Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

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.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





