The Wall Street Journal is reporting this evening that Citigroup, because of what I suspect was its own negotiating faux pas, is now throwing in the towel on talks with Wells Fargo over the purchase of at least part of Wachovia Bank: Continue reading
Under ordinary circumstances, a fight between Citigroup and Wells Fargo over Wachovia would be a good thing, benefiting Wachovia’s shareholders by pitting two prospective buyers against each other in a bidding war. Hence this Sunday statement by Wachovia:
“Wachovia believes its agreement with Wells Fargo is proper, valid and is in the best interest of shareholders, employees and the American taxpayers [however]. . . Citigroup is always free to make a superior offer to Wachovia.” (Courtesy WSJ Law Blog)
But these are no ordinary circumstances. The nation’s banking system would benefit, it seems, from an early resolution of the battle. Against this backdrop . . . Continue reading
Citigroup appears to have even less of a claim on Wachovia than I previously thought, on the basis of transaction documents posted late Sunday night by the New York Times (copy below the jump). The documents include an affidavit of Wachovia CEO Robert Steele and the Wachovia-Wells Fargo merger agreement. It appears, from these documents and others filed earlier by Citigroup, that if there’s a bad corporate citizen in this game, it’s Citigroup. Continue reading
Citigroup’s “agreement” with Wachovia appears to be a bust. If the $2.1 billion deal is documented by nothing more than the letter posted at Clusterstock (key excerpt below), Citigroup shareholders should get set for disappointment: the “non-binding” term sheet apparently involved a $42 billion contribution by the federal government. Citi’s reported $60 billion lawsuit against Wells Fargo suggests Wachovia was worth far more than Citi was letting on.
Great news just in from Wachovia: It’s “fair value” rose by an astonishing 750 percent overnight, to $15.1 billion from $2.16 billion. That’s right. Yesterday at this time, Wachovia was supposedly worth only $2.16 billion — in the eyes of government regulators who were trying to force it into an arranged marriage with Citigroup. Turns out that the regulators were wrong. The market had other ideas.
Congress take note: regulators can get it wrong on both ends — high and low. Lucky for Wachovia’s shareholders — and the financial markets — Wachovia’s board didn’t listen. Best to let the market do its work and get out of the way.
Speaking of which, what about U.S. GAAP’s “fair value” accounting regime? How much was Wachovia really worth 24 hours ago? Either U.S. GAAP was lying then or it’s lying now. What’s the point of having companies report assets at “fair value” when fair value is so context-dependent and fluctuates by 750% in a matter of hours? Fair value makes sense in some contexts, particularly in highly liquid markets. In others, it is likely to be materially misleading.