Spurred in part by public statements from vice chairman Michael E.  O'Neill that BankAmerica Corp. is hunting for money management and   brokerage firms to annex, post-Dean Witter, Discover & Co./Morgan Stanley   merger speculation about who is talking cross-pollenization to whom is all   the buzz. Will banks recreate themselves by acquiring nonbanks and lead the   way to what one industry specialist calls multilingual financial services?   Discussions with some of the usual suspects indicate that mergers will   continue, but at what level and to what end are up for grabs. Contemplating   the effect of such new configurations on the competitive environment in the   next three to five years, three camps emerge: gung-ho futurists; wary   hopefuls, and the noncommittal/unconvinced.                   
The rosy-eyed experts eagerly await inter-disciplinary combinations.  The time is right. Banks can afford to buy, thanks to record capitalization   levels, which are said to total $300 billion for the top 10 institutions.   By broadening product capacity and/or customer base, banks will build   scale, beef up technology to offer alternative delivery options and one-   stop shopping "from cradle to grave," and thus recapture eroding consumer   market share. In addition, banks buying outside the fold can establish a   presence in a state without the onus of its charter and ensuing CRA   requirements.               
  
Post-acquisition depression/oppression is also a thing of the past,  futurist thinking goes. Having learned from the botches of yesterday,   today's smart banks include cultural integration as a core competence;   interbank successes like the recent commingling of Chase and Chemical show   this.       
Corralling customers
  
Yet another school of thought holds that time is money, and then  some. Bank forays into asset management, consumer finance, insurance, and   the like are an attempt to recapture the customer base lost in the last   three decades, reports Keefe, Bruyette & Wood CEO James McDermott. "The   $64,000 question is: Will banks have enough time to pull those customers   back into the corral, cross-sell and data-mine them, or will some other   unforeseen competitive threat challenge that effort?"           
While the more confident predict that corporate combinations to come  will surprise us in their size and scale, the foreshadow of unknown   opponents darkens other visions of the future.   
The Internet and Microsoft are just the beginning. Any brand-  conscious provider up to snuff technologically could cross-sell other   products and knit together a network of customers. As McDermott puts it,   "What's to stop Republic Industries, Inc. chairman Wayne Huizenga from   adding financial products to the already growing army of rental car units   and mortgage banking companies he is buying?"         
  
Demographics don't offer much comfort, either. While Baby Boomers  shift to a savings and investment mode, the new crop of computer-weaned   college graduates emphasizes convenience and time arbitrage over the   traditional banking relationship, adds McDermott.     
That relationship already took a big hit with the advent of the ATM,  says one investment banker who requested anonymity. The ATM eliminated   significant bank costs but neutralized the bank itself in the process. "In   the past, you had to go to the bank to make a deposit or cash a check. Now   I can be in St. Barts and get the same service from any terminal," he says.   Bye, bye, brand loyalty; at this rate, sources say, perhaps one should   think about barbed wire for those corrals.           
While several informed sources warn of the need to act quickly,  others say that closing the deal is just the starting line in the race. "It   is very important to integrate the two partners quickly in order to get the   benefit of the merger before the attention of senior management moves on to   the next thing," says James S. Marpe, managing partner of Andersen   Consulting Corp.'s retail financial services/commercial banking practice in   the Northeast.           
is the rationale rational?
  
Then there is the "Who needs it?" response of these financial mixed  marriages. Adherents agree that consolidation comes first and, absent a   true national banking system, a lot more is on the way. Consider First   Bank's purchase of U.S. Bancorp and The H. F. Ahmanson & Co.-Great Western   Financial-Washington Mutual mega-melange.       
More to the point, this group holds that synergy is not a panacea  for shrinking retail bank market share. "(The word) synergy should go back   to the days of conglomerates when we achieved synergy by combining   disparate product lines and wound up spinning them all off five years   later. Banks need a fundamental business rationale for combining disparate   lines of business," says Charles E.P. Wood, managing director in corporate   finance for Price Waterhouse. "I am not a firm believer in moving too far   afield from what a company is accustomed to doing. The very steep learning   curve is by definition very expensive."               
Similarly, Wood adds, "There is nothing better for a prospective  seller than to find a buyer entering a new market who will pay a premium   because he has deluded himself that he desperately needs to be in that   market."     
And there are other caveats about the cookie-cutter approach toward  expansion. First, cross-selling, still an imperfect art, is costly. Second,   banks have to cope with the common misperception that investment products   are FDIC insured.     
For their part, savvy would-be acquirers are watching companies more  closely these days. They are demanding disaggregation, reporting lines of   business separately to see how they perform after acquisitions, according   to KPMG Peat Marwick's Eugene D. O'Kelly, national industry director of   banking. "From a strategic standpoint, every line of business is being   evaluated in terms of investment needs and what it takes to be successful,   including the people to run it and its geographical reach. Then you make a   decision: grow and defend it, or shrink and exit."             
the role of the acquired
Along the same lines, some wonder what shareholders of the acquired  company stand to gain. The Return On Equity (ROE) of a bank is lower than   that of a mutual fund company, for example; the company would find it hard   to explain to shareholders, for instance, why it is diluting their return   just to access a customer list.       
This is all the more reason that alliances, instead of mergers, are  the right way to bring additional capabilities to customers or vice versa,   argues Andersen's Marpe. "Both parties would be reluctant to give up their   sovereignty. They would think, 'I own this. Why should I sell it to you?'"     
At any rate, stock prices will affect sales of banks. As Bob Harman,  banking partner for Deloitte & Touche Consulting puts it, "Stock price   makes a big difference. In a downturn, prices fall most quickly for stocks   that have irregular performances. People just wait to buy cheaper stocks.   There are lots of overpriced stocks. As the market corrects itself, we will   see more activity."         
Meanwhile, talk of BankAmerica-PaineWebber and Chase Manhattan-  Merrill Lynch unions continues. First Union is also cited as a prospective   player. Though the above banks were intrigued with the topic, senior   executives declined to comment.     
How can potential acquirers gauge how much to pay for nonbanks?  Earnings flow is one popular criteria. Investment in technology,   capitalization, value of customers, intellectual capital, and management   team are other guides, sources say.     
One banking expert suggests that value depends on what the  institution and the shareholders can afford. A second counters that basing   a purchase on one's budget rather than the ROE is shortsighted. Financing   the investment comes second, after the institution determines whether it   can achieve the appropriate level of return through the purchase.       
Echoing the views of others, O'Kelly emphasizes the role of  personnel in an organization. "In making a valuation, we stress the   importance of key people, and the ability to retain them to keep the   institution successful," he says.     
Taking the staff element one step further, O'Kelly says the risk of  operational integration is extremely high today because of corporate   downsizing in the last ten years. "Organizations are bigger, much more   complex, and with longer tentacles, but the layer of middle management who   knew how things run, whom you could rely on to get the job done, doesn't   exist. The drill sergeants are gone."         
Be that as it may, these increasingly competitive times demand new  skills and new outlooks to a future we may just be able to get a glimpse of   now.   
-bosco tfn.com