.

Friday, March 8, 2019

The Road To Growth For Financial Institutions

Expansion of entrusts and monetary acquisitions in the U. S. oecumenicly occur in two ways by ingrained gather or by jointures and acquisitions. constitutive(a) ontogenesis is the rate of trade elaborateness that an shaping git pass on by dint of summation tabuput and enhancing sales. This form of channel blowup excludes any profits or yields geted from mergers, acquisitions, and take-oers.This represents the true growth for the core of a association and is a good indicator on how comfortably the mend-ups centre has used its own internal resources to disperse profits. This character of business expansion alike at melts to identify whether managers pack used their skills to correct the business (Investopedia cc6a Wikipedia 2006a). On the disparate hand, acquisitions, mergers and take-overs do not bring closely profits generated inside a caller-out, and argon thus not considered essential fertiliser growth.Historically, enthronisation bounds (w hich argon defined as in margeediaries which assist companies in channel ownership of themselves as confide line or borrowing money in a flash from investors in the form of bonds) learn been closely yoked with the activity of merger and acquisitions since it represents a sales befall for the investment bank. For a bank to merge with anformer(a)(prenominal) monetary origin, it requests to attain a fair commercialize visualise upon for its sh ars to swap with shargons from the other entity.A popular formula in describing mergers and acquisitions is one addition one makes three the key principle behind misdirecting a company is to create shareholder value over and above that of the internality of the two principal companies commandd (Investopedia 2006a Investopedia 2006b Wikipedia 2006b Investopedia 2006c). In other address, two companies together are deemed much of import than two separate companies. Strong companies buy other companies to create a more than w ar-ridden, cost-efficient organization and to gain a greater trade share.Target or weaker companies in form a great deal agree to organism purchased by these stronger companies when they know they targetnot survive alone in a competitive market (Investopedia 2006a Investopedia 2006b Wikipedia 2006b Investopedia 2006c). Most major fiscal institutions in the US lay down gone through or so form of merger and all of these institutions inevitably monitor their constitutive(a) growth. The utilitys that each type of business expansion offers are unique, and there are certain profits and disadvantages in each type.The relevance of renting mergers and acquisitions involving fiscal institutions is that these activities can dictate the fortunes of the companies involved for long time to come, and take a leak consider fitting impact on investors involved as well as indoors the organizations themselves. Likewise, ingrained growth helps to strengthen an organization internally and p laces it on a stronger market position if done effectively and boffoly. The logical implication of this look into field of honor is to compare these two types of business expansion.The objectives of this take in are to analyze these two types of business expansion as to their strengths and weaknesses, benefits and potential threats or disadvantages to the banking area, and to admit an over diorama of the history of the banking empyrean in price of some(prenominal) native growth and mergers and acquisitions activities and endeavors. The research is helpful in that it go out provide valu up to(p) research information and hopefully some helpful insights to help fiscal institutions, large or small, to evaluate their present business expansion activities.Small companies which are limited to essential growth, and whitethorn wish to venture into mergers or acquisitions, whitethorn be able to use the data provided here. Larger institutions which practice both extreme growth and mergers and acquisitions, on the other hand, whitethorn be able to use this research to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of both activities. The rest of the paper is make as follows. arm I as presented here provides for the introduction to the admit, explanation of terms, objectives, the research topic, and the significance of the research.Section II provides for a literature review on both organic growth in the banking sector and mergers and acquisitions of pecuniary institutions. Section III discusses the data gathering process for this claim, the methodology used, and the research mannikin followed for this claim. Section IV give provide for the compendium of the results and findings as collect from the literature and colligate work reviewed. Section V presents the summary and conclusions of the study establish on the synopsis provided for in Section IV. Finally, Section VI will describe future directions this study might take.II. Literature fall over Accor ding to the results of an annual study conducted by A. T. Kearney, one of the worlds largest management consulting firms, investment management firms are outperforming retail banks in the passing competitive race to grow profitably and to gain market share. A. T. Kearney conducted an twelvemonthbook Organic harvest-tide Index (OGI) for 2006 for measuring growth in investment and retail banks. The study was based on data collected online by Harris Interactive? of more than 4500 banking clients in the 20 largest US metro markets.Seven out of the ten top- leveling financial institutions included in the OGI based on their susceptibility to grow organically were investment management firms, with Amerip enhance with the top score for the bit consecutive socio-economic class, outperforming most banks and other investment firms such(prenominal)(prenominal) as Edward Jones, A. G. Edwards, Vanguard, Charles Schwab, and Merrill Lynch. Wachovia, on the other hand, outperformed umteen of its retail bank counter reveals, in like manner for the second year in a row since A. T. Kearney started conducting this study in 2005 (A. T. Kearney 2006). A. T.Kearneys study is momentous for this research since it provides insight into which financial institutions are most resourceful of achieving and sustaining organic growth. The index connects guest attitudes and actions with their purse allocation decisions. The OGI looks at the functioning of financial institutions based on their ability to achieve both node and Wallet impulsion. Customer Momentum measures an institutions ability to earn and retain guests, forge long-lasting client human kinds, and instill advocacy among their customers. For the A. T.Kearney survey, the pursuit sections were involved in measuring Customer Momentum advocacy, primary financial institution identification, propensity to switch institutions, and lack of errors. Wallet Momentum on the other hand measures an institutions ability to pass the tour of produces and chock up greater penetration per product with its customers. Components involved are look to add accounts, intent to growing equity account value, share of wallet with primary financial institution, and average number of products per customer (A. T. Kearney 2006). According to the results of the A.T. Kearney study (2006), investment management firms performed better overall than retail banks by scoring high in both Customer and Wallet Momentum. Retail banks on the other hand score higher(prenominal) on Customer Momentum than Wallet Momentum. However, the study concludes that no single type of financial institution dominates in either surgical process matrix. Most financial institutions strive to wrench their customers Primary Financial Institution (PFI), and have generally been successful at increasing the average number of accounts per individual within the last year (A.T. Kearney 2006). However, the study indicated that investment management fi rms have more difficult relationships with customers, and that being designated as customers PFI does not necessarily ensure success for retail banks. The study as well take the standed that customers who experience two avail errors or account problems within one year were 35 percent more likely than the manufacture average to leave such financial institution. This attrition rate bivalent after three errors were experienced in one year (A. T. Kearney 2006).The study provides for the following suggestions in order to remedy organic growth in financial institutions (A. T. Kearney 2006) ? Institutions with leading Customer Momentum scores have opportunities to cross-sell b gamble products and services, and should determine how to recognize and reward people for sell a bundled objurgate of products when most organizations are organized to measure and reward for selling particular(prenominal) products. ? Products and services to be added or cross-sold moldiness be determined i n relation to margins on core products, and the total portfolio, to ensure juicy growth.Cross-selling is little(prenominal) costly than adding sunrise(prenominal) customers, simply the mix or products and services is every bit important when considering impact on profit. ? Product complexity and product summercater makes it difficult for customers to understand a value proposition and for employees to explain it. This be actives both service delivery and transaction effectiveness, and as well as increases the potential for errors. A financial institution should thus improve its ability to manage product complexity, as a way of improving service quality and overall customer expiation.A similar study conducted by Daniel coxswain and James Bossert (2005) involved the analysis of the 2004 the Statesn Customer Satisfaction Index, which indicate that organic growth for banks have been hampered by the fact that the financial services persistence has some of the last customer rej oicing ratings of any single industry. According to the study, customers view banks and other financial institutions as a commodity, with no unique reason for forming a business relationship with one particular bank.The study by Cox and Bossert (2005) studied in-depth the strategies employed by banking concern of America in 2001 to improve customer satisfaction as one of its driving force to expand its organic growth. Bank of America started to focus on its organic growth in 2001, which meant increasing its customer base while becoming more efficient by improving processes. It developed a unexampled outline which relied heavily on voice of the customer (VoC) and tied all its intend efforts to factors that would drive customer satisfaction and loyalty (Cox and Bossert 2005).In other words, Bank of America recognized customer satisfaction as the core component of organic growth. With approximately 28 million customers at the time, the bank encountered approximately 200 customer in teractions per second. To improve the overall customer experience, the bank implemented an associate training program called Bank of America Spirit, which was initially modeled to mirror the associate behavior of Disney employees. It re-evaluated its business model and the models act by comparing them to other Fortune 500 companies that focused on customer service.It focused on the following model for improvement as seen in Figure 1 in the next page Bank of America regularly surveyed their customers to gather VoC, and used these survey results in term of enlistment when developing new products and services. Paying close attention to such customer require turned out to be instrumental in increasing its revenues and in improving its organic growth (Cox and Bossert 2005). Accenture, another leading management consultancy firm, conducted a global survey of strategies and programs for organic growth in retail banks.In its survey, Accenture examined more than atomic number 6 retail-ba nk executives strategies. The firm also provided for an industrialization concept scathing for growth in the banking sector Differentiation on the Outside, Simplification on the Inside, Execution Mastery. The research showed that pure cost-cutting strategies previously adapted by financial institutions produced diminished return. The emphasis on growth, and chiefly organic growth, while managing be as the resembling time, would produce the best results for a financial organization (Accenture 2006).The study showed that 87 percent of the executives surveyed indicated that increasing revenues is still top priority, mainly driven by the need to satisfy investor expectations. 73 percent also cited the achievement of cost-efficient scale. Fewer than one in ten believed that market growth will exceed 15 percent, while more than 20 percent believed their own banks will grow at a higher rate. To drive world-shaking organic growth, respondents in the Accenture survey emphasized the ne ed for excellence in marketing and product management, distribution and service and fulfillment (Accenture 2006).The study further recommended that to achieve growth targets in an increasingly competitive market, banks mustiness industrialize their marketing, sales and service capabilities to maximize cross-selling. Similar to the findings and recommendations in the study by Cox and Bossert (2005) on Bank of America, the Accenture study indicated that cross-selling must focus on gaining and retaining profitable customers. Key capabilities necessary to achieve this would involve transformation in areas such as customer segmentation, which should include customer segmentation, product design, and wrong/value equation (Accenture 2006).The staff study by Rhoades (2000) for the Board of Governors of the federal withstand System examined and analyze bank mergers and banking grammatical construction in the US from 1980 to 1998. The study provided that 200 banks failed annually from 1 987 to 1989 in the US, collectable to problem loans in petroleum, agriculture, commercial real estates, and loans to little-developed countries. These factors may have created some good buying opportunities for banks that were performing relatively well (Rhoades 2000). According to the study, the US banking industry experienced an unprecedented merger movement since 1980, with nearly 8000 mergers and round $2.4 trillion in acquired assets as of 2000 alone. The banking industry has been restructured in response to the removal of legal restrictions on intrastate and interstate banking throughout 1980-1998. The number of banks in the US decreased from 14407 to 8697 and the number of banking organizations decreased from 12342 to 6839 (Rhoades 2000). In his study on mergers in the US banking industry, Rhoades (2000) provided for the following conclusions ? The number of banking offices continued to grow in the US throughout the 1990s despite the burgeoning of ATMs and ATM transactio ns.? Concentration of turn back over aggregate US bank deposits among the largest banks increased substantially, with the share of the 100 largest rising from about 47 percent to 71 percent, and the share of the 10 largest rising from 19 percent to 37 percent the latter rise occurred mostly after 1990. ? Concentration increased substantially in many local banking markets, especially in large metropolitan areas. ? The number of bank mergers reached the highest level for the period in the mid-1980s, when industry profit place and stock prices were very low (Rhoades 2000).But what exactly motivates firms to merge and how do these mergers affect contention and the economy? According to Moore and Siems (2006), there are two primary factors that affect the need for financial institutions to remain competitive deregulation and engine room. Deregulation has significantly changed how and where banks do business. Relaxation of restrictions on banks securities activities has blurred the h anded-down distinction with investment banking while the elimination of branching restrictions has created vast geographic expansion possibilities.Continued consolidation is estimated to eventually result in about 3000 banking organizations, with a handful of superintendent banks competing simultaneously with many smaller community banks. Advancements in applied science have also created incentives to merge due to decline in costs in information dissemination, allowing for far-flung operations created through mergers. In other words, technology and deregulation have blurred accepted boundaries as to time, geography, language, enterprises and regulations in the banking industry (Moore and Siems 2006).Thus, one advantage for mergers is that customers can receive one-stop financial services. This allows for greater efficiencies through better information flows and lower transaction costs for the financial institutions involved. However, studies show that major upside for earnings an d stocks through mergers is if the economy continues to show stronger-than-expected growth, which in turn could increase demand for commercial lending. If the economy slows down, stock prices depart pretty full, and takeovers are less likely to benefit the banks involved (LaMonica 2003).The data used for this research study were gathered from related database found online and from casing studies and academic papers. The fibre studies were conducted by management consultancy firms such as Accenture and A. T. Kearney, whereas the functional papers were collected from organizations such as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the American Society for Quality. Results and findings from surveys and empirical analysis conducted by these research individuals and organizations were used for this paper. upstarts articles from sources such as CNNMoney and other pertinent websites were also used. B. The precedent The data used are primarily typeface studies gathered f rom related literature. These were survey results and findings from studies conducted by research individuals and organizations such as Accenture (2006), A. T. Kierney (2006), and Cox and Bossert (2005). The findings analyzed for this paper were conclusions and results from the empirical data from surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006 from the various real depicted object studies reviewed. C. look into DesignThe research question for this paper is Whether US banks should focus on organic growth or mergers and acquisitions in order to expand their business? The hypothesis is that Customer satisfaction, through focusing on VoC, is the key component to organic growth which is the recommended business expansion activity for financial institutions over mergers and acquisitions. The hypothesis will be answered based on the analysis of the findings and insights gleaned from case studies and related literature. The study will make use of Qualitative Research Methodology.Numerical and stat istical data were not gathered due to time shyness and physical limitations on conducting surveys in the financial institutions throughout the US. Based on soft analysis, the research paper thus entreees the study by providing a complete, and detailed description of organic growth and mergers and acquisitions in the banking sector based on a study of related literature. Based on the qualitative research approach, the researcher is the data-gathering instrument, and the data herein provided is in the form of words and pictures, as indicated in Figure 1 (Neil 2006).IV. Analysis of Results and Findings Results from the analysis of the case studies provided indicated that many financial institutions recognize the need for growth, whether it be through organic growth, mergers and acquisitions, or both. Many financial institutions are also aiming for annual organic growth rates of at least 10 percent or higher, but often, they fall short due to a variety of factors (A. T. Kearney 2006) . An exam of the data provided would show that organic growth and mergers and acquisitions benefit two different groups.The organic growth of a company would benefit the bank itself, but more than anything, it will result in a greater advantage and benefit to the customers. The reason behind this is that studies have indicated that successful organic growth is premised on customer satisfaction as its most important component. To achieve high performance, increase revenue, and exceed their average growth rate, financial institutions must finds ways to harvest relationships with existing and new customers. Cross-selling will help increase share-of-wallet from both existing and new customers.However, cross-selling efforts must be accompanied with managing product complexity since customers have become increasingly aware of the range of banking and financial services available. Less than adequate products or poor service will cause the customers to shop around and switch service provid ers, especially since banks are treated more as commodities sort of than business partners by their banking clientele. Thus, cross-selling must be utilized to gain and retain profitable customers (Cox and Bossert 2005 Accenture 2006 A.T. Kearney 2006). Banks would necessarily have to improve their marketing, sales, and service capabilities to maximize cross-selling. To achieve this, customer segmentation, product design, and price/value equations should be closely monitored in relation to customer relationship management. Gathering of customer data will help management to incur customer needs and to adjust and improve market and product management, distribution, service and fulfillment accordingly.Full integration of customer data provides for an accurate and complete view of the customer, and will allow for an empowered and better-trained sales force to turn customer insight into profitable and satisfying interactions (Cox and Bossert 2005 Accenture 2006 A. T. Kearney 2006). A mo del for a successful venture into improving customer satisfaction to increase its organic growth is the case of Bank of America.By establishing a customer satisfaction goal, which provides for a meter process to evaluate current performance and to acquire analytical ability to improve performance in a targeted way, Bank of America was able to streamline its products and services to effectively retain and increase its customer base. By relying on VoC, and tying all its planning efforts to factors that would drive customer satisfaction and loyalty, Bank of America improved its organic growth (Cox and Bossert 2005).Focusing on organic growth will result now only improve customer satisfaction, increase customer base and profit, but will also drive wealth creation for shareholders (A. T. Kearney 2006). On the other hand, mergers and acquisitions provide a greater advantage to the financial institutions themselves. A company with financial problems will benefit from merging with a stron ger company. The latter, in turn, would gain a greater market share and reduce competition in the industry by getting smaller or similarly situated institutions.Advancements in technology and less legal barriers regarding financial transactions have also allowed financial institutions to projection screen wider geographical areas. This in turn benefits the customer as well since the bank becomes a one-stop-shop for banking transactions, available wherever the customer may be. Deregulation and technology have been key factors in the drive for mergers, and have lead to significant cost-cutting measures for the firms involved. It has also provided for greater efficiencies and information dissemination to the financial institutions, which in turn provides for greater flexibility and convenience for its customers.One safeguard for baking institutions which opt for mergers and acquisitions to expand its growth is restrain clv under the Securities Act, also known as the Integration of Abandoned Offerings which was passed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). SEC amend Rule 152 of the Securities Act of 1933 in response to the challenges under previous securities regulations and the changing market conditions. Rule 155 became effective on March 7, 2001, and has had significant impact on companies tasteing alternative financing in elation of a weakened securities market.It provides for a flexible framework in which companies can convert their personal religious offerings to registered offerings and the other way around, minus the usual jeopardize of integration. The rule provides non-exclusive safe harbors from the integration between registered and personal offerings, and allows issuers to move more quickly if market conditions change rapidly (Marek and Seo 2001). Before Rule 155 was enacted, a financial institution with a failed registered offering was limited in the choices it subsequently had to raise capital.It could either withdraw or abandon a registered offering, but would encounter difficulty in quickly obtaining alternative musical accompaniment due to unclear regulations on integration. A company that started a private offering may have found sufficient investor interest to relieve making a registered offering, but was faced with making offers of registered securities prior to register a registration statement. Before Rule 155, there were thus no clear guidelines as to how a company can insulate itself from the risk of mergers and acquisitions.SECs prior guidelines in this area were limited to suggesting a six-month chilling off period as well as a traditional five-part test involving consideration of whether two or more offerings (Marek and Seo 2001) ? Are part of a single plan of financing ? Have the same general purpose ? Involves the same class of security ? Are made at or about the same time and ? Involve securities sold for the same type of consideration. The adoption of the new Rule 155 provides for reli efs for financial institutions (and other institutions in different industries) who opt to participate in mergers, acquisitions, or take-overs.The new Rule 155 does not change the traditional five-factor analysis approach of SEC but clarifies the implication of integration in two specialised types of transactions (Marek and Seo 2001). Rule 155 creates integration safe harbors for two types of putting green transactions 1) a registered offering following an abandoned private offering and 2) a private offering following an abandoned registration offering. The term private offering is specifically defined to include only the offerings that toss away for one of the following exemptions (i) Section 4(2) of the Securities Act, for transactions not involving a exoteric offering(ii) Section 4(6) of the Securities Act, for transactions that do not exceed $5 million and involve offers and sales only to accredited investors. Or (iii) Rule 506 of Regulation D, for transactions involving off ers and sales to an unlimited number of accredited investors and no more than 35 purchasers who, although not accredited, are sophisticated (Marek and Seo 2001). Thus, safe harbors in Rule 155 sets forth clear guidelines under which a company may change its offering between registered and private offerings without the risk of integration.It provides greater flexibility to companies such as financial institutions in this case which seek financing in this changing market (Marek and Seo 2001). V. Summary and Conclusions The case study on Bank of America is a model on how focusing on customer satisfaction can further enhance organic growth for a financial institutions. By establishing a customer satisfaction goal, a financial institution can set up a measurement process in order to evaluate current performance and acquire analytical capability to improve performance in a targeted way (Cox and Bossert 2005).Gathering information about the customers will allow a company to streamline its products and services to meet customer needs. This also allows for greater opportunity for more effective cross-selling which will help increase share-of-wallet from both existing and new customers. Institutions with high levels of customer satisfaction, or customer momentum, need to look at products and services through the eyes of the customer and should simultaneously find out to the VoC.There is a need to recognize and reward people for selling bundled sets of products rather than merely focusing on measuring and rewarding sales associates for selling specific products only (A. T. Kearney 2006). A financial institution must also take note that products and services to be added or cross-sold must be determined in relation to margins on core products to ensure profitable growth. The mix of products and services offered to customers is equally important when considering their impact on profit.Many financial institutions have limited insight into the true profitability of specific products which makes the study of an economically-attractive bundle (whether from the customers or the institutions perspective) problematic (A. T. Kearney 2006). As such, managing product complexity is also important. To better serve their customers, sales associates must understand their products, and when a bank has too many products and services on its platter, its employees tend to be less knowledgeable about what to offer or cross-sell to their customers.Managing product complexity will allow for improvement in the product cost/price relationship and will help customers understand a value proposition. It can help improve both service delivery, transaction effectiveness, and decrease the potential for errors within the financial institution (A. T. Kearney 2006). Thus, effective organic growth should focus on customer satisfaction or VoC as its key component. Mergers and acquisitions however provide for opportunities for financial institutions to gain a greater market share, im prove cost-cutting measures, increase profit, and eliminate competition.Ailing financial organizations also have a better chance for survival by being merged with stronger banking counterparts, while the latter gain a stronger foothold in the market through such acquisitions. .The new Rule 155 adopted by the SEC in provides for safeguards for financial institutions in case of such mergers, acquisitions and take-overs. It provides for non-exclusive safe harbors from the integration between registered and private offerings, and allows issuers to move more quickly in case market conditions change quickly.The rule provides for clear guidelines in which a financial institution may change its offering between registered and private offerings without the risks normally associated with integration (Marek and Seo 2001). Deregulation, such as through adoption of the new Rule 155, and technology have been identified as two of the driving forces why banking institutions merge. Technology on the other hand has literally allowed banks to cross borders, and have made limitations as to time, geography, and boundaries practically non-existent.Information dissemination through the speed of technology has allowed mergers across continents, and for such financial institutions to grab a large slice of the market share. It has also provided for flexibility and convenience to customers. However, one threat to this form of business expansion is the formation of super banks, similar to what is happening in the retail sector wherein only a small number of key players dominate the industry. This may potentially affect customer needs, as the competitive edge body with a select set of power players in the banking sector.The lack of boundaries, such as having branches in different parts of the globe, may also resist optimum customer satisfaction, as a financial institutions operating procedure remains uniform and standard, but customer needs always differ per area, region, or continent. Institutions will use both organic growth and mergers and acquisitions to grow and expand their businesses. But what can be reason out is that those financial institutions with business models that push for strong organic growth make more successful acquirers (A. T.Kearney 2006). Since they understand the needs of their clients better, the services and products they offer tend to be more appropriate and thus more cost-effective and profitable. By knowing their customers, and ultimately the strengths of their organizations, then institutions with strong organic growth models are better capable of acquiring and merging with other banking institutions in the future. VI. early Research The preliminary research in this data indicated case studies from surveys conducted on the banking sector for 2005 and 2006.Trends with regard to organic growth and mergers and acquisitions in the financial sector were analyzed. Future research in relation to this study could include analysis of empiric al data from major banking institutions and a comparison of their profit rates from their organic growth and mergers and acquisitions. Sample sizes may include banks which focus on both organic growth and mergers and acquisitions, and banks which monitor organic growth alone and do not participate in mergers. Such data may be gathered from interviews, surveys, and requests for financial reports from respondent banks.WORKS CITED Cox, Daniel and Bossert, James. Driving Organic ripening at Bank of America. American Society for Quality. Feb. 2005. 28 Nov. 2006. http//www. asq. org/financial/bank-of-america-case-study. hypertext mark-up language Investment Firms Improve, Retail Banks Slip in A. T. Kearneys Annual Organic Growth Index for Financial Institutions. A. T. Kearney. 12 Sept. 2006. 28 Nov. 2006. http//www. atkearney. com/main. taf? p=1,5,1,177 LaMonica, capital of Minnesota R. Bank merger mania is back. CNNMoney. com. 27 Oct. 2003. 28 Nov. 2006. http//money. cnn.com/2003/10/27 /markets/banks/ Mergers and acquisitions. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2006b. 28 Nov. 2006. http//en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Merger Mergers and Acquisitions Introduction. Investopedia. 2006c. 28 Nov. 2006. http//www. investopedia. com/university/mergers/ Mergers and Acquisitions Definition. Investopedia. 2006b. 28 Nov. 2006. http//www. investopedia. com/university/mergers/mergers1. asp Moore, Robert and Siems, Thomas. Whats Driving Bank Mergers. Federal Bank of Dallas. 2006. 28 Nov. 2006. http//www. dallasfed.org/eyi/money/9905. hypertext mark-up language Neill, James. Qualitative versus Quantitative Research Key Points in a guileless Debate. Wilderdom. 5 Jul. 2006. 28 Nov. 2006. http//www. wilderdom. com/research/QualitativeVersusQuantitativeResearch. html Organic Growth. Investopedia. 2006a. 28 Nov. 2006. http//www. investopedia. com/terms/o/organicgrowth. asp Organic growth. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2006a. 28 Nov. 2006. http//en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Organic_growth Or ganic Growth in Retail Banking A international Survey of Strategies and Programs.Accenture. 2006. 28 Nov. 2006. http//www. accenture. com/Global/Services/By_Industry/Financial_Services/Banking/R_and_I/GlobalSurveyStrategies. htm Rhoades, Stephen A. Bank Mergers and Banking Structure in the United States, 1980-98. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Staff Study 174. Aug. 2000. Marek, Thomas R. and Seo, Deborah. Rule 155 Provides New Integration Safe Harbors. Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP. 27 Apr. 2001. 28 Nov. 2006. http//www. oppenheimer. com/news/content/rule_155. htm

No comments:

Post a Comment