You've probably noticed that Morgan Stanley's been slip 'n sliding off a cliff since this morning. Though the name GolGan SachLey feels so right rolling off the tongue and would look great on a business card, all reports have ruled out a merger of the last remaining banks on Wall Street. The only name we've heard in the last hour regarding a buyout of the House of Mack is HSBC. The last official word from the bank was that it is strong enough to go it alone.
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!More Favorite Reads
Sep 15, 2009, 2:22pm
Technical Difficulties Prevented Warren Buffett From Saving Lehman Brothers
I sense some judgment from the Bloomberg reporter here re:...
More »Sep 15, 2009, 2:00pm
People! THIS TYPE OF PERFORMANCE DOES NOT MAKE PTJ WANT TO RAIN BUCKETS O' CHICKEN ON YOUR ASSES!
Tudor BVI Global: August 2009: 0.5% YTD: 12.5% ...as for...
More »
Sep 09, 2009, 11:27am
Goldman Partner's Neighbors Scandalized By Shirt Optional Parties
Goldman Sachs partner managing director Richard Kimball Jr. apparently got...
More »Sep 09, 2009, 10:15am
Job Openings At AQR! (UPDATE)
Ladies, if you've been looking to work under one of...
More »
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:34PM
Freeman. Wait, shit, that's taken.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:34PM
they all say that. the pattern is holding true to form.
guess they'll be merged by this time next week.
when you're focused on business, you're beautiful, bl.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:35PM
Paulson Stanley
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:35PM
Bumhole.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:36PM
They need to get bought out by JP Morgan so we'll just have one bank named Morgan. Then they need to buy back 23 Wall Street from those goddamn parvenue condo developers, and find a living descendant of Pierpont to run the place. Nothing else is going to restore the market's confidence.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:36PM
Morgan Stanely - a wholly owned subsidiary of Wu Tang Financial.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:36PM
Are the rumours around MS and GS at all credible, at what point is this just absurd. GS doesn't have the Toxic waste on its books.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:37PM
MorganBaldBeard
Posted by CrazyCougar , Sep 17, 2008 1:37PM
JP MorganStanley. But only because it sounds good.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:38PM
@7-- that's why it says "all reports have ruled out a merger of the last remaining banks on Wall Street. "
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:38PM
@ 7: BSC acquired at two bucks is absurd, isn't it?
And yet...
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:39PM
Wells National Morgovia Mutual
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:40PM
Morgan Stanley Sears - bring back that Dean Witter magic.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:40PM
JPGoldmanStanleyAmericaWaLynchMuGroup
A wholly owned subsidiary of the United States Government.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:41PM
Goldman Sachs doesn't have toxic waste on their balance sheet? Where did you hear that gem, CNN?
Goldman Sachs just maintains they mark better than everyone else because they really know what it's worth.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:42PM
MASSIVE liquidation going on in Brazil.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:42PM
Tsvangirai. He would fit right in on wall street.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:43PM
Morgan Freeman. I love to take a bath in a casket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp0-yDJAtWQ
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:43PM
I say MS and GS take themselves private and give a big collective F U to the world. Come on, can you really imagine MS and GS bankers working under someone like Ken Lewis??
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:43PM
Too long, didn't read.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:44PM
We don't know what GS has on their books because they can't mark all the level 3 crap to market. Not to mention they're not exactly forthcoming about what their sitting on.
Also, I love how in a 'crisis' default risk becomes counterparty risk because, well, it sounds snappier.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:44PM
@7 - this has nothing to do with what Goldman has on its books. If you want an explanation for why GS and MS are in trouble, look at the money markets. After the Reserve Fund broke the buck yesterday, money market funds are going to be incredibly wary of lending to investment banks in the short term repo markets. The TED spread has spiked up to record levels, and that's another indicator.
This is a good ol-fashioned 1907-style money market panic, a credit crunch if you will. Goldman could be perfectly solvent but cannot stay in business if it can't access funds easily in the overnight markets. Remember, GS and MS don't have a stable deposit base like commercial banks do, so they are entirely dependent on the repo markets for funding.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:46PM
Morgan has knowledge of these two important facts:
1) never get involved in a land war in Asia
2) never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line
They had better open up their books to their shareholders (honestly, I mean) or start looking for a sugar daddy.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:46PM
@18 Nice. Thank you; changed my whole outlook.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:46PM
15, didn't goldman short the subprime mortgage market, what are they holding that is destroying them today, Lehman and Bear had massively Toxic crap on their books, they deserved to plummet, but I haven't heard of GS holding anything that would explain why they are down so much. I may have missed it but I was just wondering if there is any fundamental reason or specific holding that is causing the carnage today.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:46PM
Talk about end of period portfolio blowout.Those savvy mutual funds are finally capitulating, almost like they do into every Sept.30.So MS just goes back to it's 1998 lows? GS gives back all it's stock gains from 2005.They are still solid businesses.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:48PM
@19 - please explain why taking themselves private would do anything to ease the pressures that GS and MS are feeling in securing short-term funding on the money markets.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:49PM
Morgan Stanley should become the Glorious People's National Bank.
Posted by MostOffensive , Sep 17, 2008 1:50PM
Remember, Mack and Paulson are bff. MS advised on Freddie/Fannie and AIG. Therefore, Paulson gets to be CEO of Fed-owned MS.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:51PM
JP Goldgan Stantual LynchWells Brothersovia
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:51PM
I don't buy the short term funding story.
They can hand the fed a brown bag full of shit and get a loan
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:54PM
Federal JP Morgan Stanley Reserve - Holding company for all U.S. Financial Services Companies **
** Except for Lehman Brothers.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:54PM
Down 37% today after beating expectations? WTF. I smell uncovered shorts.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:54PM
International House of Pancakes Stanley
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:55PM
#29 you are wrong, MS did not advise Fannie Mac, Lazard was the sole advisor, I still say that it will be a smaller investment bank that merges with MS
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:57PM
@ 33 P-ew.
Posted by MostOffensive , Sep 17, 2008 1:57PM
Um no I'm actually not wrong. MS was the sole advisor to the FED (not frannie/freddie). Do they teach attention to detail over at Lazard? Or is that no longer valued in finance.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:57PM
one hand clapping
Posted by FUNdamental , Sep 17, 2008 1:58PM
34 - well done.
Maybe Goldman last one Stanley
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:58PM
#14 wins.....hilarious if it wasn't so frighteningly possible
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:58PM
@35 what does a smaller IB have to gain by a merger with MS? What would MS gain? Nothing.
I contend that MS is doing fine: the fear - panic - and shorts are killing it.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 1:58PM
@27 - it would break the negative feedback loop between CDS and stock prices. Once you can't look at the current price every 5 mins and freak out, you have to start looking at the fundamentals of these firms to evaluate their credit-worthiness. And their fundamentals are damn solid.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:00PM
#22 has the explanation spot on... Noone will lend to them because they are "stand-alone"
Regardless of how (low) risky their balance sheets are
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:00PM
They teach profitibility over at Lazard, I take it you are one of the firms that isn't profitable and you could only wish you could get a job at Lazard
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:00PM
They teach profitibility over at Lazard, I take it you are one of the firms that isn't profitable and you could only wish you could get a job at Lazard
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:01PM
They teach profitibility over at Lazard, I take it you are one of the firms that isn't profitable and you could only wish you could get a job at Lazard
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:01PM
Nomura Morgan.
Except it does sort of sound like a high-class imported hooker.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:02PM
They teach profitibility over at Lazard, I take it you are one of the firms that isn't profitable and you could only wish you could get a job at Lazard
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:02PM
Yahoo Finance has a video on their front page with the caption, Is your money market fund the next subprime, and the picture is of dollar bills on fire. Fucking financial "journalists" do more damage than the shorts. Then when people realize DB is legitimate news it gets flooded by bleeding heart socialists like last nights 400 comment AIG Clusterfuck. Even the WSJ blows now that Murdoch is changing it, I just canceled my subscription, any suggestions on what to get now. FT? Barrons? Economist?
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:02PM
@22 - but what about the businesses that can't be funded with a deposit base. Is GS really going to take deposit money for their prop trading? I think not.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:04PM
They teach profitibility over at Lazard, I take it you are one of the firms that isn't profitable and you could only wish you could get a job at Lazard
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:04PM
Oy My Balls
Posted by MostOffensive , Sep 17, 2008 2:05PM
@44-46, 48
Ever thought of learning to only click once?
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:05PM
Screwed, Inc.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:06PM
@53
apparently they don't teach that at lazard
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:08PM
@49...you didn't like the clusterfuck? It wasn't socialists but some asshat ranting about face cream.
Posted by FUNdamental , Sep 17, 2008 2:09PM
Wall st, too big to fail?
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:09PM
They should just pitch it all and call it Molson Golden. Or maybe, Golson Molden. Whatever.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:09PM
@55--or spelling. "Profitability," not "profitibility."
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:14PM
$20 says the "Lazard" poster is a Goldsmith Agio hack.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:14PM
Anyway, the end game is all the same: most of us are out of jobs. If not because the firm fails, because the ones left standing will be doing that, just standing.
If you're just now graduating with a precious MBA, I'd run for the hills.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:15PM
Goldmorgan....sounds more like a cheap german beer than a bank...damn germans..
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:17PM
Moldy Sachs.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:17PM
Goldmorgan....sounds more like a cheap german beer than a bank...damn germans..
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:17PM
Finally someone that talks sense!!
http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2008/09/17/ubs-cds-punishment-of-morgan-goldman-unreasonable/?mod=googlenews_barrons
Posted by MostOffensive , Sep 17, 2008 2:18PM
german beer or canadian beer? That is the only difference between Goldmorgan and Molson Golden.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:21PM
There's no security in these places...i got laid off from a CDO desk back when it started getting bad..luckily i found something in PE...but jeez now its really fucked. run for the hills..flippin burgers is more stable than this crap.
I'd go with MoreSach for the new name
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:24PM
Given the only people with liquidity right now are the large SWF's how about:
"Abu Dhabi Duo"
Chaired by Frederick F. Flintsone (the suave British accent lends him gravitas)
-C
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:26PM
@42 - good point. The feedback loop is in effect - not just stock and CDS prices, but also the idea that stock prices might start to spook GS/MS counterparties.
Still, a great deal of what's going on here is just a money market panic, and would be the same deal even if GS/MS were private - money market fund managers are lazy, do no research, and rely entirely on the ratings agencies. I don't think they're really making decisions based on stock prices or CDS. It's just that they have absolutely nothing to gain by lending to an investment bank at this point - no money market fund wants to break the buck. Screw fundamental analysis, these lemmings will do whatever it takes to cover their asses.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:35PM
@44, 45, 46 & 48
They obviously don't teach you how to read at Lazard and if you are the caliber of employee they hire then the firm is totally fucked.
"After submitting a comment it may take several minutes to appear. Please only submit your comment once."
Try to keep up.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:35PM
@50 - one part of the BofA-Merrill deal that got largely ignored is that apparently they can now use deposit based to fund investment banking operations.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:39PM
71...where does it say that? No way OCC or FDIC allows that.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:40PM
what's the difference between the reserve fund collapsing and sentinel a few months or a year back? why is everyone saying the first money market to fail is the reserve fund?
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:42PM
LOOK OUT WORLD!!! HERE COMES JIM CRAMER!
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:42PM
LOOK OUT WORLD!!! HERE COMES JIM CRAMER!
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:43PM
@71 That's the primary purpose for taking on a retail bank as a parter: to use the deposit base as a shore-up for leveraged investments. The problem is that ML failed to do anything reasonable with the retail brokerage shore-up, why would the BOA "crutch" be different? It wouldn't. Besides, BOA is going to regulate the use of their deposits as capital for leveraging, if they don't they're exposing their retail customers to a substantial amount of risk.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:45PM
72 - here's a source:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/banks-can-now-use-deposits-to-fund.html
73 - sentinel was not technically a money market fund, it was a "money market-like" fund for institutional investors. It was small, and it didn't follow all of the standard rules of money market funds.
Reserve fund is a very big deal because it's the first and oldest of all money market funds, it's huge in size, has plenty of individual investors' money, is supposedly managed very conservatively, and a 3% drawdown is unheard of in money market land.
The only other money market fund that has ever broken the buck was back in 1994, and that one was a small fund with mostly institutional investors.
This is uncharted territory for money markets.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:47PM
gotcha. thanks 77
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:49PM
Whats the word on PE regulations getting dropped?
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:51PM
@77...your source sucks...it does not state it anywhere in the FT article and the Federal Reserve does not have the authority unless it is the primary regulator...which it may be for BofA holding company and but not the deposit arm - that would be OCC...
Show me the f'ing reg or stipulation that the reg has been lifted to prove that.
naked capitalism is your source? Thats about as reliable as a Harlem crack whore.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:55PM
@80 - I wonder if a Harlem crack whore could get a payday loan at a lower rate than MS/GS can get funding on the money markets right now. Goldman needs to merge with a crack whore in order to survive.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:57PM
@80 - the quote "The Fed also suspended rules that prohibit banks from using deposits to fund their investment banking subsidiaries." is in the FT article. Maybe you need to pony up for a subscription?
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:58PM
@80 - the following quote "The Fed also suspended rules that prohibit banks from using deposits to fund their investment banking subsidiaries." is directly from the FT article. Maybe you need to pony up for a subscription?
source: www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f8834910-82aa-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:58PM
Stanley Morgan Joseph
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 2:58PM
@81...her earnings are more stable - and unless she has the HIV no asset write down needed!
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 3:09PM
@83...lay off the meth and stop clicking the mouse button multiple times.
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 3:47PM
Goldman Sack in the pocket protector of their ex Ceo
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 3:59PM
HSBC should definitely go for this deal. They´ve been trying to get into IB for years by doing it on their own and have failed miserably at making any significant progress in the league tables. If you see this as your weakness and have already poured millions into something you know isn´t working out, why not go for a top IB and get things going once and for all? It´s a golden opportunity and they would be fools not to do anything about it
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 4:02PM
HSBC should definitely go for this deal. They´ve been trying to get into IB for years by doing it on their own and have failed miserably at making any significant progress in the league tables. If you see this as your weakness and have already poured millions into something you know isn´t working out, why not go for a top IB and get things going once and for all? It´s a golden opportunity and they would be fools not to do anything about it
Posted by guest , Sep 17, 2008 4:06PM
89 Why do you think that someone who has failed miserably at Ibanking can succeed simply by buying an Ibank? Maybe they don't have the culture for it and should stick to what they're good at. Which is retail, HNW, small corporates, with emphasis on Asia.