Display:
if this is true:

A deal would be all the more dramatic because Merrill, upon the arrival of Chief Executive John Thain, did more than many U.S. financial giants to insulate itself from the financial crisis that began last year. It raised large amounts of capital, purged itself of toxic assets and sold big equity stakes, such as its holding in financial-information giant Bloomberg. That Merrill has opted to sell itself thus underscores the severity of crisis.

Then why would Merrill cut and run (apart from making a 10+% profit with the reported $29 per share offering)? This seems like awfully short term thinking.

For BoA, it seems CEO Kenneth Lewis just plain likes to acquire:

"Why would Bank of America do this?" said analyst Nancy Bush at NAB Research LLC in Annandale, N.J. "Ken Lewis always likes to buy the biggest thing he can. So why not this? You are master of the universe, basically."

Both quotes taken from WSJ - "Bank of America Reaches Deal for Merrill"

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire

by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Mon Sep 15th, 2008 at 12:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then why would Merrill cut and run (apart from making a 10+% profit with the reported $29 per share offering)?
Perhaps Thain truly fears that that might be the best deal they will get going forward.  Refuse it and follow Lehman.  The fate of Morgan, Goldman and others may give some idea of the accuracy of his appraisal. Perhaps Chris Cox will re-institute the ban on the already illegal practice of selling shorts naked.  It may be that it was too late for even that to help Merrill.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Sep 15th, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series