OT: is long form jounalism getting it right on AIG, Bank of America, and Merril Lynch?

[adelord]

OT: is long form jounalism getting it right on AIG, Bank of America, and Merril Lynch?

I’ve come across two articles recently that seem especially illuminating:
Micheal Lewis’ “The Man Who Crashed the World” on AIG in Vanity Fair http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/aig200908
and
William Cohan’s “The Final Days of Merrill Lynch” on the Bank of America merger with Merrill Lynch in The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/bank-of-america

As a long time lurker (I’ve only made a couple of posts) I’m eager to read responses to these articles from the many piggs here I respect.

[jpinpb]

Almost done reading the Vanity Fair article. Well written. This part bothered me the most:

“A.I.G. couldn’t afford to pay Goldman off in March 2008, but that was O.K. The U.S. Treasury, led by the former head of Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson, agreed to make good on A.I.G.’s gambling debts. One hundred cents on the dollar.”

And this:

“Cassano resigned from A.I.G. F.P. early last year, but he didn’t simply leave. He continued to turn up at his desk and spend the day staring at his Bloomberg TV. The traders thought it strange; only later did they learn that A.I.G. was still paying him $1 million a month to consult.”

Consult? The guy he replaced, I could see them hiring him to consult, but Cassano?

Edit: Partway through the Atlantic. Also well-written. Sure does seem like Hank and Benny bribed/threatened BOA to buy Merrill.

“The backroom dealing and arm-twisting that kept the deal moving may have succeeded in saving Merrill from immediate collapse, but only at the expense of the health and stability of the nation’s largest bank—an institution far more important, systemically, than Merrill, and one that must now be propped up, indefinitely, no matter the cost.”

“Some observers are convinced that government officials crossed a line—“There’s no question there was coercion and bribery here,”

[jpinpb]

Almost done reading the Vanity Fair article. Well written. This part bothered me the most:

“A.I.G. couldn’t afford to pay Goldman off in March 2008, but that was O.K. The U.S. Treasury, led by the former head of Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson, agreed to make good on A.I.G.’s gambling debts. One hundred cents on the dollar.”

And this:

“Cassano resigned from A.I.G. F.P. early last year, but he didn’t simply leave. He continued to turn up at his desk and spend the day staring at his Bloomberg TV. The traders thought it strange; only later did they learn that A.I.G. was still paying him $1 million a month to consult.”

Consult? The guy he replaced, I could see them hiring him to consult, but Cassano?

Edit: Partway through the Atlantic. Also well-written. Sure does seem like Hank and Benny bribed/threatened BOA to buy Merrill.

“The backroom dealing and arm-twisting that kept the deal moving may have succeeded in saving Merrill from immediate collapse, but only at the expense of the health and stability of the nation’s largest bank—an institution far more important, systemically, than Merrill, and one that must now be propped up, indefinitely, no matter the cost.”

“Some observers are convinced that government officials crossed a line—“There’s no question there was coercion and bribery here,”

[jpinpb]

Almost done reading the Vanity Fair article. Well written. This part bothered me the most:

“A.I.G. couldn’t afford to pay Goldman off in March 2008, but that was O.K. The U.S. Treasury, led by the former head of Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson, agreed to make good on A.I.G.’s gambling debts. One hundred cents on the dollar.”

And this:

“Cassano resigned from A.I.G. F.P. early last year, but he didn’t simply leave. He continued to turn up at his desk and spend the day staring at his Bloomberg TV. The traders thought it strange; only later did they learn that A.I.G. was still paying him $1 million a month to consult.”

Consult? The guy he replaced, I could see them hiring him to consult, but Cassano?

Edit: Partway through the Atlantic. Also well-written. Sure does seem like Hank and Benny bribed/threatened BOA to buy Merrill.

“The backroom dealing and arm-twisting that kept the deal moving may have succeeded in saving Merrill from immediate collapse, but only at the expense of the health and stability of the nation’s largest bank—an institution far more important, systemically, than Merrill, and one that must now be propped up, indefinitely, no matter the cost.”

“Some observers are convinced that government officials crossed a line—“There’s no question there was coercion and bribery here,”

[jpinpb]

Almost done reading the Vanity Fair article. Well written. This part bothered me the most:

“A.I.G. couldn’t afford to pay Goldman off in March 2008, but that was O.K. The U.S. Treasury, led by the former head of Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson, agreed to make good on A.I.G.’s gambling debts. One hundred cents on the dollar.”

And this:

“Cassano resigned from A.I.G. F.P. early last year, but he didn’t simply leave. He continued to turn up at his desk and spend the day staring at his Bloomberg TV. The traders thought it strange; only later did they learn that A.I.G. was still paying him $1 million a month to consult.”

Consult? The guy he replaced, I could see them hiring him to consult, but Cassano?

Edit: Partway through the Atlantic. Also well-written. Sure does seem like Hank and Benny bribed/threatened BOA to buy Merrill.

“The backroom dealing and arm-twisting that kept the deal moving may have succeeded in saving Merrill from immediate collapse, but only at the expense of the health and stability of the nation’s largest bank—an institution far more important, systemically, than Merrill, and one that must now be propped up, indefinitely, no matter the cost.”

“Some observers are convinced that government officials crossed a line—“There’s no question there was coercion and bribery here,”

[jpinpb]

Almost done reading the Vanity Fair article. Well written. This part bothered me the most:

“A.I.G. couldn’t afford to pay Goldman off in March 2008, but that was O.K. The U.S. Treasury, led by the former head of Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson, agreed to make good on A.I.G.’s gambling debts. One hundred cents on the dollar.”

And this:

“Cassano resigned from A.I.G. F.P. early last year, but he didn’t simply leave. He continued to turn up at his desk and spend the day staring at his Bloomberg TV. The traders thought it strange; only later did they learn that A.I.G. was still paying him $1 million a month to consult.”

Consult? The guy he replaced, I could see them hiring him to consult, but Cassano?

Edit: Partway through the Atlantic. Also well-written. Sure does seem like Hank and Benny bribed/threatened BOA to buy Merrill.

“The backroom dealing and arm-twisting that kept the deal moving may have succeeded in saving Merrill from immediate collapse, but only at the expense of the health and stability of the nation’s largest bank—an institution far more important, systemically, than Merrill, and one that must now be propped up, indefinitely, no matter the cost.”

“Some observers are convinced that government officials crossed a line—“There’s no question there was coercion and bribery here,”

[patientrenter]

I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.

[patientrenter]

I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.

[patientrenter]

I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.

[patientrenter]

I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.

[patientrenter]

I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.

[davelj]

[quote=patientrenter]I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.[/quote]

Yes, Ken Lewis and BofA’s board screwed you over. No doubt about it. But… you begged to be screwed over when you bought the stock. First of all, God himself was incapable of understanding BofA even before the Opaque Behemoth acquired Countrywide and Merrill. The company has been unanalyzable for years. The acquisitions of Merrill and Countrywide just made BofA more unanalyzable. The 25 largest banks in the country are completely incomprehensible. The largest insurance companies – more so. And the boards of most of these companies are horrible. And they have been for years. So, while your experience with BofA is unfortunate, you’re really begging for trouble when you buy a publicly-traded company (over which you exercise no influence) that is virtually impossible to decifer… even from the inside of the company.

[davelj]

[quote=patientrenter]I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.[/quote]

Yes, Ken Lewis and BofA’s board screwed you over. No doubt about it. But… you begged to be screwed over when you bought the stock. First of all, God himself was incapable of understanding BofA even before the Opaque Behemoth acquired Countrywide and Merrill. The company has been unanalyzable for years. The acquisitions of Merrill and Countrywide just made BofA more unanalyzable. The 25 largest banks in the country are completely incomprehensible. The largest insurance companies – more so. And the boards of most of these companies are horrible. And they have been for years. So, while your experience with BofA is unfortunate, you’re really begging for trouble when you buy a publicly-traded company (over which you exercise no influence) that is virtually impossible to decifer… even from the inside of the company.

[davelj]

[quote=patientrenter]I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.[/quote]

Yes, Ken Lewis and BofA’s board screwed you over. No doubt about it. But… you begged to be screwed over when you bought the stock. First of all, God himself was incapable of understanding BofA even before the Opaque Behemoth acquired Countrywide and Merrill. The company has been unanalyzable for years. The acquisitions of Merrill and Countrywide just made BofA more unanalyzable. The 25 largest banks in the country are completely incomprehensible. The largest insurance companies – more so. And the boards of most of these companies are horrible. And they have been for years. So, while your experience with BofA is unfortunate, you’re really begging for trouble when you buy a publicly-traded company (over which you exercise no influence) that is virtually impossible to decifer… even from the inside of the company.

[davelj]

[quote=patientrenter]I read the article about Merrill and BoA. I have a personal interest in what BoA did. I purchased BoA shares about 3 years ago, because I wanted some exposure to TBTF banks, and I figured that of that group, they had the least exposure to bad RE loans.

Then that schmuck Lewis took on Countrywide (and actually paid a handsome price to take them on, to add insult to injury), blowing my entire strategy. But that wasn’t enough for this idiot. He went on to absorb Merrill Lynch, even paying a colossal price for a firm with negative equity.

So now his protestations that he was forced into the Merrill deal sound very weak to me. He wasn’t forced into either deal: he chose to go into both. He can only blame himself for that, and we can blame him too, and we should hold him accountable.

What bugs me most is that, when Lewis finally began to realize his mistakes, and considered salvaging some value by backing out of the Merrill deal, a threat from Paulson to remove him and the board caused them to roll over and go ahead with a deal they knew, or should have known, would destroy BoA shareholders’ value. These folks, who are supposed to be charged first and foremost with protecting the shareholders’ interests, knowingly chose their own jobs first. In a country with a proper rule of law, these folks would all be looking at the world through vertical bars.[/quote]

Yes, Ken Lewis and BofA’s board screwed you over. No doubt about it. But… you begged to be screwed over when you bought the stock. First of all, God himself was incapable of understanding BofA even before the Opaque Behemoth acquired Countrywide and Merrill. The company has been unanalyzable for years. The acquisitions of Merrill and Countrywide just made BofA more unanalyzable. The 25 largest banks in the country are completely incomprehensible. The largest insurance companies – more so. And the boards of most of these companies are horrible. And they have been for years. So, while your experience with BofA is unfortunate, you’re really begging for trouble when you buy a publicly-traded company (over which you exercise no influence) that is virtually impossible to decifer… even from the inside of the company.

[Author]

Posts