“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

You can be too conservative, not following up sufficiently your intuitive understanding of the business. There is one man important in the three-in-one merger, and the best man has not yet been found.

Two mergers would seem to represent your best opportunity, two rather than three, and you could maintain excellent control here. One element therefore would be dropped, and it would prove in the overall not as effective as it would seem—one could be a liability, and might need to be discarded even if at first included. Two mergers would be much more effective.

It is a new service, and would take place generally speaking within the same framework within which you now operate. In one way it could be called an offshoot from another department, but it is too novel to be so described. It would set you up, and would be not so much a merger as a completely new development of your own initiation.

(The merger material also applied, and Tom explained how he had been thinking of the second possibility suggested by Seth, the merging of two rather than three. Elmira and Syracuse banking facilities would be merged, with the Utica branch left out; according to Tom this would be a better arrangement, etc.