You're kiddin' right? Thousands of dollars in overdraft fees over several years and you haven't gotten the message to learn how to either: (1) add and subtract; or (2) manage your money? All I can say is you deserve what you get.
I generally think that all banks will try to exit the mortgage servicing business for several reason, not least among them:
(1) significant reputational risk if public perception views normal servicing activities such as foreclosures as "evil"
(2) material increase in capital required to backstop the "asset" under Basel III
(3) uncertainty with regard to future legal and regulatory constraints on operation.
(4) difficulty in effectively hedging the "asset" with resultant spikes and drops in market value that distort the income statement and provide the impression of volatility (one of the downsides of mark-to-market accounting).
(5) reduction in margin associated with the servicing; little support in relationship growth and leverage with other product sales.
The non-banking servicers will come to predominate.
You are much too harsh. With consistent annual losses, negative equity, no measurable cash flow, no real product sales, and a vision that will treat everything from cancer to improved brain activity to weight loss, what is not to like in this stock? And they even have an energy subsidiary in Ireland --- oh wait, that shows as dissolved in 12/2012. But they do grow their own green tea product in South Africa. Just ignore the fact that most of the senior executives and board of directors, few as both are, have the same last name.
Yes, read it and still have the copy. I was basically disappointed because it was essentially so "light weight". That is perhaps to be expected since I think the author was a reporter for the Charlotte Observer, a good small time neighborhood newspaper but little more.
I think that although ROE/ROA may not have returned to pre-crises levels, I doubt that they ever will. It is a "new nornal" to use an shop worn expression. The question, and one which is in essence impossible to answer, is where does Wells stand versus its competition and versus where it would be without the Wachovia purchase. In my opinion, it is much better off than it would have been, more diversified geographically and product-wise, with a foundation that will keep it at the head of the TBTF bank pack - none of whom will ever be the wheeler-dealers income and share growth engines the phoney financial balloon presented.
As other posters have commented, I am constantly impressed with your ability to stay calm, rational and compassionate with other visitors to the board. I wish I could have that much patience with my seven-year olds.
A fairly decent short article on "The Street" reviewing the purchase of Wachovia and the very positive and strategic benefit accruing to WFC from the decision to stab Citi in the back.
I have felt since the very beginning that this would ultimately be viewed as the single most impressive merger in US banking. Nothing since then has made me rethink that evaluation in the least.