The Road To Growth For Financial Institutions

Expansion of banks and financial acquisitions in the U. S. generally occur in two ways: by organic growth or by mergers and acquisitions. Organic growth is the rate of business expansion that an organization can achieve through increasing output and enhancing sales. This form of business expansion excludes any profits or growths gained from mergers, acquisitions, and take-overs.This represents the true growth for the core of a company and is a good indicator on how well the organization’s management has used its own internal resources to expand profits. This type of business expansion also helps to identify whether managers have used their skills to improve the business (Investopedia 2006a; Wikipedia 2006a). On the other hand, acquisitions, mergers and take-overs do not bring about profits generated within a company, and are thus not considered organic growth.Historically, investment banks (which are defined as intermediaries which assist companies in selling ownership of them selves as stock or borrowing money directly from investors in the form of bonds) have been closely associated with the activity of merger and acquisitions since it represents a sales opportunity for the investment bank. For a bank to merge with another financial institution, it needs to attain a fair market value for its shares to swap with shares from the other entity.A popular formula in describing mergers and acquisitions is â€Å"one plus one makes three† – the key principle behind buying a company is to create shareholder value over and above that of the sum of the two principal companies involved (Investopedia 2006a; Investopedia 2006b; Wikipedia 2006b; Investopedia 2006c). In other words, two companies together are deemed more valuable than two separate companies. Strong companies buy other companies to create a more competitive, cost-efficient organization and to gain a greater market share.Target or weaker companies in turn often agree to being purchased by th ese stronger companies when they know they cannot survive alone in a competitive market (Investopedia 2006a; Investopedia 2006b; Wikipedia 2006b; Investopedia 2006c). Most major financial institutions in the US have gone through some form of merger and all of these institutions inevitably monitor their organic growth. The benefits that each type of business expansion offers are unique, and there are certain advantages and disadvantages in each type.The relevance of studying mergers and acquisitions involving financial institutions is that these activities can dictate the fortunes of the companies involved for years to come, and have considerable impact on investors involved as well as within the organizations themselves. Likewise, organic growth helps to strengthen an organization internally and places it on a stronger market position if done effectively and successfully. The significance of this research study is to compare these two types of business expansion.The objectives of th is study are to analyze these two types of business expansion as to their strengths and weaknesses, benefits and potential threats or disadvantages to the banking sector, and to provide an overview of the history of the banking sector in terms of both organic growth and mergers and acquisitions activities and endeavors. The research is helpful in that it will provide valuable research data and hopefully some helpful insights to help financial institutions, large or small, to evaluate their present business expansion activities.Small companies which are limited to organic growth, and may wish to venture into mergers or acquisitions, may be able to use the data provided here. Larger institutions which practice both organic growth and mergers and acquisitions, on the other hand, may be able to use this research to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of both activities. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section I as presented here provides for the introduction to the stud y, definition 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 financial institutions. Section III discusses the data gathering process for this study, the methodology used, and the research framework followed for this study. Section IV will provide for the analysis of the results and findings as gathered from the literature and related work reviewed. Section V presents the summary and conclusions of the study based on the analysis provided for in Section IV. Finally, Section VI will describe future directions this study might take.II. Literature Review According to the results of an annual study conducted by A. T. Kearney, one of the world’s largest management consulting firms, investment management firms are outperforming retail banks in the highly competitive race to grow profitably and to gain market share. A. T. Kearney co nducted an Annual Organic Growth 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 customers in the 20 largest US metro markets.Seven out of the ten top-scoring financial institutions included in the OGI based on their capability to grow organically were investment management firms, with Ameriprise with the top score for the second consecutive year, outperforming most banks and other investment firms such as Edward Jones, A. G. Edwards, Vanguard, Charles Schwab, and Merrill Lynch. Wachovia, on the other hand, outperformed many of its retail bank counterparts, also for the second year in a row since A. T. Kearney started conducting this study in 2005 (A. T. Kearney 2006). A. T.Kearney’s study is significant for this research since it provides insight into which financial institutions are most capable of achieving and sustaining organic growth. The index connect s customer attitudes and actions with their wallet allocation decisions. The OGI looks at the performance of financial institutions based on their ability to achieve both Customer and Wallet Momentum. Customer Momentum measures an institution’s ability to attract and retain customers, forge long-lasting customer relationships, and instill advocacy among their customers. For the A. T.Kearney survey, the following components 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 institution’s ability to expand the number of products and drive greater penetration per product with its customers. Components involved are: intent to add accounts, intent to increase 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 on Customer Momentum than Wallet Momentum. However, the study concludes that no single type of financial institution dominates in either performance matrix. Most financial institutions strive to become 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 firms have more difficult relationships with customers, and that being designated as customers’ PFI does not necessarily ensure success for retail banks. The study also showed that customers who experience two service errors or account problems within one year were 35 percent more likely than the industry average to leave such finan cial institution. This attrition rate doubled after three errors were experienced in one year (A. T. Kearney 2006).The study provides for the following suggestions in order to improve organic growth in financial institutions (A. T. Kearney 2006): ? Institutions with leading Customer Momentum scores have opportunities to cross-sell new products and services, and should determine how to recognize and reward people for selling a â€Å"bundled† set of products when most organizations are organized to measure and reward for selling specific products. ? Products and services to be added or cross-sold must be determined in relation to margins on core products, and the total portfolio, to ensure profitable growth.Cross-selling is less costly than adding new customers, but the mix or products and services is equally important when considering impact on profit. ? Product complexity and product variation makes it difficult for customers to understand a value proposition and for employee s to explain it. This affects both service delivery and transaction effectiveness, and also 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 satisfaction.A similar study conducted by Daniel Cox and James Bossert (2005) involved the analysis of the 2004 American Customer Satisfaction Index, which indicate that organic growth for banks have been hampered by the fact that the financial services industry has some of the lowest customer satisfaction 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 Bank of America in 2001 to improve customer satisfaction as one of its driving force to expand its organic growth. Bank of Amer ica 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 new strategy which relied heavily on voice of the customer (VoC) and tied all its planning 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 interactions 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 model’s performance by comparing them to other Fortune 500 companies that focused on customer service.It focused on the following model for improvement as seen i n Figure 1 in the next page: Bank of America regularly surveyed their customers to gather VoC, and used these survey results in turn when developing new products and services. Paying close attention to such customer needs 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 100 retail-bank executives’ strategies. The firm also provided for an industrialization concept critical for growth in the banking sector – â€Å"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 mainly organic growth, while managing costs as the same time, wou ld 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 significant organic growth, respondents in the Accenture survey emphasized the need 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 must 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 in dicated 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 price/value equation (Accenture 2006).The staff study by Rhoades (2000) for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System examined and analyzed bank mergers and banking structure in the US from 1980 to 1998. The study provided that 200 banks failed annually from 1987 to 1989 in the US, due to problem loans in petroleum, agriculture, commercial real estates, and loans to less-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 about $2.4 trillion in acquired assets as of 2000 alone. The banking in dustry 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 transactions.? Concentration of control 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 pe riod in the mid-1980s, when industry profit rates and stock prices were very low (Rhoades 2000).But what exactly motivates firms to merge and how do these mergers affect competition 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 technology. Deregulation has significantly changed how and where banks do business. Relaxation of restrictions on banks’ securities activities has blurred the traditional 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 â€Å"super banks† competing simultaneously with many smaller community banks. Advancements in technology have also created incentives to merge due to decline in costs in information dissemination, allowing fo r 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 and 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 become 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 case studies and academic papers. The case studies were conducted by management consultancy fir ms such as Accenture and A. T. Kearney, whereas the working 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.News articles from sources such as CNNMoney and other pertinent websites were also used. B. The Sample The data used are primarily case studies gathered from 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 existing case studies reviewed. C. Research DesignThe research question for this paper is â€Å"Whether US banks should focus on organic growth or merg ers and acquisitions in order to expand their business? † The hypothesis is that â€Å"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 statistical data were not gathered due to time constraint and physical limitations on conducting surveys in the financial institutions throughout the US. Based on qualitative analysis, the research paper thus approaches 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 examination 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 re venue, 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 providers, especially since banks are treated more as commodities rather 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 m onitored in relation to customer relationship management. Gathering of customer data will help management to ascertain 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 model 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 measurement process to evaluate current performance and to acquire analytical capability 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, an d 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 stronger company. The latter, in turn, would gain a greater market share and reduce competition in the industry by acquiring smaller or similarly situated institutions.Advancements in technology and less legal barriers regarding financial transactions have also allowed financial institutions to cover 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 custo mer 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 Rule 155 under the Securities Act, also known as the â€Å"Integration of Abandoned Offerings† which was passed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). SEC amended 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 seeking alternative financing in light of a weakened securities market.It provides for a flexible framework in which companies can con vert their private offerings to registered offerings and the other way around, minus the usual risk of integration. The rule provides non-exclusive safe harbors from the integration between registered and private 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 funding due to unclear regulations on integration. A company that started a private offering may have found sufficient investor interest to justify making a registered offering, but was faced with making offers of registered securities prior to filing 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 a cquisitions.SEC’s prior guidelines in this area were limited to suggesting a six-month â€Å"cooling 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 reliefs 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 specific types of transactions (Marek and Seo 2001). Rule 155 creates integration safe harbors for two types of common transactions: 1) a registered offering following an abandoned private offering; and 2) a private offering following an abandoned registration offering. The term â€Å"private offering† is specifically defined to include only the offerings that qualify for one of the following exemptions: (i) Section 4(2) of the Securities Act, for transactions not involving a public offering;(ii) Section 4(6) of the Securities Act, for transactions that do not exceed $5 million and involve offers and sales only to â€Å"accredited investors†. Or (iii) Rule 506 of Regulation D, for transactions involving offers and sales to an unlimited number of â€Å"accredited investors† and no more than 35 purchasers who, although not accredited, are â€Å"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 f inancing 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 listen to the VoC.There is a need to recognize and reward people fo r selling â€Å"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 development 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 knowledgea ble 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, improve 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 â€Å"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 remains 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 hinder optimum customer satisfaction, as a financial institution’s 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 concluded 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 m ore 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. Future 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 empirical 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 financia l reports from respondent banks.WORKS CITED Cox, Daniel and Bossert, James. Driving Organic Growth at Bank of America. American Society for Quality. Feb. 2005. 28 Nov. 2006. http://www. asq. org/financial/bank-of-america-case-study. html Investment Firms Improve, Retail Banks Slip in A. T. Kearney’s 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, Paul 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. What’s Driving Bank Mergers. Federal Bank of Dallas. 2006. 28 Nov. 2006. http://www. dallasfed.org/eyi/money/9905. html Neill, James. Qualitative versus Quantitative Research: Key Points in a Classic 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 Organic Growth in Retail Banking: A Global 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