Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm 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
Bloomberg Buying Bloomberg?
Blind trusts are popular with politicians: the idea is that the politician in question can't have any conflicts of interest with respect to his investments if he doesn't know what his investments are. As a result, you're not going to find blind trusts ever making the headlines: if everybody knows what the trust is investing in, then that defeats the purpose.
Yet:
A blind trust run by Mayor Bloomberg is willing to pay between $4.5 billion and $5 billion to buy Merrill Lynch's 20 percent stake in Bloomberg LP, sources tell The Post.
Bloomberg's job is mayor of New York, he's not a fund manager: the blind trust is run on his behalf, it's not run by him. But since the whole point of a blind trust is that the politician in question can't tell it what to invest in, what's going on here? I simply can't believe that the people actually running the trust would spend $5 billion on buying a 20% stake in Bloomberg LP without Bloomberg himself being involved in the decision.
It makes sense that decisions related to Bloomberg's ownership stake in Bloomberg LP might be exempt from the other blind trust rules. After all, since Bloomberg already owns 80% of the company, he's plenty conflicted on that front already.
But it also makes sense that the amount of money Bloomberg's willing to pay for the 20% of Bloomberg LP he doesn't already own would be affected by the amount of money he has at his disposal, the ease with which he can liquidate his assets, and the discount to fair value that he'd have to accept if he wanted to raise $5 billion in cash in a hurry. After all, even if you're a billionaire, coming up with that kind of money is non-trivial.
The numbers being bandied about by the Post would value Bloomberg LP (and, therefore, Bloomberg himself, if he owns all the company and has no debt to speak of) at somewhere between $22.5 billion and $25 billion. Forbes pegged Bloomberg's wealth at $11.5 billion this year, up from $5.5 billion last year. Next year, is that number going to double again?
(Of course, Bloomberg could, if he wanted, try to borrow the $5 billion, rather than pay in cash. Hey - maybe he could ask Merrill Lynch for a loan!)
