QuoteBut the deal could have a big impact on employees when it is completed. New York-based Citigroup employs about 5,000 people in Jacksonville, mainly in its credit card operation on the Southside. Charlotte, N.C.-based Wachovia employs about 3,000 people in North Florida in a number of divisions. But it does not have a major credit card operation in Jacksonville.
Monday's announcement follows Bank of America Corp.'s Sept. 15 agreement to buy Merrill Lynch & Co. Bank of America employs about 4,000 people in Jacksonville and Merrill Lynch has 2,700 local workers, with both companies located at large office campuses on the Southside.
Last Thursday night, JP Morgan Chase & Co. took over the banking operations of Washington Mutual Inc. after federal regulators closed down the failing savings and loan. JPMorgan Chase has about 700 Jacksonville employees and Washington Mutual has about 2,000.
No announcements have been made about job cuts from any of those three deals, but layoffs are expected as the financial firms consolidate operations.
full article: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/093008/bus_338227138.shtml
I am curious to see if the Wachovia branches and the tower downtown are rebranded as Citi or if they retain the Wachovia name.
They'll eventually change....
QuoteCitigroup's consumer banking unit, Citibank, has only one branch in North Florida, at its credit card operations center in Jacksonville. So the company will likely keep Wachovia's banking offices in the Jacksonville area and eventually convert them to Citibank offices.
will be Citi within 15 months - that's what my banker told me when i went in yesterday.
Found this interesting, even though it's from everyone's favorite Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citi)
Quote
On September 29, 2008 it was announced that Citigroup will acquire the banking operations of Wachovia Corporation, via an all-stock transaction, with the aid of FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) loss limitations. According to the FDIC, the Wachovia Corporation "did not fail" and will continue to operate as a separate, publicly traded company as the owner of Wachovia Securities, AG Edwards and Evergreen Investments. The purchase is proposed to close by the end of the 2008.
Cited original-source data here: http://www.citigroup.com/citi/press/2008/080929a.htm (http://www.citigroup.com/citi/press/2008/080929a.htm)\
Interesting to note the phrasing about Wachovia 'not failing.' I have a 501(c)(3) with a business account at Wachovia; will we still be able to access our funds?
yes, FDIC made it clear several times that Wachovia did not fail (in contrast to Washington Mutual). yes, you will still be able to access all of your funds normally. even if one (unwisely i might add) had more than $100,000 per account at a single instititution...b/c, again, Wachovia did not fail.
(didn't do a whole lot for the stockholders though!! :) )
Quote from: stephendare on September 30, 2008, 09:34:08 AM
um guys. If FDIC mandated the sale (it did) then it failed.
It didnt 'crash'. It failed.
the oracle of JAX has spoken!
now for the correct facts, pay attention oracle!
while Wachovia brand is indeed headed for the history books, the bank did not fail, it's assets and liabilities have been assumed by citigroup, if you have an account at wachovia, for any amount of money, even over the 100k cap for insurance, you have full access to those funds.
So oracle, the sky hasn't fallen yet
Thanks for the consolation, gang - appreciate it.
Quote from: stephendare on September 30, 2008, 09:34:08 AM
um guys. If FDIC mandated the sale (it did) then it failed.
It didnt 'crash'. It failed.
Wachovia Employee here.
[1] Wachovia has not failed. We have announced INTENT to sell to CitiGroup; so that we do not eventually fail. This is a merger, not a bank failure. Our stock was still at $10.00 as of Friday.
[2] The sale is not FDIC mandated. FDIC is pulled into the deal to help Citi absorb a portion of the mortgage debt. Not to help Wachovia pay demand deposit accounts.
[3] The merger has not been approved, it is pending approval from shareholders, such as myself.
[4] A name change has not been mandated with the merger proposal. Wachovia's #1 customer service status is being weighed against Citi's name. More than likely, the retail (personal accts) will become Citi, and the wholesale (business accts) - which are a different division - will remain under the Wachovia name. Wachovia Securities & Wachovia Evergreen were not sold, and will remain seperate operations under the Wachovia name.
[5] If a banker told you a timeline on a name change, one of you is lying, plain and simple. Or corporate communication yesterday did not outline any potential timeline on a name change, and said that he merger will last through the end of 2010 - potentially longer.
[6] Only customers making a "run" on the bank could cause it to fail at this point. Our liquid capital is still within the fed requirements, but exorbitant mortgage debt would eventually eat up all of our liquidity reserves (18 - 24 months).
[7] As a shareholder, I will vote to approve the merger, and welcome it with open arms. I support mergers like this, rather than a bailout. Most employees who understand BASIC economic concepts understand that this sale is necessary, and that the merger MUST happen within 24 months.
Quote from: Doctor_K on September 30, 2008, 09:42:42 AM
Thanks for the consolation, gang - appreciate it.
no prob. your $$ is safe.
Quote from: stephendare on September 30, 2008, 09:34:08 AM
um guys. If FDIC mandated the sale (it did) then it failed.
It didnt 'crash'. It failed.
you started with an incorrect assumption. FDIC did not mandate the sale. of WaMu, yes. Of Wachovia, no. FDIC helped facilitate the transaction (as they do with every merger of banks) but they did not mandate the sale. therefore, using your very own logic, Wachovia DID NOT fail.
if you think your original assumption was correct, post a factual news story that illustrates it (not an opinion piece).
Quote from: stephendare on September 30, 2008, 09:43:35 AM
You and your stupid greedy little neoconservative friends got us into the mess, AVPGuy. Why don't you give the lying and the dissembling a little break?
FDIC is the government insurance plan btw, since you apparently don't realize that.
The bank doesnt' pay that out.
The taxpayers do.
the oracle is wrong again, you and that emperor have no clothes.
Like I've noted time and time again, your thinking is clouded by your ideologies, you should consider getting some counseling because you really appear to be spinning out of control.
Please we are worried about you, get professional help ASAP
Quote from: Driven1 on September 30, 2008, 08:49:47 AM
yes, FDIC made it clear several times that Wachovia did not fail (in contrast to Washington Mutual). yes, you will still be able to access all of your funds normally. even if one (unwisely i might add) had more than $100,000 per account at a single instititution...b/c, again, Wachovia did not fail.
(didn't do a whole lot for the stockholders though!! :) )
It isn;t by institution, it is by accounts/holders. Please check into this as this misconception can also hurt banks that get a run made on deposits.
For instance, I can have an account with 100K, and another with my husband for 100K, and another with my sister for 100K all three are covered, even if they are all with the same bank.
Quote from: Roscoe on October 01, 2008, 09:41:07 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on October 01, 2008, 11:26:34 AM
Quote from: Driven1 on September 30, 2008, 08:49:47 AM
yes, FDIC made it clear several times that Wachovia did not fail (in contrast to Washington Mutual). yes, you will still be able to access all of your funds normally. even if one (unwisely i might add) had more than $100,000 per account at a single instititution...b/c, again, Wachovia did not fail.
(didn\\\'t do a whole lot for the stockholders though!! :) )
It isn;t by institution, it is by accounts/holders. Please check into this as this misconception can also hurt banks that get a run made on deposits.
For instance, I can have an account with 100K, and another with my husband for 100K, and another with my sister for 100K all three are covered, even if they are all with the same bank.
why do you think i said... \\\"$100,000 per account\\\"?? -Driven1 (aka, Roscoe) - until i was banned.
What happened to you, Driven1?
Quote from: RiversideGator on October 01, 2008, 10:07:29 PM
Quote from: Roscoe on October 01, 2008, 09:41:07 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on October 01, 2008, 11:26:34 AM
Quote from: Driven1 on September 30, 2008, 08:49:47 AM
yes, FDIC made it clear several times that Wachovia did not fail (in contrast to Washington Mutual). yes, you will still be able to access all of your funds normally. even if one (unwisely i might add) had more than $100,000 per account at a single instititution...b/c, again, Wachovia did not fail.
(didn\\\'t do a whole lot for the stockholders though!! :) )
It isn;t by institution, it is by accounts/holders. Please check into this as this misconception can also hurt banks that get a run made on deposits.
For instance, I can have an account with 100K, and another with my husband for 100K, and another with my sister for 100K all three are covered, even if they are all with the same bank.
why do you think i said... \\\"$100,000 per account\\\"?? -Driven1 (aka, Roscoe) - until i was banned.
What happened to you, Driven1?
My bad, I went back and read it again and you were correct :-)
Where have you been, on vacation?
Quote from: gradco2004 on September 30, 2008, 09:51:19 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 30, 2008, 09:34:08 AM
um guys. If FDIC mandated the sale (it did) then it failed.
It didnt 'crash'. It failed.
Wachovia Employee here.
[1] Wachovia has not failed. We have announced INTENT to sell to CitiGroup; so that we do not eventually fail. This is a merger, not a bank failure. Our stock was still at $10.00 as of Friday.
[2] The sale is not FDIC mandated. FDIC is pulled into the deal to help Citi absorb a portion of the mortgage debt. Not to help Wachovia pay demand deposit accounts.
[3] The merger has not been approved, it is pending approval from shareholders, such as myself.
[4] A name change has not been mandated with the merger proposal. Wachovia's #1 customer service status is being weighed against Citi's name. More than likely, the retail (personal accts) will become Citi, and the wholesale (business accts) - which are a different division - will remain under the Wachovia name. Wachovia Securities & Wachovia Evergreen were not sold, and will remain seperate operations under the Wachovia name.
[5] If a banker told you a timeline on a name change, one of you is lying, plain and simple. Or corporate communication yesterday did not outline any potential timeline on a name change, and said that he merger will last through the end of 2010 - potentially longer.
[6] Only customers making a "run" on the bank could cause it to fail at this point. Our liquid capital is still within the fed requirements, but exorbitant mortgage debt would eventually eat up all of our liquidity reserves (18 - 24 months).
[7] As a shareholder, I will vote to approve the merger, and welcome it with open arms. I support mergers like this, rather than a bailout. Most employees who understand BASIC economic concepts understand that this sale is necessary, and that the merger MUST happen within 24 months.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if the FDIC had not stepped in, Wachovia would have failed on Monday. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/226799.html
Well looks like Wells Fargo will be the proud owner of Wchovia with NO federal assistance... for 15.1 BB instead of 2.1BB YEAH!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27005897
Quote from: Dapperdan on October 02, 2008, 03:28:23 PM
Quote from: gradco2004 on September 30, 2008, 09:51:19 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 30, 2008, 09:34:08 AM
um guys. If FDIC mandated the sale (it did) then it failed.
It didnt 'crash'. It failed.
Wachovia Employee here.
[1] Wachovia has not failed. We have announced INTENT to sell to CitiGroup; so that we do not eventually fail. This is a merger, not a bank failure. Our stock was still at $10.00 as of Friday.
[2] The sale is not FDIC mandated. FDIC is pulled into the deal to help Citi absorb a portion of the mortgage debt. Not to help Wachovia pay demand deposit accounts.
[3] The merger has not been approved, it is pending approval from shareholders, such as myself.
[4] A name change has not been mandated with the merger proposal. Wachovia's #1 customer service status is being weighed against Citi's name. More than likely, the retail (personal accts) will become Citi, and the wholesale (business accts) - which are a different division - will remain under the Wachovia name. Wachovia Securities & Wachovia Evergreen were not sold, and will remain seperate operations under the Wachovia name.
[5] If a banker told you a timeline on a name change, one of you is lying, plain and simple. Or corporate communication yesterday did not outline any potential timeline on a name change, and said that he merger will last through the end of 2010 - potentially longer.
[6] Only customers making a "run" on the bank could cause it to fail at this point. Our liquid capital is still within the fed requirements, but exorbitant mortgage debt would eventually eat up all of our liquidity reserves (18 - 24 months).
[7] As a shareholder, I will vote to approve the merger, and welcome it with open arms. I support mergers like this, rather than a bailout. Most employees who understand BASIC economic concepts understand that this sale is necessary, and that the merger MUST happen within 24 months.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if the FDIC had not stepped in, Wachovia would have failed on Monday. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/226799.html
I would like to apologize, as I stand corrected. My information was correct as of the time Wachovia Employees were notified. This is a case of the outside being more aware than the inside. I had no intent to intentionally mislead anyone. My information was based on a corporate communication at the time.
Quote from: uptowngirl on October 03, 2008, 09:29:50 AM
Well looks like Wells Fargo will be the proud owner of Wchovia with NO federal assistance... for 15.1 BB instead of 2.1BB YEAH!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27005897
As I stated 4 days ago, about our customers being the ones to destroy the bank... looks like they made that happen sooner than later. Why are these people so stupid? I find it hard to be tolerant of financially illiterate people sometimes.
Quote• Wachovia Corporation Vice President of Human Resources Pamela Davis has informed the City that Wachovia will lay off 59 employees from its Baymeadows Way office. The layoffs started last Tuesday and will run through the end of the year.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/citynotes.php
59 isn't as bad as I thought it would be. I sure hope those poor folks will be able to line up another job.
Any word on the Deutche Bank opening up?
I don't think this has anything to do with Wachovia merging. With Wells Fargo and Citigroup fighting over them, that's still up in the air.
I think Deutche is already open. They had an office here before the big announcement.
it's official: there is no Citigroup - Wachovia merger.
they gave up (except for the matter of a lawsuit) and Wachovia (THANKFULLY) is going to WFC (Wells Fargo).
ps - wasn't it good to actually see 2 banks fighting over another bank? proving that there is hope yet.
A Citigroup merger would have been better for the city of Jacksonville. It would have provided ties to a world wide banking institution, not just a US bank. Wachovia should be ashamed of themselves for their bait and switch tactics. >:(
WFC merger is MANY TIMES (5 to be exact) better for Wachovia shareholders. not to mention for the Wachovia investment advisors. i read a story yesterday that they were all FREAKING OUT when they heard they were going to Citi and then were very jubiliant when the WFC deal news came in. Wachovia has the 3rd largest brokerage business (after aquiring AG Edwards). Citi's brokerage division is Smith Barney and obviously doesn't have the very best reputation.
plus, Citi was already (has been for quite some time) the #1 largest banking institution in the country. they didn't need to swallow the third largest.
Guys... This deal will make Wells a MONSTER as well..
Quote from: jaxmortgageguy on October 09, 2008, 11:24:47 PM
Guys... This deal will make Wells a MONSTER as well..
better to have 2 monsters than 1 :)
btw, Bank of America is currently the 2nd largest...will really be 3 monsters (Especially with ML going to BAC).
Wells Fargo's decision to take over Wachovia could be good for Jax.
QuoteWells Fargo's Wachovia buy could benefit Jacksonville
Wells Fargo has no banking presence in Florida, could add workers in Jacksonville.
By Mark Basch, The Times-Union
Now that the fight to buy out Wachovia Corp. is over, one banking analyst says this deal could turn out to be a positive for Jacksonville.
Wells Fargo & Co. announced on Friday that it was proceeding with its plans to buy Wachovia, after Citigroup Inc. gave up its attempt to acquire Wachovia's banking operations. The Wells Fargo-Wachovia deal got quick approval over the weekend from two federal regulators and seems on target to be completed by the end of the year.
And that seems to be good news for Wachovia Corp.'s 3,000 employees in the Jacksonville area.
"From Jacksonville's point of view, Wells Fargo is a much better buyer than Citigroup," said Ben Bishop, chairman of Allen C. Ewing & Co. in Jacksonville.
full article: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/101408/bus_343588954.shtml
Quote from: stephendare on October 09, 2008, 09:17:23 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on October 09, 2008, 09:12:08 PM
WFC merger is MANY TIMES (5 to be exact) better for Wachovia shareholders. not to mention for the Wachovia investment advisors. i read a story yesterday that they were all FREAKING OUT when they heard they were going to Citi and then were very jubiliant when the WFC deal news came in. Wachovia has the 3rd largest brokerage business (after aquiring AG Edwards). Citi's brokerage division is Smith Barney and obviously doesn't have the very best reputation.
plus, Citi was already (has been for quite some time) the #1 largest banking institution in the country. they didn't need to swallow the third largest.
excellent points Driven, and I have been hearing the same thing on the local level as well.
No one wants another bank thats "Too big to fail".
This worries me also. We have just been through the "too big to fail scenario. Perhaps the next administration should consider a break up of these fine instutions similar to the great AT&T break up into baby bells...