urbanSTL

JMedwick wrote:My posts on this topic have only been done to do 2 things.



1. Defend the notion that those who have a negative opinion of the merger are entitled to do so.

I clearly got that. Yes, people are entitled to have a negative opinion just like some of us who possess a positive opinion have the right to express it. The negative side can disagree with the positive side. It’s not a problem. Present your perspective; it certainly is not a problem.

JMedwick wrote:2. Detail the reasons why someone who has a negative opinion of this merger is not crazy to have a few reservations.

You don’t need to do that for me, perhaps for others, but not for me, JMedwick. I don’t think anyone is crazy. But to me, it’s a no-brainer. Take it or leave it. Judge each merger on its on merits. I gave concise examples of it. The Boeing and McDonnell Douglas merger was different from the American and TWA merger. People who chose to lump all mergers together are, in my opinion, short-sighted.

JMedwick wrote:Arch, you seem unable to accept either of these points. Nothing wrong with not agreeing this point 2. I have big problems with your inability to handle point 1.

See answers to 1 & 2.

JMedwick wrote:Arch lets be clear. I understand that you think this merger is a good thing. In the short term (3 or so years) I tend to agree with you.

So why are you putting a time frame on it? Don't judge this merger based on other mergers.

JMedwick wrote:For balance, I have made clear that I see positives and negatives coming from this merger and simply ask that you try and show some respect for others who have a different view point.

People have the right to their opinions. I’ve never felt or thought otherwise. However, there are some opinions I don’t agree with, and might find shortsighted or even comical, but I respect them. I let people know this often.

JMedwick wrote:Instead, you have been completely unable to do this (from a moderator this is particularly pathetic), bashing myself, Bonwich and others who post anything resembling a differing opinion, instead suggesting that we are whats wrong with St. Louis and that we move out of town (just to take a load off your mind Arch I have already moved out of St. Louis so you can stop worrying).

I think you are being a bit histrionic. Other than writing my position well and disagreeing with opinions, I totally disagree. I went through each of my posts on this thread, and I don’t see where there was a lack of respect shown. I say articulate/write your point of view well and I will do the same as member of this board just like anyone else. It’s a forum. And sometimes we have to agree to disagree. There's no need to be threatened by what I write.

JMedwick wrote:So here is the plan Arch: Realize people are entitle to a differing opinion. Having a different opinion does not make someone, foolish, asinine, an idiot, or worthy of deportation outside the metro area limits.



When you can understand that you will understand what I posted.

Again, JMedwick, I think you are being a bit dramatic. Come on dude.



If you go back and read your posts, you were the one that first used words like “foolish” and “asinine”. And you clearly are reading into something that doesn’t exist. Deportation? Come on, guy. Breathe.



Again, you are entitled to your opinion here just present it well.

stlmike wrote:

For the record, you and others have the right to be depressed and defeated.

I don't think this is what it is about. I think this is why I am gagging on your positivity, that you view my nervousness about it this way. It is not "half empty" vs "half full," the real world is too nuanced for such a naive and simplistic view. You seem to be making a choice between good faith and bad faith.

I don't recall addressing you directly, but it's okay. Nonetheless, I have found myself gagging and needing a V8 after reading some of the posts here. I understand the "nervousness", but the negativity can be draining to say the least. There's a difference. With that said, what is simple to do in life is recognize that there are situations which are completely beyond our control. While assessing a corporate loss is necessary, it is equally important to not dwell on it. Dwelling on such an issue, I think, helps to nurture that "woe is us" mentality. For the record, there are five stages of grief and in my haste, I've failed to realize that some people are likely still in stage 1 or 2 - so I apologize. I also realize that this news is fresh - just announced yesterday.







I submit, however, the mayor of St. Louis is not dwelling on the loss according to his blog. For this situation, he has the right attitude of a leader in my opinion.



Assess it, then move on. Living in large cities (Houston and Dallas) that have lost big companies (Tenneco, Enron, Compaq, Pennzoil, Halliburton etc.) through relocation or merger, I have seen how they handle such losses. These cities evaluate the loss then move on. They don't stay hung up like St. Louis seems to do, which is still talking about companies it lost 10-15 years ago. If St. Louis hasn't figured out the impact of those losses by now........I ask, when will it?



In addition, the cities noted celebrate and welcome, boisterously, new companies - big, small, regional, international conglomerates. Houston made a BIG deal out of getting a unit of JP Chase Morgan from New York a few years back, but some people in St. Louis seem to be choosing to thumb their noses at a major Wachovia unit. If regional leaders celebrated every new arrival, not just the big ones, then maybe it could help offset some of the brouhaha when a company is devoured.



Houston recently lost Compaq (2002) and THOUSANDS of jobs and I hardly EVER hear people moaning or mourning about it. We all know about Enron, in which 4000 people lost jobs. St. Louis lost TWA (2003) and one might be led to believe it happened yesterday with AGE.



Anyway, when the noted cities lose companies the city and state simply create or sweeten incentives to make the city and state more attractive to big businesses, which is why Texas is a big relocation state for corporations. Detroit is losing its Comerica Bank to Dallas. It is the largest bank in Michigan, I believe. In Texas, there's no dwelling on companies that have departed - not even Halliburton, which recently moved to Dubai. "Goodbye, good riddance. We will replace you."



Of course, as they say, they do everything BIG in Texas. Ahem. I present all of this to show how mentalities can vary from region to region.

stlmike wrote:

What it's really about is looking at it and saying "What do we stand to lose and what do we stand to gain?"

I agree. I think that is being continuously done. When it is all said and done, however, St. Louis will still be gaining more than it loses. It could have lost the whole enchilada and more.

stlmike wrote:

While it's true that "no one can predict the future," this is too often used as a cop out considering research, trends, and the ability to make educated guesses based on comparative examples.

So what comparative examples are there regarding a big merger such this one (EXACTLY LIKE THIS ONE) - I submit there are none. Every merger has to be judged on its own merits. And so far, based on reports, St. Louis is getting a monstrous headquarters. This much we know.

stlmike wrote:

Obviously this is not a 100% bad thing, we stand to gain jobs. But it's not a 100% good thing either. There is something to be said for an actual headquarters and one that actually chose to stick with the city no less. It's no good to cry over spilled milk, but it's no good to minimize the importance of loss, either. If done critically and in a balanced way, I don't see any problem with an actual analysis on what we stand to lose.

Psst. Hey stlmike, A.G. Edwards agreed to the merger. This was not a hostile takeover.



In essence, AGE didn't have St. Louis on the brain that much when they agreed probably months ago to be absorbed into Wachovia. I am sure there were some advocates at AGE, like there were with May to keep some operations in St. Louis, but voting in support of a merger shows where the loyalty rests - with the shareholders - not St. Louis or Missouri. This is what I have been trying to explain. In the bigger scheme of things, these decisions are hardly ever about St. Louis.



And who said ANYWHERE in this thread that it's a 100% good thing? Where? Where have I or anyone else minimized the loss? Go back and read what I have written.



Again, St. Louis has lost another HQs. I think there's a consensus. We all acknowledge that. Jobs (including support jobs), the city, the region and lives will be impacted. I think there's a consensus. We all acknowledge that. St. Louis' image will take a slight hit, but mostly in St. Louis, in my opinion. I think there's somewhat of a consensus there. However, many of us believe that having the world's second largest brokerage based in the region is positive, AND based on numbers, it will be bigger than AGE Edwards ever was in its 120 years or ever could be.



So stlmike, in light of the loss, please tell me what can YOU do to change the outcome? I'm not being smug. What do you have within your ability to change the outcome of what has happened? Can you change any of the dynamics at all?

JCity wrote:
It comes down to this:

yes I would have preferred if AGE wasn't bought out by an out of town company, but the fact it was and will RETAIN jobs. Could you imagine if that building was completely vacated?



As others have pointed out, mergers are NOT always bad things. Nestle and Boeing seem to be doing quite well. The worst examples are TWA and May. But again, look at ANY CITY in america, Seattle lost Boeing, Atlanta lost Bell South. welcome to 2007.

By the way, I totally agree with your summary of what it comes down to. Only time will tell how it turns out. To insist it will be good or bad is just speculating.

buckethead wrote:I don't think Arch is being attacked. It may come across like that because every time someone posts something that is a different opinion than his he takes it personally at sets out to prove them wrong and himself right. Or at least that's how it come across to me. Then, like JMed said, he won't let it drop, the other poster often gets defensive, and you get post that just go on and on and on and say nothing at all.



I quit following this thread pages ago because of that just like I did the ballpark village one. So, if the posts are supposed to spark interest and debate, it's actually doing the opposite for me.

Interesting. So I guess I am not supposed to address this comment either?



Again, it's a forum, buckethead. People are welcomed to post their opinions. I certainly have no problem with that, nor do I believe any other admin/mod does. Over time, I've liked your posts and opinions.



However, if I disagree with an opinion presented here and find information or have the knowledge to debate an opinion, it's not that I am taking it "personally" nor am I necessarily trying to prove someone "wrong". Sometimes I am, most times I am not. Either way, this is forum culture. Most often though, I am only supplying information that I feel is pertinent or an opinion.



I make no apologies for that.

clellchatman wrote:On another note, I find that in many ways the actuall stability of the newly formed devision may be greater than having a company that could be so easily bought out at any moment. There are some advantages to the shear mass of the devision that will be formed. I may be wrong, but it seems that looking at the industry, their are few other options of independent retail securities companies left of similar scale to AG Edwards. This reduces the likelyhood that a potential merger could cause a devision move of this type. I may be wrong, but this is my best analysis of the market scape as I have seen it.

I agree. I think you make an excellent point. Even with a division this large, I think that while, yes, job cuts could come at anytime, it would be almost impossible for them to cut them all or even move a division the size they are proposing. But anything could happen. For the record, job cuts happened at the "independent" AGE. My cousin was laid off a few years ago from Edwards, after she had been laid off from AT&T on Olive.



I would even guess that if Wachovia found that the merger with Edwards was not working as they'd hoped, they would spin it off like American Express did its Minneapolis-based subsidiary, American Express Financial Advisors, which was formerly IDS before AmEx bought it.



AmEx spun off the subsidiary in 2005, citing a number of reasons, and now the former subsidiary is known as Ameriprise Financial - a major Twin Cities firm. With few layoffs, the new Ameriprise now ranks #297 on the 2007 Fortune 500.



With this merger (Wachovia/AGE) who knows what the future holds. Let's just hope it's good.

Deal strengthens St. Louis' financial services reputation

By Tim Logan

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

06/03/2007







In Wachovia's purchase of A.G. Edwards, St. Louis is losing a big-name local company.



But the move may solidify the area's status as a center of the fast-growing retail brokerage industry.



When Wachovia moves its brokerage headquarters here from Richmond, Va. — one condition of the $6.8 billion sale — St. Louis will be home to one of the country's biggest networks of financial advisers, and to three other sizable industry players: full service houses Edward Jones and Stifel Nicolaus, and discount brokerage Scottrade, with more than 12,000 brokers here and elsewhere among them.



"There are firms headquartered all over the place," said Edward Jones managing partner Jim Weddle. "But there isn't a concentration of firms like you find here."



Outside of New York City, industry experts say, St. Louis is as big a hub as there is in the business of helping everyday investors manage their money. As 70 million baby boomers approach retirement and start transferring nearly $1 trillion a year from retirement savings accounts into spending plans, the region could be in good position to capitalize.



The four big local brokerage companies employ more than 10,000 people in St. Louis. Edward Jones and Scottrade own naming rights to the city's football and hockey stadiums, respectively. And the companies are heavyweights on civic groups and in local philanthropy.



It's unclear how big a presence Wachovia will sustain here, but if nothing else, it's likely to bring some jobs with the brokerage headquarters.



A HISTORY HERE



And the other firms are growing. Stifel has beefed up with a series of acquisitions in recent years. Edward Jones plans to add 500 to 1,000 jobs here. Scottrade has 115 openings in St. Louis right now, said Chief Executive Rodger Riney.



"This industry has done well," he said.



But why here?



For one, St. Louis has a long history in the business. Dozens of investment houses sprouted up during the city's turn-of-the-last-century heyday, and St. Louis long had more New York Stock Exchange member firms than anywhere but New York. Even as waves of consolidation thinned the herd, some "fiercely independent" local companies stayed put right here, said Stifel Nicolaus Chief Executive Ronald Kruszewski.



"It's something in the water, I guess. It's not just happenstance," he said. "I believe a lot of people felt they could compete, and they did compete."



That gave the city a heritage — and a ready supply of people familiar with the industry who broke off from the big houses and started up new companies. That's how Scottrade began in 1980, when Riney and a partner launched a trading firm in Arizona. Five years later, Riney bought out his partner and moved the company to his hometown. He's planning to stay.



"I don't want to move to another city, even if the weather is a little better," he said.



There are other factors, too. Such as air travel.



A.G. Edwards and Edward Jones have strong training operations here and constantly bring brokers in to the home office. A headquarters in the middle of the country can make that much easier, those companies say, putting their people a reasonable flight from anywhere.



Indeed, in a conference call with investors Thursday, Wachovia said it expected to save significant money on travel by moving its brokerage headquarters here from Richmond.



"There's a direct flight from everywhere to St. Louis, and the other way around," said David Carroll, president of Wachovia's capital management division.



Except for what's soon to be Wachovia Securities, no area firms are among the industry's very biggest players. So there's something to be said for a smaller pond, said Kruszewski.



"To be a regional firm, you want to be in a city that's large enough to have all the amenities, so you can attract people. But you want it to be small enough that you can be relevant in community affairs," he said. "If you picked Stifel Nicolaus up and put us in Chicago or LA or Houston, we would not be relevant. But in St. Louis, we are."



the BOOMERS, again



And that's good news here.



The reason Wachovia is buying A.G. Edwards is because it sees big growth on the horizon. Carroll predicts "a tidal wave of money changing hands" as the baby boomers retire.



This year, Wachovia said, $577 billion in retirement money will change hands. By 2010, it should hit $950 billion, and much of that will pass through the offices of financial advisers.



"What we've got are people with 401(k)s. They're good savers, but they don't know what to do with the money," said Ken Crawford, a portfolio manager at Argent Capital Management in Clayton. "That's where financial services providers come into play."



And there are going to be more of them. Edward Jones, for instance, is planning to double its staff of brokers over the next decade, to roughly 20,000. For every 100 new brokers in the field, Weddle said, the company will need 40 or 45 support staff. Not all of those will be here in St. Louis, but some will, so it's planning expansions in Maryland Heights and Des Peres.



Read more