digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall today!
Check out the Digg Townhall live from the Digg stage at the DNC at 1:30PST/4:30EST

Wachovia Bank Loses $8.9 Billion, Cuts 6,350 Workers

businessweek.com — Wachovia Corp. reported a surprisingly large second-quarter loss Tuesday, deflating Wall Street's hopes that the nation's big banks are weathering the credit crisis well. The nation's fourth-largest bank by assets said it lost $8.86 billion, is slashing its dividend and eliminating 10,750 positions after losses tied to mortgages soared.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mikerad86, on 07/22/2008, -4/+15Just like Wachovia to walk ova' ya...
  • nontoxyc, on 07/23/2008, -3/+14wachovia=epic fail
    • bjornski, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I predicted a few weeks ago that they'd be the next ones to watch.
  • edstate, on 07/23/2008, -2/+37Dear bank CEOs,

    Do not loan anyone any amount of money they can't afford. And while you're at it, don't buy loans OTHER banks have given to people who can't afford it.

    You're welcome,

    e
    • Hangly, on 07/23/2008, -10/+5Banks always lend money they don't have. That's how modern fractional reserve banking works. Banks can lend many times the amount of money they have on hand, depending on the reserve requirement.
      • Kornstalx, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6He didn't say anything about the fractional reserve system.

        He said that banks should stop giving out loans and mortgages willy-nilly to people, and use more discretion. He also said banks shouldn't use other peoples' debts as a tradable commodity.

        Money As Debt:
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-905047436 ...
      • Hangly, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2I brought it up. The fractional reserve system essentially amounts to banks lending money they don't have.
      • mike17032, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Rontard is fail.

        Learn to read, your idiot comment has nothing to do with what he said.
      • Iztikeit, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Fractal banking has everything to do with this......

        You must be getting dugg down by morons.
    • Cyberpoop, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5A sound policy, for sure, edstate. However, the problem is not that career economists don't understand that they shouldn't buy things of negative value, rather that the debt associated with defaulted loans has been repackaged and deceptively re-rated so many times that everyone (i.e. many big banks) have had a big slice of the mortgage-poop pie for some time and they didn't even know they were buying into the problem.

      http://thatsprettylame.blogspot.com/2008/02/wow-i- ...
      • jbmcb, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2To me, it sounds like the banks weren't doing their homework. If it's securities fraud that's one thing, if it's just a very complicated investment instrument I think the onus is on the bank to know what it's getting in to.
    • rz8472, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3Don't count on it, at least from Wachovia. Their trying to bend the rules in accounting before resulted in the MCI-Worldcom scandal. Of course, back then they were not called Wachovia and changed their name TO Wachovia, possibly to escape some of the bad press.
    • oldgal, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6Tell me again why the execs pull down millions in salaries and options...
      • apothekari, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2@oldgal.
        Amen...If I pulled this kind of performance at my job I'd be ***** immediately.{Except MY job is being done by a schmuck in India for about the same pay now}
    • jasonalangraves, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1But, if loans were granted on purely financial models based upon whether an individual could actually realistically repay the loan back, the vast majority of eligible loan recipients would be of a single ethnicity.

      We can't allow society to make decisions based only upon social Darwinism, it would leave out the parasites, the criminals, the financially irresponsible. Who then, if not the government, would defend the rights of the people who make bad life decisions.

      It just wouldn't be right to actually hold them responsible now would it?

      That being said, I do believe banks are the cause of this financial crisis. Banks should just not give money to people who can be reasonably expected to not pay them back.

      If a loan isn't affordable at a prime interest rate, and the bank offers a sub-prime rate for the sole purpose of making it affordable while at the same time knowing the interest rate will eventually adjust upward toward that initially un-manageable prime rate, it's a good indication that the individual would eventually have difficulty in repaying.

      Banks are responsible for their own fate. If I know I can't afford to pay my loan back, yet still ask the bank for money and they give it, whose fault is that, especially considering the bank has the yes or no authority in this situation. What's more, financial institutions had the power to curb the downturn in the financial markets, maybe taking a loss by doing it, but somehow they chose not to. A gamble was made by the the banking community, and they lost.

      Let us hope this lesson will be learned, and learned well for the future. We should not ask for a loan if there is any doubt about whether we can pay it back, and banks should decline to loan people money if it is reasonable to expect they won't get it back. Of course loans will always be a risk. The higher the risk, the higher the interest rate. High risk loans were granted at low risk interest rates.
      • edstate, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2You have it right... you just don't know it.

        The reason the "banks got us into this mess" is the GOVERNMENT forced them to loan money to people who had no business borrowing money.

        All for ill-conceived "feel good" reasons, much like your "single ethnicity" argument above.

        This whole situation is a very clear indication of why we should NOT merely address the SYMPTOMS of society's problems, but instead should address the causes.

        For instance, WHY are blacks bad loan risks (statistically speaking) whereas Asians are not?

        It's a whole bag of worms, for sure, but THAT's what needs addressing. We can't just go around looking at statistics and FORCING them to SEEM better. That kindof grade-school futzing is what wrecks whole economies.

        Unfortunately, it's also what gets politicians elected.
  • tajitj, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8Yikes. I have my money in Etrade.
    • xodex, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6Weird that there is a E-Trade AD on the right of this article after I read your comment.
      • kingp, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5What are these "ads" you speak of? (AdBlock FTW!)
  • UltramegaOK, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7Remember, it was drunk. It just needs time to sober up.
  • Hangly, on 07/23/2008, -1/+12As if laying of that many people could possibly recoup anything close to $8.9 billion. Way to spread the pain around.
    • cjhowe, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4RTFA, PART of the plan is to eliminate 10,000 jobs the other part is to GTFO of the wholesale mortgage business.
    • CosmicJustice, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5That's just a stupid thing to say. When they close their mortgage business, of course they have to let those people go. That's the whole point, that division is losing money so you shut it down and those people transition to a more efficient industry.
      • oldgal, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3Unemployment, of course, being a pretty efficient industry
      • jbmcb, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3"Unemployment, of course, being a pretty efficient industry"

        So those people, for some reason, aren't allowed to find employment elsewhere? There is no money in mortgages right now, but if they are good in dealing with money they could go on to be accountants or account managers in other industries.
  • FactorVIII, on 07/23/2008, -7/+28.9 billion is surprisingly large, but then again, 8.9 billion isn't worth very much anymore.
  • Nerys, on 07/23/2008, -9/+41 Please I hope they go out of business and hard!! They are criminals. Embezzlement and Racketeering are daily practices at this bank (and many others) I overdrew my account with a single purchase overdrawing the account by $12.50 They charged a $35 overdraft fee (criminal on its own but survivable) a few days later "fees" started to rack up.

    Over the next few days they proceeded to DELETE roughly 10 days worth of transactions and then proceeded to REWRITE history in a new more convenient order. One that turns a $35 fee for a $12.50 overdraft into almost $400 in overdraft fees.

    I tried to "reason" with them but they were unwilling to see reason I spent several weeks trying to compromise. They refused. I deposited my $12.50 and told them to F off.

    Apparently Embezzlement is LEGAL for banks. (this new comment box SUCKS it keeps BOUNCING its shape and makes it very hard to type.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=embez ...

    They are taking my money by "altering" the records of the transactions they STEAL my money. Its the definition of embezzlement.

    This all started with CHECKS. Checks have NUMBERS. this created a problem what happens if check 101 comes in BEFORE check 100 comes in what happens if check 100 never comes in.

    So a law was passed permitting them to pay out the checks OUT of order. The intent was to allow them to deposit check 101 before getting check 100 it was worded a little broad and banks abused this.

    Originally SOME good intentions may have resulted from this. If they took in your $1200 mortgage payment before a few small checks they could avoid bouncing your very important mortgage payment.

    It did not take long before banks realized they could abuse this. By ordering the checks from "LARGEST" to "SMALLEST" they could maximize the number of overdraft fees they can charge you. THIS is why there is a "clearing" time for checks much "longer" than is really needed.

    The longer they can keep the checks in "limbo" or "pending" status the more time that passes for the number of checks to accumulate and increase the potential profit by a reording or the checks.

    Then something happened. CHECK CARDS. No more checks. Not only that but they worked JUST like a credit card. If you did not have enough money the charge was DECLINED! This was a problem they made a TON LOAD of money from these fees. Thats when they realized they could do the same thing by making CC charged PENDING and reorder them but they needed a way to permit you to overdraw the account to capitalize on this.

    Thats where there "convenient" micro loans come into play. They will LET you overdraw the account for the low low price of $35 per transaction. Cute. So if you have $2 in the account that $2.50 slurpee will now cost you $37.50 How nice of them.

    SO users (such as me) demanded they take this "loan" ability OFF. I did not want it. Back and force and eventually they made it COMPULSORY. you HAD to accept this loan. (is that not racketeering by definition?) A racket is typically a fraud scheme where they offer for a fee a solution but they themselves MANUFACTURED the problem for which they now want you to pay to solve.

    SUCH as a brute walking into your deli and demanding money for PROTECTION services. FROM HIM ie he will beat you up unless you pay him to NOT beat you up. Thats a RACKET.

    Then it gets worse they say why not get overdraft protection. FOR A FEE off course. A service you WOULD NOT NEED if they did not FORCE you to accept micro loans and would simply RETURN yout debit card to the way it works for nearly 10 years. DECLINE charges when there is not sufficient funds.

    They have stretched and abused the rule that lets them take checks out of order and are using it to rape and rob the very people who can not afford it.

    Let me give you an example.

    Lets say you have $45 in your account. You go out tonight you get a slurpee for $3 and they a back of chips for $2 at a gas station right before you put $10 of gas into your car. You get to the movies and buy a ticket for $10 and buy $5 in candy. You realized its a long movie and your gonna be thirsty and go back for a $5 cola. On the way home you hit the drive thru at mc donalds for $8.

    Do the math. you have spent $43 and have $2 left in your account.

    You wake up in the morning to a negative balance. oops you forgot about your $40 credit card payment. Damn. Now you have a negative balance and a $35 fee for the CC payment but at least they paid it.

    The next day you wake up and suddenly things are quite different. NOW you have a negative balance of -$283 !!! how did that happen??

    Easy. They ERASED all those things you bought a few nights ago and put the CC charge "first" so it cleared NO fee. but now your down to $5 so they then apply one of your $10 charges. Now you overdrew the account by $5 (your first fee) they they apply the other charges progressively smaller so instead of one overdraft you now have 7 $35 fees.

    Cute ehh? and although its completely illegal they get away with it because the only people that will ever encounter it are people who can never afford to do anything about it. it RUINS peoples lives. For some people creating debt larged than some peoples salary for weeks even a month.

    One might say well manage your money better. Does that mean they should be allowed to break the rules and ABUSE the condition to there advantage. Being responsible for my money is absorbing one fee for the overdraft. THEY Created the conditions to allows the fees to multiply with malicious intent.

    The only reason I give a bank my money is so THEY can manage some of these issues for me otherwise I have no need for a bank. When they came out with debit cards that WORKED PROPERLY it was BLISS.

    IF I DID THIS AT MY JOB I would be lucky to just get fired and avoid PRISON TIME. They do it openly and with continous malevalent intent and they just say its our policy.

    Since when are policies allowed to break the law. Can I create a policy that says you are to murder anyone I choose and its legaly because its a policy?

    They are literally orginized criminal institutions.
    • Hangly, on 07/23/2008, -8/+2Chris Crocker?
    • sotloo, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7Freekin a man! That was a good read
    • ScreenSaver24, on 07/23/2008, -8/+7Don't get me wrong your post was informational, but i don't think you understand the difference between a post and a comment.
    • picto, on 07/23/2008, -11/+4I'm digging you down specifically because you monopolized roughly 50% of the page height for your "comment"
    • hardwareguy, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6That was a good read.
      I know banks do the check holding scheme, but none does it worse than Wachovia.
      Literally when i right a big check, i have to login to my account to make sure my spending will never leave room for an overdraft situation.
      My brother called their support line 4 times in one month to dispute charges, guess what they did at the end of the month? They charged him $25.00 as a service fee for calling their service line.
      When Bankcard went to Bank of america, i was told that i could transfer my credit card to Wachovia, same interest rate, same balance. I confirmed at least twice that my interest rate won't change before doing so. I figured it would be convenient to have my credit card with my bank.
      Got the first bill, my interest rate went from 12.5% to 28.5%. I paid of my card and closed the account.
    • demonicume, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7my friend works at the local processing station. he told me tthat they do this on purpose. when I was in Afghanistan, Wachovia decided to hold my direct deposit for 10 days while they bounced e-payments. by the time they were done, I didn't have 3k in the bank, I owed them 100 dollars. seriously. i fought them for 2 weeks and got it all back. but they tried to scam me.

      they said "we reserve the right to process payments and deposits in any order we chose." they really told me that.
    • CanIGetAWitness, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6Damn dude, I don't know about all those problems or the rip-offs you experience, but in the beginning all I could see was:

      Don't write a check if the money isn't in the account. It seems like you are trying to time the check, don't. Have the money before the check is written.
    • koft, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4I couldn't read all this ***** but I get the jest of it after 4 paragraphs. Yup, the banks are filthy thiefs, and people who live paycheck to paycheck always pay more than those who make above average. But here is where you ***** up. You're buying ***** on a check card that lets you underflow. How stupid can you get? If you can't maintain a $1,000 dollars of bufferspace at least on the account you should *never* use a check card for anything. Really you should never use a check card at all. I buy all my day to day ***** with cash mostly. I allocate an amount of cash in pocket every month. I go to the atm and pull out that amount. This is what I buy lunch with, gasoline, candy bars, what ever bs I need to buy during the month. I pay the bills with electronic checks, and i buy more expensive stuff like groceries and what have you on the credit card. Then I pay the card off in full at the end of the month.
      • founderofpork, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3You're right, in an ideal world everyone would have $1000 buffer money between those overdraft fees and what they're spending. However, many people live from paycheck to paycheck and draw their accounts down to almost nothing every month. And with banks able to reorder transactions as they see fit, they're specifically targeting people who are barely scraping by as it is.

        This kind of ***** should be illegal, but it never will be.
      • evaburrito, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4founderofpork,

        So poor people can't afford to keep an account register, either?
    • jcpudd, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9There is actually a very simple fix for his problem.

      Don't spend more then you have to spend.
      It is your account, keep track of it.
      If you do not want to keep track of it, get overdraft protection.

      You're welcome for this free advice.
      • theutopian, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2But poor spending control does not authorize a bank to defraud you and break the law.
    • mike17032, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Get a credit card, problem solved.
      • lilkelkel, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2credit card = interest rate
        debit card = no interest rate
        just manage your account, and take things like automatic payments, and the TOTAL amount you have in your account vs. to the TOTAL amount you're spending. If you don't have it, or are cutting it close, don't spend it. whether its debit or credit - you can't spend what you don't have...unless you're willing to pay the consequences.
    • SpacePoet, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2They've [wachovia] got me a few times with this scheme. Best one is when i posted dated an electric check for my payday but the bank cashed it the day before and said they had the right to do that. So WTF's the date for now, i have no idea. Now i am extremely careful with them and know my balance daily. I have a feeling this is not that uncommon in most banks. They do offer to give you over-drafting but you have to keep several hundred dollars in a separate account at all times.

      Funny thing, when it first happened they said, "Oh, we let you draw from overdrafted accounts in case you get stranded and need gas or something." After thinking about it, when you get gas with a card, it pre-approves about $75, no way is an overdrafted account going to do that, so you'd be stranded anyway...
      • ElDiablo6870, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I am in the banking industry. Processors do not have the time or motive to reorder transactions, unless there was really a system problem.

        Quit crying.
      • SpacePoet, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2a: I think you're replying to the wrong person and b: we're not blaming the processors, we are blaming Wachovias business practices in general.
    • evaburrito, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3wachovia does not "erase history" as far as I know. It is clearly states in your customer agreement that they process transactions from greatest to least at midnight of the day the charges actually post, regardless of the order they are incurred. If its been a whole weekend, usually its not until Monday at midnight that charges actually post, in descending order. Yes, its a way to sucker you into paying more fees, but its a bank for christ's sake! that's how they make money. You have to pay attention to your account, keep a check register, not ever go over your balance, and beat them at their own game. Duh!
    • Indpthinker, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Hey dude, been there. Chase did the same thing to my husband and I over a $3.00 overdraft and ended up with hundreds of dollars in fees. We told them to go ***** themselves, and went and opened an account at a locally owned bank. We wrote a letter to Chase bank, and they ened up refunding all of the fees, but the damage was already done. So long *****!
    • karel747, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Wachovia did this to me. And so did Regions. I caught onto their little trick because I overdrafted $50 on a $125 payment during a week-end. It was a traffic ticket, so I really didn't have a choice; it was either get a suspended license and go through that *****, or pay the fee. I decided that I'd pay the extra $33. Big deal. But I'd made a number of small transactions all week-end, buying food and various little things...

      Monday afternoon, I go to pay the -$83 I figured I owed them... It's what I rightfully owed them... but the joke was on me! Haha! They charged the $125 first, thus obliterating my funds; then they charged all the little transactions made between Thursday and Monday in decreasing order, just like Nerys said. Long story short, it was over -$400. I tried reasoning with them, telling them it was an unfair business practice, spoke to managers, representatives, etc, etc.. Nothing. Finally, I told them to ***** off. No way in hell I'm paying more than 5x what I owe, regardless of what their little *****-contract says.

      Both banks did it, and both times I refused to pay (Wachovia did me in for -$600 in the same way, and they expect me to pay! lol. I barely have enough to feed myself, let alone give them 3/4 of my month's earnings). I can never have a bank account again, but ***** it. I don't want one, if they're all this greedy and disgusting.

      The only people I feel sorry for the are workers who are losing their jobs. The ***** in charge of these banks can die in a fire for all I care.
  • peestandingup, on 07/23/2008, -4/+7Online banking via ING Direct FTW!
  • Stormwern, on 07/23/2008, -1/+15And the Wachovia Bank CEO makes $38.1million/year, they should fire him and keep 2000 employees instead.
    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D91R1 ...
    • jcpudd, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Actually they brought in a new CEO... Rob Steel (Badass name!)
      Hopefully they are paying him less since he is new.




      I crack myself up!
      • oldgal, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2And what was the golden parachute worth for the one who left?
      • Stormwern, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3"Wachovia Corp. said Thursday it plans to pay new chief executive Robert Steel [...] $38.1 million."
    • founderofpork, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3I was actually about to ask:

      What's the CEO's bonus for the incredible performance of his company?

      I'm sure he'll be getting one. *****.
  • TheWriteGuy, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6Lately I've wondered if putting my money into Linden Dollars would be more sound.
  • fr0mundacheese, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4S & L Scandal 2.0
  • chrisvc86, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6Hope you don't have more then a $100,000 in a Wachovia account...

    Even though from what I heard if the big banks all start failing at once, the FDIC might not even be able to cover the full $100 grand.
    • theutopian, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2They will. It will just be added to the national debt.
    • jbmcb, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2If you have more than $20K in a regular bank account you are wasting money. Get a CD or a bond. They aren't insured, but over the course of a few years they always come out ahead of savings account interest rates.
  • yellowswan, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6***** Banks.
  • koft, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Nice rally yesterday http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AWB . Why on earth did they get such a stock hike when they posted an 9bln loss?
    • akash8m, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Exactly and when Google showed a slightly less earnings their shares plunged by nearly $80.
    • unclebuck, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2The spike in share price happened because a lot of investors think the worst is over, or at least all the bad news is out on the table now.
    • jbmcb, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Don't try to figure out stock prices on a day to day basis, you'll go mad. The only people it matters for are day traders, anyways.
    • SellerFinancing, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1The idiots think everything is wonderful because the loss was less than expected. Same thing has happened at BankAmerica and CitiBank. The so called Wall Street gurus say the stock market is "forward looking" so they see things improving 6 months or whatever timeframe down the line, thus the price increase. I have no idea how they see that when we are barely half way thru this mortgage crisis and about a zillion more foreclosures to come that will cause even more losses.
  • ZER0JACK, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Don't trust trusts.
  • CanIGetAWitness, on 07/23/2008, -0/+10FTA:
    Wachovia has been suffering from its 2006 acquisition of Golden West Financial Corp. The bank paid roughly $25 billion for the California mortgage lender known for exotic loans.

    / dumb asses
    • DrDigg, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3I love that - "exotic loans" - why did that sound like a good idea?
  • nendoke, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1I just dugg you up when I read "Please I hope they go out of business and hard!! They are criminals"/ this is digg dude, no body reads 100s lines story. btw thanks for sharing!
  • HereticChick, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3Great...perhaps it's time to move all of my accounts now.
    • jbmcb, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2That's sound financial advice. When the economy is iffy, panic.
  • galore, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2On the positive side: Maybe they stop building new Wachovia branches on every freaking intersection. Like they did here in DFW the past few years.
  • humanerror, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3die mother *****
    die mother *****
    die
  • cbartlett, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3This explains why my local Wachovia has been pitching 4.0% 7-month CDs of late. They are usually around 1%. That's even higher than ING rates. Sounds like they're desperate for cash so they're jacking up the rates hoping people will dump money their way.
  • mrzack, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4what kind of name is Wachovia???? with a name like Wackovia, you deserve to go bankrupt. no pun.
  • uberAileen, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3and still it bounced up 40% since yesterday's closing. say what you will, but in a week or so these beaten up financial stocks could be up 200% from the bottom.
  • McShr3dd3r, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Let Mortal Kombat Begin!
  • jrattner1, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2And their stock price still sores!!!!!!!!!
  • z28com, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2When this ***** happens to Bank of America, then we are ALL FUCT! This is why I never do business with those small banks like Wachovia or WaMu.

    If I had a mortgage with Wachovia right now, I'd be foreclosing on their ass.
    • one2gamble, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Wamu is a small bank?

      define small......
    • muckemuck, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Wachovia is a small bank? .... ehhh....
    • z28com, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Small...

      A hell of a lot smaller than Bank of America. I see Bank of America on every corner in Miami. I rarely ever see a WaMu or Wachovia. That's why I would never bank with those people. I want easy ATM access and the less of a bank there is, the more of a pain in the ass it is to get your money out. It's also nice to travel and have Bank of America's all over the place vs. those other no-named banks. I don't know why people would waste their time opening a checking account at other banks. A loan is one thing, but a checking account and ATM access should all be done at nothing other than Bank of America.
  • CrashWorldTK, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Vote McCain! He can save the economy!
  • katich, on 07/23/2008, -2/+0Costco (Nasdaq:COST) warned this morning that it will miss expectations for its Q4, and that it will expand its buyback program. The company is pointing to inflationary pressures including higher energy prices as the main culprit hurting profit. The company still is outperforming most of its peers, reporting same-store sales of 8% , while the industry average is about 2.4%.Get more at http://yoodix.notlong.com .
  • jabberwocky360, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Stupid name, stupid bank, all hail natural selection.
  • kekemortson, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3First Union took over Wachovia and changed their name to Wachovia to try and get a "fresh start" , but it was still the First Union people and style...they were doomed...I just hate that the employees who lose their jobs while the senior (money grubbing) management get away scott free....with more bonuses!
  • bradysbeau, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Let's see...6 Banks (major) have failed SO FAR this year....Our elected officials are bailing out People in trouble....I have no problem there but when you attach a bail out for oh say Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac( whos CEO was paid almost 20 Million dollars in salary what the F$%^ evers..bonus who cares)....just to help these people, I then start having problems.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.