Recent Blog Posts
-
The $4.5 Billion Dollar Bank Run
Nov 07 201111:20 am EDT -
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Merrill's Board: Asleep at the Wheel
With Stan O'Neal out the door, whither the board which supported all of his decisions? Peter Eavis has a good point today: Merrill Lynch's board is arguably just as culpable for the firm's atrocious results as the erstwhile CEO was.
For a long time before [its] April meeting, the board should have spotted that Merrill was becoming overexposed to CDOs. This summer, as the credit crunch began to bite, Merrill's exposure to CDOs was $40 billion, up massively from just over $1 billion 18 months earlier.
That growth should have been an immediate red flag to the audit and finance committees, because it had the power to severely damage Merrill's balance sheet...
Because CDOs never traded in liquid markets, there was always a danger that a bank would be stuck with them if it couldn't find sufficient buyers in a market downturn. To guard against this risk, a bank would try to avoid ever having too many CDOs on its books or it would take out insurance against losses on CDOs with financial instruments called derivatives.
If Merrill's audit and finance committees judged that the overall net increase in CDO exposure was not a big risk, they would have been reaching a very unorthodox conclusion, from a risk management point of view.
To increase CDO exposure from $1 billion to $40 billion in 18 months is insane, and is prima facie evidence that the board was asleep at the wheel: $40 billion is more than Merrill's entire book value. It's perfectly reasonable for a bank like Merrill to want to become a leader in CDOs. But becoming a leader in CDOs means being able to sell the bloody things; in reality, Merrill seems to have kept a large unhedged chunk of every CDO it underwrote. If it couldn't even offload this stuff to hedge funds, it was clearly out of its depth in the CDO market, and the board had both the ability and the obligation to force the firm to scale back.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.




