1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Bailout Can of Worms: Bank of America and Merrill Lynch

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by pgabriel, Apr 25, 2009.

  1. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,790
    Likes Received:
    3,708
    link

    By LIZ RAPPAPORT
    Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Department chief Henry Paulson pressured Bank of America Corp. to not discuss its increasingly troubled plan to buy Merrill Lynch & Co. -- a deal that later triggered a government bailout of BofA -- according to testimony by Kenneth Lewis, the bank's chief executive.

    Mr. Lewis, testifying under oath before New York's attorney general in February, told prosecutors that he believed Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke were instructing him to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill, the struggling brokerage giant. As part of his testimony, a transcript of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lewis said the government wanted him to keep quiet while the two sides negotiated government funding to help BofA absorb Merrill and its huge losses.

    Under normal circumstances, banks must alert their shareholders of any materially significant financial hits. But these weren't normal times: Late last year, Wall Street was crumbling and BofA faced intense government pressure to buy Merrill to keep the crisis from spreading. Disclosing losses at Merrill -- which eventually totaled $15.84 billion for the fourth quarter -- could have given BofA's shareholders an opportunity to stop the deal and let Merrill collapse instead.

    "Isn't that something that any shareholder at Bank of America...would want to know?" Mr. Lewis was asked by a representative of New York's attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, according to the transcript.

    "It wasn't up to me," Mr. Lewis said. The BofA chief said he was told by Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson that the deal needed to be completed, otherwise it would "impose a big risk to the financial system" of the U.S. as a whole.

    Mr. Lewis's testimony suggests how aggressively federal regulators have been willing to behave in their fight to fix the U.S. financial system. The testimony for the first time spreads some of the blame to Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke for Mr. Lewis's decision to keep problems at Merrill under wraps.

    "Everybody -- Lewis, Paulson, Bernanke -- eventually agreed that any public discussion of the situation at Merrill would have adverse consequences for the system," according to an individual close to BofA.

    A person in government familiar with Mr. Bernanke's conversations with Mr. Lewis said Wednesday that the Fed chairman didn't offer Mr. Lewis advice on the question of disclosure. Instead, Mr. Bernanke suggested Mr. Lewis consult his own counsel.

    Mr. Paulson repeatedly told Mr. Lewis that "the U.S. government was committed to ensuring that no systemically important financial institution would fail," according to his spokeswoman.

    Mr. Lewis couldn't be reached for comment. A BofA spokesman said, "We had no legal obligation to disclose ongoing negotiations with the government and disclosure of ongoing negotiations likely would have severely disrupted the global financial markets and damaged the bank."

    In the transcript reviewed by the Journal, Mr. Lewis didn't say he was explicitly instructed to keep silent about the losses piling up at Merrill. But his testimony indicates that he believed the government wanted him to remain silent.
     
  2. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    18,198
    Likes Received:
    8,597
    All I know is its Bushes fault.
     
  3. Rashmon

    Rashmon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    21,246
    Likes Received:
    18,260
    I see you have experienced what is called a "moment of clarity."
     
  4. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,790
    Likes Received:
    3,708

    you do realize that bush was still president when this happened?
     
  5. Mr. Clutch

    Mr. Clutch Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    46,550
    Likes Received:
    6,132
    This is a gigantic mess. The goverment tried to save Merrill and ended up killing BofA.
     
  6. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    Yeah, this is not good. It's unclear what really happened here, but neither option is good. Either Ken Lewis decided to keep material information out of shareholder hands, or the gov't caused a lot of people to lose a lot of money holding BoA stock because they withheld crucial information. Neither scenario is good, and both could lead to major lawsuits. The stock went from $30 to $3 (it's back to $9 now) during that period - so that's 90% losses there that were partially caused by this.
     
  7. coma

    coma Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Messages:
    3,347
    Likes Received:
    10
    Does anyone think that the term "too big to fail" could apply to BoA?

    Given the statement that Lewis has made, the amount of funds the gov't has injected into BoA, I just don't see BoA going anywhere.
     
  8. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,049
    I dunno...they also ate up Countrywide for a billion. I don't think Ken Lewis had any fear of sticker shock especially with an explicit government guarantee.

    JP Morgan is supposedly ground zero for any further weakening in the derivatives market. And compared to Citi, BoA's exposure, while still dangerous, is a lot smaller.

    I'm guessing a combination of TARP and the immediacy of the losses (not enough time to get creative with the books) is bothering BoA more than swallowing Merrill. Merrill is the type of purchase BoA would want right now if they could. They just got billions and billions of taxpayer money to do it, at the unintended expense of their share price. It's like b****ing about a handout not being a 100% pure handout.

    They think they're in a position to be one of the stronger and sounder banks that doesn't need to suck the government's teet. Everything's relative at the moment, so that delusion has some tread...

    Kneejerk sarcasm FAIL.
     
  9. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    Oh absolutely - BoA will get whatever support needed to survive.
     

Share This Page