What has the above comment got to do with this board? This board hasn't been very active for a while but I'd rather it inactive than to have some totally irrelevant comment like this made.
Come on guys, we're north of $33. I understand that could colapse in minutes but for a while now we've seen a gain in stock price and dividends are gradually being restored, seems someone would have something to say. Been a long time since we heard from Norm or Boat or Askew, miss hearing what you guys are thinking, positive or negative. And, Henry Williamson, if you ever tune on to this board, know that all of us old former BB&Ter's speak of you often and remember you fondly, you were a great leader and a void was created the day you retired that has never been filled!
Price has risen to above $33 and no comments? I suspect many folk are disgusted with this new format, just look at the comments under "summary", but they are completely ignored.
My goodness queerfoo you're psychoanalytical skills are equal to your political acumen, ergo, ergo. You don't worry about any facts you just jump directly to your preconcieved notions. Now you've got me all worked up about your motives! But you have a good day now you hear.
OK nobanker, you made some interesting claims. Unless you were/are an insider, how did you obtain this information (other than the one earnings call in 09 you alluded to)? Seems to me you have a lot of energy around this stock to have developed the amount of knowledge you seemingly possess. What would make someone who is so critical of a company expend the energy you apparently have and continue to do by following it, even writing blogs? Are you a malcontent because you got turned down for a loan or were you a former employee who got the ax? What's your motivation?
To suggest that BB&T was lucky due to the fact they lacked the knowledge or sophistication to participate in "exotic" investments is simply an uninformed and inaccurate statement. What I'd say is that it was precisely because they did understand the risks involved they chose to avoid these products. I worked for the company for 30 years and over that period observed John Allison, Henry Williamson, Ken Chalk, Scott Reed and Kelly King. Now I'll have to say toosmart that judging from your posts alone you don't impress me as one who could go toe to toe with John or Henry. BB&T has grown from a $350 million eastern NC agricultural bank to $175 billion multi-state franchise. Other than criticizing this organization, what have you accomplished?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean when stating that BB&T is run like it was in the 60's. Here's what I do know,they have a long tradition of being fiscally conservative. They are not overly concerned with trying to impress anyone by taking unnecessary risks to demonstrate their financial savvy. If avoiding bizarre and esoteric derivitive-type investments and insisting upon properly underwritten, structured and priced loans is what you're referring to as 60's banking, then I have to say they are right on. There's consultant's, brokers, etc. out there pushing all sorts of leveraged strategies and exotic products. You don't have to look too far to see which banks took the bait and have since been paying the price. I do agree that markets and products and client needs and demains change with time, no doubt about that but I also understand that sound banking fundamentals do not. The trick is figuring out how to maintain a sound balance sheet while generating an acceptable level of earnings to keep the shareholders satisfied while meeting the product and servicing needs of the customers. Nothing really fancy about that and my view is that maintaining a high degree of self-discipline and executing on basic, sound and solid management principals will carry the day and keep you out of the ditch. People criticize BB&T for not being "in vogue and with it". Look at the former First Union and what's happening with BOA as just two examples, is that the course you are suggesting for BB&T?
Thanks Norm, appreciate the comments. There is one person, a former member of the senior management team that had the respect and admiration of every employee I knew (I was an employee for 30+ years). Henry Williamson was a brilliant banker and a great leader. Henry, those of us who knew you and were priviledged to work with and for you have really missed you. It would be great if we could hear from you on this board as no one has ever commanded the respect and complete credibility that you did. Your opinions would be very welcomed!
I'll give you this, you've got the right name for yourself, Mr. Bendover! You know of course you are a joke and without any credibility whatsoever. Even those individuals that disagree with Norm have far more respect for him than they do for a troll like you that has nothing to contribute.
I share your disillusionment as I am in ther stock soley at this point for the dividend, the value is going to be stagnant until the dividend is restored to historic levels. But from a practical standpoint, managment and the BOD know that they can do whatever the want, shareholdes just can't get organized in any meaningful way to bring any real pressure on them!
Thank you Norm for providing factual data. I'm amazed that some of the posters we get on this board would think that their opinions (not supported by any facts) would pursuade anyone to their point of view. I certainly do not agree with all of management's decisions however as a former employee engaged in lending I can affirm that no loan was/is closed without verification of adequate coverage with BB&T named as mortgagee. And listen, even if the borrower later allows that coverage to expire, the bank has a blanket policy that would protect them in the event of a loss. The risk of insurance losses is well mitigated!
Lets put it this way, executive management should never receive a permanent increase equal to twice their annual earnings. If the BOD does that, then how can they further justify an incentive program. But sharing some of the wealth with the lower paid employees is certainly appropriate. Kelly's $5 million increase spread among the lower paid staff would have had a far greater positive impact and not met with the shareholder outrage that his "salary adjustment" did.
While I can appreciate your concern c1smittycc for continued mortgage loan deterioration, I think you rationale for suggesting that CNB's mortgages will "nonperform" in lockstep with BAC is flawed. Granted, CNB did not have the same loan underwritting standards as BB&T but to suggest that their asset quality will deteriorate because BAC's is detreriorating is not a valid argument in my view. And one final point, I was unaware that the FDIC excluded mortgages loans from their loss sharing program.
I thought this was an FDIC assisted acquisition with the FDIC taking the majority of any loan losses. How can BB&T be 'over-exposed' on CNB's loan portfolio? That transaction looks like all upside to me.
Inlet and Norm, because I value your intellect and superior knowledge of BB&T, I would appreciate very much your thoughts on my situation. I am retired from BB&T and through the years (while working) acquired a substantial amount of stock, in fact, my BB&T holdings would represent 70% of my total investments. I have elected not to sell that stock because I would take such a huge hit. Given the fact that the current economic funk we are in will likely continue for years and not months, coupled with Dodd-Frank and the overwhelmingly negative impact on earnings of BB&T and all banks, I just don't see BB&T stock increasing in value for a long time. And, with the dividends having been decimated the justification for holding on to the stock until a rise in value occurs is impractical. I don't need the cash in the stock to suppliment personal income. My concern is strickly from an ROI perspective. I'm nearly convinced that bailing out of BB&T, taking my lumps now (would result in a net loss north of $200k) and reinvesting the proceeds in something with greater earnings/market value appreciation potential may be the most appropriate course. The one thing that makes me reticent to liquidate the stock is my suspicion that King and the BOD will sell the bank first change they get to enrich themselves. I truly do not belive they have any regard for the employees or shareholders and are driven by what is in their best selfish interest. But, in executing on that selfish motive, selling the bank could be beneficial to all of the shareholders, it could be a means of gaining a premium on the current price without having to wait out a gain in value from improved asset quality, strengthed loan demand and increased earnings. Sorry to run on so long but I can tell you the concerns I have voiced are shared by thousands of currently active and retired BB&T'ers. I look forward to your response.