Gazumped !
Wells Fargo snatch Wachovia from Citi
Wells Fargo paying $15 billion for Wachovia
To gazump: raise the price of something after agreeing on a lower price
Add:
Citi reacts: Wachovia-Wells Fargo bid breaches exclusivity pact
Citi hits out at Wachovia-Wells deal
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 am
So it looks as if the bailout arbs are starting. Wells will sell to TARP at a premium the toxic waste accquired from WB. TARP has provisions that assets accquired ina merger can be sold above the original purchase price.
Unintended consequences, indeed.
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:42 am
I would like to think it is not unintended consequences, the objective of TARP must be to stop the rot and assuming that the Wells/Wachovia is driven by TARP ( I doubt it but who knows…), then TARP is already working…
I am not a big fan of bailouts but at this time, lack of action just increases the ultimate cost, even if the entire $700 bn is lost this is quite cheap in terms of GDP, if it does the job of stopping the rot. Some bailouts cost as much as 25% of GDP ( spain, scandinavia..), translate in USD we are in the 2/3 trillions range.
I have seen one of the latter from close in argentina a few years back and I guarantee you that you don’t want that to happen in a country where everybody has a gun.
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 am
As a cynic, I am curious as to why Steele just didin’t wait a few weeks before he could start unloading onto TARP himself. Were things that bad at WB that he needed this merger when the bailout billions were just a few weeks away?
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 am
They must have been pretty bad, but I think Steel had no choice, the FDIC forced the sale or at least the hunt for a savior. Run on deposits ?
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 am
Looks like Citi is going to sue WB and Wells over this!
NEW YORK, Oct 03, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Citi today issued the following statement:
Wachovia’s agreement to a transaction with Wells Fargo is in clear breach of an Exclusivity Agreement between Citi and Wachovia. In addition, Wells Fargo’s conduct constitutes tortious interference with the Exclusivity Agreement.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Thx, Barry, just saw that…added a link.