Since I enjoyed writing the last post so much, I've decided to continue to do so. It has proven to be a great way to help me put everything into perspective and it's been fascinating reading what everyone else thinks as well. Again, feel free to correct me and put in your two cents, as obviously, I am no expert. I'm just a girl who happens to be interested in the current state of the economy.
Last Sunday night, Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) were approved by the Fed to become bank holding firms, officially ending the era of the independent investment banking model on Wall Street. They will now be able to open their own commercial banking arms and take in deposits, which they can then use to back up their investment banking operations- as JP Morgan, Bank of America (BofA) etc already does- thus ending investor concerns about the sustainability of their business model model. They now also have permanent access to borrow federal money (instead of within the window temporarily opened for them) and can become a FDIC insured bank, which insures indivisuals up to $100,000 of bank deposits. The following day, MS announced that they were getting as much as $8.5 billion of cash injection from Japan's Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) in exchange for up to 20% equity stake in MS, further fortifying their position. I guess the deal with China fell through (or were the Chinese getting too greedy and the US govt didn't like that?). This is probably a better move anyway, since MUFG is the world's No. 2 bank by deposits, so surely it will help MS's transition into commercial banking go more smoothly. MS apparently already has about $36 billion in bank deposits from their private wealth management (PWM) business and are looking to expand into Asia. Or so, that's what CNBC said, but I didn't know PWM deposits count as bank deposits, but if they do, I guess this means that MS are looking to expand their PWM business in Asia. Or perhaps this $36 billion comes from their Utah-base industrial bank, which will be converting into a national banking association, names the Morgan Stanley Bank, National Association? Goldman Sachs' approach is must easier to understand (or so I think). They currently already have two deposit taking subsidiaries, with about $20 billion in deposits, and plan to create a new one called GS Bank USA, that will have more than $150 billion of assets.
This conversion is not all good and dandy though. Becoming a bank holding also puts both banks under more intense scrutiny and regulations from the Fed, which will probably limit their proprietary trading capacities (the division where they trade company assets like a hedge fund, taking on great risks), which happens to be one of their most lucrative divisions. I don't know about MS but personally I'm feeling quite optimistic about GS. On Tuesday, Warren Buffet invested $5 billion in GS preferred stocks and will also recieved warrants to purchase another $5 billion in common stock within the next 5 years- effectively give him about a 10% stake in GS. They also raised another $5 billion from a public stock offering, all within a few days. This and Buffet's approval, which in the investment world is the equivalent of getting Anna Wintour's approval in the fashion world, make me quite optimistic. Besides, I have always had great confidence in the power of brand image, Buffet just likes to call it "franchise."
On Thursday, Washington Mutual (WaMu), was seized by the FDIC, making it the biggest banking failure ever. Within 9 days, customers withdrew about $16.7 million in deposits from WaMu, literally breaking the bank. JP Morgan picked up WaMu's banking assets for only $1.9 billion. JP has had its eye on WaMu's operations in CA and FL for a while, and had offered for them in March, but was rejected in favor of a capital injection from TPG private equity (whoops!). It seems like JP got yet another bargain. JP is not the only one who got a sweet deal in all this however. It appears that Mr. Alan Fishman, WaMu's CEO for only 2 weeks, is eligible for $11.6 million in cash severance AND get's to keep his $7.5 million signing bonus. Not bad for two weeks worth of work.
It seems that the financial tsunami is expanding abroad too. Fortis, the largest Belgian financial-services firm, just received an $11.2 billion euro bailout from Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in exchange for 49% stakes in the Fortis in their respective countries. It's almost like the European version of AIG.
The next bank on the chopping block is Wachovia- funny since a week ago they were in talks to merge with MS. Citigroup and Wells Fargo are currently in a bidding war over a possible emergency takeover of Wachovia, since it's stocks dropped dramatically on Friday.
While all this was going on, politicians were hard at "work" trying to get the $700 billion bailout bill to pass Congress. I'm not that into politics, but even I tuned in Wednesday morning to hear Paulson and Bernanke defend their case to the people at Congress. I'm not sure how politics usually go, but to my untrained ears, it sounded like a verbal merry-go-around, placing blames and trying to trick each other into saying something wrong. A members ask a simple yes/no question, Paulson/Bernanke would answer in a very roundabout way which prompts the member to ask, "so was that a yes or a no?" to which they'd repeat what they'd just said again. This would go on until the time is up or someone finally gives up from the frustration of it all. No wonder it takes them months to get a bill to past. I'd imagined it to be more diplomatic and sophisticated. Anyway, I think the gist was that people didn't think taxpayers should have to bailout Wall Street (and individual homeowners) for taking too on stupid risks. But they had to do something. So they moved onto putting clauses on the plan, for oversight to monitor the use of the money, a cap on CEO pays and for warrants in companies who will be using this plan, so taxpayers would at least get something back for the $700 billion they spent. There was a gliche, when a bunch of Republicans rejected the plan and proposed some other plan to privately insure mortgage backed securities (there was shouting involved!), but it sounds like they're back on track now and a bill will be voted on Monday.
Personally I don't know what to think about this bill. On one hand, I don't think tax payers should have to bail out people who took on unnecessary stupid risks and expect everyone else to wipe up their mess when things go down just because the mess is big enough. As if our future generations didn't already have a big enough debt to clear up already, with the war and the social security problem etc. but now we have this. On the other hand, just like a bad trend, someone has to step in and put a stop to it before it spreads through the population. With the newly added clauses, it's the next best step there is. By taking the distressed debts out of "weak" hands and into "strong" hands, they might even make money in the future when the housing prices go back up! Besides, if the likes of Paulson, Bernanke and Buffet, says this is a sound plan, who am I to gainsay the experts?
Saturday, 27 September 2008
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Claudine Pumps by Coach
My first reaction upon seeing this season's peep-toe winter booties was EW. That is just unnatural, completely against the laws and purpose of boots! Your toes will definitely freeze off if you wear this in winter! 
And so when I first saw these Coach Claudine pumps, I immediately put a no to it. Why would they ruin a perfectly nice pair of pumps and put a random peep-toe on it? 
I wasn't even swayed when I saw my favourite Gossip Girl, B, wearing them on the set. To be honest, this is not one of her best outfits. To begin with it doesn't look very flattering on her. Her waist looks big (even though it's belted) and the length of her skirt makes her look short (or is it this picture?). Her top looks summery while her scarf and skirt looks wintery. The shoes is just the child of both these looks.
But then I stared at the picture of these pumps some more and it really started to grow on me. The masculine Oxford style is made softened by the satin bow and the slim and elegant shape of the heel. The mini platform in the front makes these four inch pumps more comfortable and wearable (or so I hope!). The combination of suede, satin and patent leather is very clever. The patent is even neatly placed to wrap around the suede parts to protect it from dirt! The whole package is just very nice!
As for the peep toe, I guess in the world of fashion, there is no such thing as being weather appropriate. I can always wear colored stockings inside for warmth and some interesting color. And if you try to imagine these pumps without the peep toes, you must admit, it IS missing out something. Besides, it looks like peep-toe oxford booties are here to stay, judging from the S/S 09 Burberry Prorsum runway.
When it comes down to it, these are definitely trend shoes and not "investment" shoes. Personally, even though I'm coming around to it, I'm still not sure if they're not too weird for wear. What do you think? Is this an embraceable trend or should we shun it aside and hope it goes away?
Image Source: Coach.com
And so when I first saw these Coach Claudine pumps, I immediately put a no to it. Why would they ruin a perfectly nice pair of pumps and put a random peep-toe on it? 
I wasn't even swayed when I saw my favourite Gossip Girl, B, wearing them on the set. To be honest, this is not one of her best outfits. To begin with it doesn't look very flattering on her. Her waist looks big (even though it's belted) and the length of her skirt makes her look short (or is it this picture?). Her top looks summery while her scarf and skirt looks wintery. The shoes is just the child of both these looks.But then I stared at the picture of these pumps some more and it really started to grow on me. The masculine Oxford style is made softened by the satin bow and the slim and elegant shape of the heel. The mini platform in the front makes these four inch pumps more comfortable and wearable (or so I hope!). The combination of suede, satin and patent leather is very clever. The patent is even neatly placed to wrap around the suede parts to protect it from dirt! The whole package is just very nice!
As for the peep toe, I guess in the world of fashion, there is no such thing as being weather appropriate. I can always wear colored stockings inside for warmth and some interesting color. And if you try to imagine these pumps without the peep toes, you must admit, it IS missing out something. Besides, it looks like peep-toe oxford booties are here to stay, judging from the S/S 09 Burberry Prorsum runway.
When it comes down to it, these are definitely trend shoes and not "investment" shoes. Personally, even though I'm coming around to it, I'm still not sure if they're not too weird for wear. What do you think? Is this an embraceable trend or should we shun it aside and hope it goes away?
Image Source: Coach.com
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Smart Notes - 9/23/08
1. Eli Manning: Game manager? Sportscenter and all the highlights showed Eli's impressive long pass on 3rd and 10 in overtime against the Bengals. But what impressed me was that immediately after that pass -- where the receiver had to toe the sideline to stay inbounds and the referee called it a catch -- Eli did not miss a beat: he hustled his teammates to the line to quickly run and play and avoid review of the play. This is Eli growing in his self-awareness. And the Giants got the play off without any review of the catch.
2. The rise of the terrible spread team. I forecast this day some time ago, but this year's college football season has wowed me with the number of just awful spread teams. Now, there's some good ones: Florida has great talent, and just about every top team has some kind of "spread" element to their gameplan. But there's a ton of just awful spread teams. This topic deserves a much more in depth treatment, but the basic gist is what I forecast a few years ago: the offense just isn't an equalizer anymore, but instead more of an amplifier. If you have great athletes you can isolate them in space, but if you don't then you're just giving them one-on-one matchups they can't win and asking your quarterback to play perfect or you can't win.
But the biggest reason is simply that everybody is doing it and there's just not much novelty to it. And it's not like you can fool a defense with some dizzying array of spread formations when each guy on defense played against spread teams for four years in high school and every week in college. That said, this also makes the cries from these teams and their coaches that there's a "steep learning curve" with their spread offense ring rather hollow. How much different is it to tell guys to line up differently and read the defensive end on the zone-read? There's lots of teams who successfully do that who use it only sparingly; it's unconvincing when teams that rely heavily on the zone-read and zone options claim that they need more time to teach it.
3. Wildcat, meet the Patriots. There's plenty of buzz going around about the Patriots losing big to the Dolphins. And there's lots of buzz that the Dolphins used a funky formation to do it. This buzz isn't all positive, as for some reason NFL guys (announcers, everybody) can only act derisively when they see something that strikes them as a "college formation" or part a "college offense." (Nevermind that Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense began as a "college offense" at Stanford.) I generally take the view that the NFL guys actually are right when they say their game is more complex and intricate than the college game, largely because they have near infinite resources and time to devote to those things. (And most every NFL game is a close one.) But it's like these NFL guys failed to see a single college game over the past three years.
If they had, they might have realized that what the Dolphins did against the Patriots was employ the "Wildcat" formation, made famous by Arkansas which used it with Darren McFadden running the show. The basis for the set is a single quarterback -- actually the running back -- and another running back who goes in motion to either run or fake a jet sweep. The other reason it is unforgiveable that these commentators can't figure this out is that this is not a bolt out of the blue: The quarterbacks coach for the Dolphins is David Lee, who was the offensive coordinator for the Arkansas Razorbacks last season under Houston Nutt. Indeed, I will let him explain the Wildcat series, in a video the Patriots obviously had not seen:
Now, the common wisdom among these NFL guys now is that this was a one-week fad, if the Dolphins even try to use it next week it will be snuffed out because coaches around the league have analyzed this, diagnosed it, and will annihilate it if Miami ever tries to use it again. Maybe so. But I wouldn't be on it. Of course this is not an every down thing (unless Ronnie Brown starts throwing twenty passes a game), but the reason this worked -- unlike some other NFL experiments with the zone-read or other gun styles -- is that this is an actual series rather than just a play or two. That's obviously the case because, as Lee explains in the video, it hinges on being a series rather than just a "good play." And the fact that it is a series makes it a self-contained offense in itself, as the series anticipates a defense's adjustments. Maybe it won't work, but I'd be surprised if it is as useless as these talking heads seem to think it will be. Just ask the Pats.
2. The rise of the terrible spread team. I forecast this day some time ago, but this year's college football season has wowed me with the number of just awful spread teams. Now, there's some good ones: Florida has great talent, and just about every top team has some kind of "spread" element to their gameplan. But there's a ton of just awful spread teams. This topic deserves a much more in depth treatment, but the basic gist is what I forecast a few years ago: the offense just isn't an equalizer anymore, but instead more of an amplifier. If you have great athletes you can isolate them in space, but if you don't then you're just giving them one-on-one matchups they can't win and asking your quarterback to play perfect or you can't win.
But the biggest reason is simply that everybody is doing it and there's just not much novelty to it. And it's not like you can fool a defense with some dizzying array of spread formations when each guy on defense played against spread teams for four years in high school and every week in college. That said, this also makes the cries from these teams and their coaches that there's a "steep learning curve" with their spread offense ring rather hollow. How much different is it to tell guys to line up differently and read the defensive end on the zone-read? There's lots of teams who successfully do that who use it only sparingly; it's unconvincing when teams that rely heavily on the zone-read and zone options claim that they need more time to teach it.
3. Wildcat, meet the Patriots. There's plenty of buzz going around about the Patriots losing big to the Dolphins. And there's lots of buzz that the Dolphins used a funky formation to do it. This buzz isn't all positive, as for some reason NFL guys (announcers, everybody) can only act derisively when they see something that strikes them as a "college formation" or part a "college offense." (Nevermind that Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense began as a "college offense" at Stanford.) I generally take the view that the NFL guys actually are right when they say their game is more complex and intricate than the college game, largely because they have near infinite resources and time to devote to those things. (And most every NFL game is a close one.) But it's like these NFL guys failed to see a single college game over the past three years.
If they had, they might have realized that what the Dolphins did against the Patriots was employ the "Wildcat" formation, made famous by Arkansas which used it with Darren McFadden running the show. The basis for the set is a single quarterback -- actually the running back -- and another running back who goes in motion to either run or fake a jet sweep. The other reason it is unforgiveable that these commentators can't figure this out is that this is not a bolt out of the blue: The quarterbacks coach for the Dolphins is David Lee, who was the offensive coordinator for the Arkansas Razorbacks last season under Houston Nutt. Indeed, I will let him explain the Wildcat series, in a video the Patriots obviously had not seen:
Now, the common wisdom among these NFL guys now is that this was a one-week fad, if the Dolphins even try to use it next week it will be snuffed out because coaches around the league have analyzed this, diagnosed it, and will annihilate it if Miami ever tries to use it again. Maybe so. But I wouldn't be on it. Of course this is not an every down thing (unless Ronnie Brown starts throwing twenty passes a game), but the reason this worked -- unlike some other NFL experiments with the zone-read or other gun styles -- is that this is an actual series rather than just a play or two. That's obviously the case because, as Lee explains in the video, it hinges on being a series rather than just a "good play." And the fact that it is a series makes it a self-contained offense in itself, as the series anticipates a defense's adjustments. Maybe it won't work, but I'd be surprised if it is as useless as these talking heads seem to think it will be. Just ask the Pats.
Monday, 22 September 2008
Milan S/S 09: Burberry Prorsum
I love Christopher Bailey. He revamped the Burberry checks and made them cool again and he's just looks like such a cutie! But even that didn't stop me from being disappointed in his latest collection. It was a depressing show.
The models with their long trench coats and floppy hats almost look like those creepy nudists on the streets. The dreary colors didn't help (I thought it was supposed to be a spring/summer collection?). I could see some bits and pieces of the effortlessly chic look here and there, with the long cardigans and skinny pants (left), but the rest kind of just blended together into a muddy haze. The designs were not bad, but it was just not very interesting or inspiring. It was like there were 52 versions of the same look. Oh wait, that's not quite true. One model stuck out in particular- in addition to being drenched upon, she looked like she took an extra role in the mud.... and accidentally got dead leaves and branches stuck on her coat (right).
Oh and check out the shoes. It appears that not only do we now have peep-toe oxford shoes, but we will have peep-toe-sling-back oxford shoes very soon too! More on how I feel about these later.......As for the color of these shoes, it is absolutely ugh, but I suppose then you wouldn't have to worry about getting it dirty from rolling in the mud!
Image Source: Style.com
The models with their long trench coats and floppy hats almost look like those creepy nudists on the streets. The dreary colors didn't help (I thought it was supposed to be a spring/summer collection?). I could see some bits and pieces of the effortlessly chic look here and there, with the long cardigans and skinny pants (left), but the rest kind of just blended together into a muddy haze. The designs were not bad, but it was just not very interesting or inspiring. It was like there were 52 versions of the same look. Oh wait, that's not quite true. One model stuck out in particular- in addition to being drenched upon, she looked like she took an extra role in the mud.... and accidentally got dead leaves and branches stuck on her coat (right).
Oh and check out the shoes. It appears that not only do we now have peep-toe oxford shoes, but we will have peep-toe-sling-back oxford shoes very soon too! More on how I feel about these later.......As for the color of these shoes, it is absolutely ugh, but I suppose then you wouldn't have to worry about getting it dirty from rolling in the mud! Image Source: Style.com
Emmy Awards 2008
OK, honestly I wasn't interested in the Emmy's this year (because there is simply so many more interesting news right now, like the financial news and the China milk scandal.) But the one thing that I did want to know about the Emmy's was that Tina Fey, Alec Baldman and 30 Rock won four 'big' awards -so yay for them!Sunday, 21 September 2008
Ctrl BG: A Shortcut to Financial News 9/22
It’s not about fashion, but the state of the economy is still something that concerns everyone and I just thought it would be interesting to have something a little bit different on this blog once in a while. I’m sure I’m not qualified to comment since I probably don’t have nor understand all the facts of the situation, but it never hurts to share some thoughts right? So here are some thoughts on the last tumultuous week.
Personally I was shocked by the events of last Sunday. I knew that Lehman Brothers was in troubled waters, but I thought it was only going to be bought out like Bear Stearns was, by Bank of America or Barclays. Never in a million years did I think that it would go bankrupt (perhaps a strategy by Barclays so then they can buy the Lehman assets they want on the cheap, as they are doing now?). Instead of bailing Lehman out, BofA bought Merrill Lynch instead that night. At that point, I was vaguely aware that ML was not doing so well, but I didn’t know it had reached this stage yet. Apparently a sudden “evaporation of liquidity” (whatever that means), does that to banks. Who knew BofA was so strong? As I recall, they were the first to be hit by the Credit Crunch last year, with their takeover of Countrywide (another Fannie/Freddie-esque home loan bank) and huge write downs and lay-offs. As it turns out, Countrywide might be a good buy after all now that the competition has been weeded out somewhat and BofA is as strong as ever with the financial backing of their commercial banking side. With ML joining their team, their investment banking side is also going to strengthen up- by a lot. All in all, it was quite a traumatizing Sunday. It was like saying that Gucci went bankrupt and Prada got bought out and merged with Coach- all in one day.
Everything went down like dominos after that. The stock markets worldwide went down. AIG and Washington Mutual struggled to stay afloat. It was a good thing that the government stepped in with an 85 billion dollar loan in exchange for 79.9% of AIG, when they did (after Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan balked at the idea). With their wide range of businesses (mutual funds, insurances etc) worldwide, it would’ve been devastating. It would be as if LVMH declared they were in trouble! I’m not sure how I feel about the government using tax payer’s money to save a private institution, but I guess somehow had to do it. Can’t let LVMH fall! As for Washington Mutual (a.k.a. WaMu), I don’t feel too much for them, since they’re not exactly a household name (for me anyway, a bit like not everyone knows who Bottega Veneta is), but they’re currently trying to auction off some parts of itself.
The two remaining independent investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, were also under attack against their business model this week, even though both posted higher than expected earnings (yes, I mean profits!). It appears that many people now believe that an investment bank cannot survive without a steady cash flow from a commercial banking arm. Throughout the week, both banks said that they were committed to remaining independent, repeating that it is not the business model but the execution that counts. However, Morgan Stanley has been under pressure the most. It is as if because people believe it will fall, they are making it fall by shorting their stock, pushing down their stock prices (and thus the SEC ban on the short selling of selected stocks for two weeks). They are currently in talks with the Chinese government for a large capital infusion (they are going to need a BIG one) and with Wachovia to merge. I think a merger between these two would more aptly epitomize, “Target acquiring Neiman Marcus,” as Leveraged Sellout had used for the BofA and ML merger.
On the other hand, I am a sucker for brand image and I cannot begin to fathom the possibility of GS giving into market pressure and merging with a commercial bank. It’s not as if they are doing very badly. They’ve consistently reported profits throughout the economic turmoil so far- even if it IS less so then years before. At least it’s not a loss! I’m sure that there may be write downs cleverly hidden in their balance sheet (for both banks!), but it cannot be nearly as bad as Lehman and ML right? Yes, I do realize I am beginning to sound a bit naive, but it would be like Hermes giving into market pressure and start mass producing Birkin bags with machines! Besides, shouldn’t it be innocent until proven guilty?
Towards the end of the week, the SEC finally stepped in to temporarily ban the short selling of selected stocks for two weeks (to stop the prices from tumbling down) and the government came up with a plan to deal with this whole toxic debt problem. I’m not sure exactly how this plan is supposed to work but it sounds like they’re going to use $700 billion to buy back all the toxic debts and give financial institutions a fresh start. Sounds like a good idea, they can't bail companies out one at a time as they fall after all, better to target the root of the problem. Not that I know where the government is getting that kind of money from (aren’t they already in debt from the war?) and what they’re going to DO with those bad debt once they buy it. Surely they cannot just dissolve it and let everyone who did not meet their mortgage payments off the hook? Why were people lending money to people who clearly cannot repay the loan to begin with?
Ok, now I’m heading into territory where I really do not have a good grasp on. So I’m going to shut up now and go back to admiring the runways of Milan fashion week. Just thought I’d give financial journalism/blogging a hand.
****
Scratch that. It seems that Target is not acquiring Neiman Marcus anymore but Hermes is going to start mass producing Birkin bags- in their own way. MS and GS both just got approval from the Fed to switch from being an investment bank to a bank-holding firm i.e. they are now allowed to open up their own commercial banks and take in deposits. MS will probably not need the Chinese capital infusion anymore either. There are now officially no more major independent investment banks in the US. What is it with Sundays and groundbreaking news?
Personally I was shocked by the events of last Sunday. I knew that Lehman Brothers was in troubled waters, but I thought it was only going to be bought out like Bear Stearns was, by Bank of America or Barclays. Never in a million years did I think that it would go bankrupt (perhaps a strategy by Barclays so then they can buy the Lehman assets they want on the cheap, as they are doing now?). Instead of bailing Lehman out, BofA bought Merrill Lynch instead that night. At that point, I was vaguely aware that ML was not doing so well, but I didn’t know it had reached this stage yet. Apparently a sudden “evaporation of liquidity” (whatever that means), does that to banks. Who knew BofA was so strong? As I recall, they were the first to be hit by the Credit Crunch last year, with their takeover of Countrywide (another Fannie/Freddie-esque home loan bank) and huge write downs and lay-offs. As it turns out, Countrywide might be a good buy after all now that the competition has been weeded out somewhat and BofA is as strong as ever with the financial backing of their commercial banking side. With ML joining their team, their investment banking side is also going to strengthen up- by a lot. All in all, it was quite a traumatizing Sunday. It was like saying that Gucci went bankrupt and Prada got bought out and merged with Coach- all in one day.
Everything went down like dominos after that. The stock markets worldwide went down. AIG and Washington Mutual struggled to stay afloat. It was a good thing that the government stepped in with an 85 billion dollar loan in exchange for 79.9% of AIG, when they did (after Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan balked at the idea). With their wide range of businesses (mutual funds, insurances etc) worldwide, it would’ve been devastating. It would be as if LVMH declared they were in trouble! I’m not sure how I feel about the government using tax payer’s money to save a private institution, but I guess somehow had to do it. Can’t let LVMH fall! As for Washington Mutual (a.k.a. WaMu), I don’t feel too much for them, since they’re not exactly a household name (for me anyway, a bit like not everyone knows who Bottega Veneta is), but they’re currently trying to auction off some parts of itself.
The two remaining independent investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, were also under attack against their business model this week, even though both posted higher than expected earnings (yes, I mean profits!). It appears that many people now believe that an investment bank cannot survive without a steady cash flow from a commercial banking arm. Throughout the week, both banks said that they were committed to remaining independent, repeating that it is not the business model but the execution that counts. However, Morgan Stanley has been under pressure the most. It is as if because people believe it will fall, they are making it fall by shorting their stock, pushing down their stock prices (and thus the SEC ban on the short selling of selected stocks for two weeks). They are currently in talks with the Chinese government for a large capital infusion (they are going to need a BIG one) and with Wachovia to merge. I think a merger between these two would more aptly epitomize, “Target acquiring Neiman Marcus,” as Leveraged Sellout had used for the BofA and ML merger.
On the other hand, I am a sucker for brand image and I cannot begin to fathom the possibility of GS giving into market pressure and merging with a commercial bank. It’s not as if they are doing very badly. They’ve consistently reported profits throughout the economic turmoil so far- even if it IS less so then years before. At least it’s not a loss! I’m sure that there may be write downs cleverly hidden in their balance sheet (for both banks!), but it cannot be nearly as bad as Lehman and ML right? Yes, I do realize I am beginning to sound a bit naive, but it would be like Hermes giving into market pressure and start mass producing Birkin bags with machines! Besides, shouldn’t it be innocent until proven guilty?
Towards the end of the week, the SEC finally stepped in to temporarily ban the short selling of selected stocks for two weeks (to stop the prices from tumbling down) and the government came up with a plan to deal with this whole toxic debt problem. I’m not sure exactly how this plan is supposed to work but it sounds like they’re going to use $700 billion to buy back all the toxic debts and give financial institutions a fresh start. Sounds like a good idea, they can't bail companies out one at a time as they fall after all, better to target the root of the problem. Not that I know where the government is getting that kind of money from (aren’t they already in debt from the war?) and what they’re going to DO with those bad debt once they buy it. Surely they cannot just dissolve it and let everyone who did not meet their mortgage payments off the hook? Why were people lending money to people who clearly cannot repay the loan to begin with?
Ok, now I’m heading into territory where I really do not have a good grasp on. So I’m going to shut up now and go back to admiring the runways of Milan fashion week. Just thought I’d give financial journalism/blogging a hand.
****
Scratch that. It seems that Target is not acquiring Neiman Marcus anymore but Hermes is going to start mass producing Birkin bags- in their own way. MS and GS both just got approval from the Fed to switch from being an investment bank to a bank-holding firm i.e. they are now allowed to open up their own commercial banks and take in deposits. MS will probably not need the Chinese capital infusion anymore either. There are now officially no more major independent investment banks in the US. What is it with Sundays and groundbreaking news?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
