WARREN BUFFET factor to consider. If I'm not mistaken WFC, US Bank, and (maybe STI)were among Buffet's favorite banks and investments in the past.
You couldn't be more wrong. The federal regulators have no desire to see a merger or acquisition that creates yet another mega-bank. If anything, the political climate is pushing for banks to be SMALLER, not larger.
There will be no acquisition of RF, short of a failure. And RF is not failing.