How Much Will a Wells-Wachovia Deal Cost Taxpayers?
Anybody following the fight between Citi and Wells Fargo has to read Binyamin Appelbaum's front-page piece in the Washington Post on the tax assumptions behind the Wells Fargo offer.
In touting the deal, Wells Fargo executives said they did not need money from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which had agreed to limit Citigroup's losses on a portfolio of Wachovia's most troubled loans.
"This agreement won't require even a penny from the FDIC," Wells Fargo chairman Richard Kovacevich said.
But experts in tax law said the Wells Fargo deal actually was likely to be more expensive for the government...
The amount of lost tax revenue would depend on the future profitability of Wells Fargo and the losses on Wachovia's loans, but based on Wells Fargo's financial disclosures, it could shelter $74 billion in profits from taxation.
Meanwhile, the NYT reports that Citigroup, now armed with its latest injunction, is seeking $60 billion in damages from Wells Fargo for interfering with the initial transaction -- a number which seems to have been arrived at by the famous "think of a number and treble it" technique.
Elizabeth Nowicki and Steven Davidoff also weigh in on what the exclusivity agreement may or may not force Wachovia to do. I'm inclined agree with Davidoff here:
I think the most elegant solution is for Citi to match the Wells Fargo bid over the weekend and litigate the deal-protection devices in Friday's transaction as illegal. This is a better case to pursue than a tortious interference case on a three-page letter in New York, even though the letter is very clear on the issue.
As far as the cost to the government is concerned, I do wonder whether Sheila Bair worries overmuch about Treasury's future tax revenues, or whether there's anybody in charge who can reject the Wells Fargo offer on the grounds that it will cost the government more than the Citi offer. Now that WaPo is fronting the issue so forcefully, though, I suspect that everybody will pay more attention to it.
- Q
- Dec 2 2008 10:34PM EST
- Finance Salaries: A Reply
- Dec 2 2008 8:07PM EST
- The Failed Subprime Clampdown
- Dec 2 2008 4:29PM EST
- Blame Citigroup's woes on the Citi-Travelers Merger
- Dec 2 2008 2:30PM EST
- Greenberg's Chutzpah
- Dec 2 2008 12:26PM EST
- Super-Seniors: The Last Word
- Dec 2 2008 12:04PM EST
- Pay Bankers Much Less
- Dec 2 2008 10:58AM EST
- Great Moments in Politics, California Edition
- Dec 2 2008 10:35AM EST
- Super-Seniors: Your Questions Answered
- Dec 2 2008 9:52AM EST
- What's a Super-Senior Tranche?
- Dec 1 2008 9:25PM EST
- Extra Credit, Monday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 6:29PM EST
- Zimbabwe: When Even the Central Bank Can't Keep Up
- Dec 1 2008 5:07PM EST
- Genius
- Dec 1 2008 4:14PM EST
- Adventures in Shopping, Black Friday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 3:55PM EST
- Endowments Dump Private Equity Stakes
- Dec 1 2008 3:22PM EST
Categories
Links
- Email Felix Salmon
- Alphaville

- Marginal Revolution

- The Panelist

- FP Passport

- Overcoming Bias

- Andrew Leonard

- Barry Ritholtz

- Brad Setser

- Carbon Tax Center

- Calculated Risk

- Greg Mankiw

- Free Exchange

- Dean Baker

- Alexander Campbell

- Kash Mansori

- The Bayesian Heresy

- A Fistful of Euros

- John Quiggin

- Michael Mandel

- Lance Knobel

- Mark Thoma

- Dan Gross

- Curbed

- Streetsblog

- Chris Anderson

- Deal Journal

- MarketBeat

- DealBook

- DealBreaker

- Carl Bialik

- Michelle Leder

- Brad DeLong

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Naked Capitalism

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- Econospeak

- Fortune: Daily Briefing

- Financial Crookery










