Jump to content

Bank of America - Merrill Lynch Merger


peaceloveunderstanding

Recommended Posts

You're missing my core point....no one particular group is to blame. I provided a list of over 20 groups I would blame that ranged from individuals to government agencies.

You asked for an example of an advocacy group that I would assign blame to, and I provided you an example. I think you would have a hard time explaining how policy encouraged by regulators that pressured lenders to make mortgages to people with lower credit scores if they were a minority isn't somewhat responsible for the rise in foreclosures that is a part of this mess.

You seemed to have zeroed in your blame on one particular person and the catch-all term "corportate greed". I'm simply arguing that its a little more complex than that. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 598
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The NYTimes is reporting rumors that Morgan Stanley and Wachovia are in merger talks. This is like a juicy soap opera.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/business/18morgan.html?hp

Hmmm...interesting read. From the talks of the article, it seems that Morgan Stanley would be acquired by Wachovia. That would be good for Charlotte, but MS has a higher Market Cap that WB. I don't see how they could do an all stock acquisition without either raising more capital, which I guess is possible if investors like the idea. I assume WB doesn't have several $B laying around to finance this purchse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is the first time that I think I have heard the meltdown we are seeing on Wall Street, the collapse of the mortgage market, and the disappearance of 150 year old banks is being caused by African American advocacy. I have seen the Black population blamed for a lot of things but that is a new one for me. There is something contradictory about the poorest and most powerless group of people in America being responsible for taking down America's financial institutions.

I tend to believe it was due to the removal of depression era protections placed on the banking system, by Phil Gramm in 1999 that ended a lot of restrictions on how the different banks could deal with each other. i.e. banks were given the freedoms they had in the 1920s and similar results have now resulted from it. The elimination of these regulations along with throwing the average person into this cauldron who still trusted their bank, was a huge recipe for disaster.

Ugh. I'm starting to feel like a fool for giving a rip about an argument taking place on the internet, but Phil Gramm (and only Phil Gramm's - nobody else is allowed to take credit!)'s GLBA creation did not simply undo decades of banking/securities/insurance regulations. It merely broke down barriers between the three industries that had existed since the 30's. In your insistence upon GLBA being the root of the crisis, you ignore the fact that an entire regime of capital adequacy requirements and industry standards came into existence and, in fact, evolved over the intervening time frame. If you balance the removal of the barrier between banks, securities underwriting and issuances and insurance against the evolution of banking regulations since the depression, there can be no question that the regulations underlying safety and soundness are infinitely better than they were in the aftermath of the depression. At some point, I feel like the uninformed will have to take the word of the informed.

But for GLBA, this crisis would have happened just the same. The difference is that it would be taking down Solomon Smith Barney and any other investment bank that did or would have existed, but for its affiliation with a robust deposit base.

Also - for what it's worth, atlrvr made a distinct point about ACORN and other Community Reinvestment Act-prompted initiatives solely to say that it wasn't just spoiled Republican investment bankers pusing for more and more (and riskier) originations. I think it was a little dramatic to invoke black oppression to oppose his point outside of its merits. I also question your generalization that African-Americans are the "poorest and most powerless" group in the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...interesting read. From the talks of the article, it seems that Morgan Stanley would be acquired by Wachovia. That would be good for Charlotte, but MS has a higher Market Cap that WB. I don't see how they could do an all stock acquisition without either raising more capital, which I guess is possible if investors like the idea. I assume WB doesn't have several $B laying around to finance this purchse?

You're absolutely right. WB doesn't have the cash or the stock to leverage. I think MS would be the acquirer but, seeing how the investment banks absolutely need the depository institutions to survive (or at least this is perceived by the market - and when 2 weeks of perception can break your back, that's all that matters) I foresee Wachovia talent remaining in control of the retail side (including the brokerage) and Morgan Stanley talent remaining in control of the securities side. Probably would be a similar arrangement to the BofA/Merrill deal. I can't imagine Wachovia making a call to a potential acquirer to sell itself and even consider ceding control of the retail lines and/or the headquarters. I would expect a retail bank executive to be CEO. When you think of it, Steel sounds like a great candidate for head of the combined entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNBC is reporting breaking news this morning that Morgan Stanley has entered into formal talks with Wachovia to do a merger deal. MS is also still in talks with Citi and a bank controlled by the communist party in China but it appears they are moving towards Wachovia. It's not clear what this deal might involve since MS is worth more than Wachovia.

Finally MS is blaming their stock value loss solely on short sellers who have been driving down their stock price which was made possible by rules preventing this that expired this summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNBC is reporting breaking news this morning that Morgan Stanley has entered into formal talks with Wachovia to do a merger deal. MS is also still in talks with Citi and a bank controlled by the communist party in China but it appears they are moving towards Wachovia. It's not clear what this deal might involve since MS is worth more than Wachovia.

Finally MS is blaming their stock value loss solely on short sellers who have been driving down their stock price which was made possible by rules preventing this that expired this summer.

It looks like Citi's out and the Wachovia talks are advancing. Futures show 15% higher open for WB and 10% lower open for MS. Thinking this might be a MS acquisition. Also - I had no idea that MS's CEO grew up in Mooresville. (Was this posted earlier or did I read it elsewhere?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like some others, the intracacies of the financial markets is not my strongsuit, but I would think that most of this mess (~95%) falls on Greenspan & the Fed. He has already admitted some responsibility for not forseeing the impact of shakey lending practices, but at the time when some called for more protection, Greenspan was all hands off. I do think that we can learn from some of the fallout. Three points:

(1) When you have mortgages being peddled by brokers, and those loans are repackaged, bought and sold as 'securities' on Wall Street, ALL risk is transferred to the investor and away from the the person who would otherwise be responsible. The original backer of the loans now has zero responsibility for the initial risk, which is then spread to potential investors all over the world. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the problem with that arrangement. The Fed should have never allowed this to occur.

(2) Most corporate CEOs are given exhorbitant salaries. I don't have too much issue with them getting paid handsomely for the tremendous responsibility of running a multi $B business. The problem lies where the CEOs are given incentives for large stock gains, but not penalized for losses they inflict with a bad deal. Thain, the Merrill CEO is going have a nice golden parachute to relax on when this is over, while his shareholders and employees are left holding stock certificates worth a fraction of their value... not to mention those at Lehman, etc. I'm not sure if there is anything appropriate to do with respect to salaries from a regulation perspective, but when the leaders of these companies are not penalized for risky behavior, and potentially backed up by the federal goverment when things fall apart (moral hazard), there is a problem.

(3) The fact that several large commercial banks, which are more regulated than investment banks like Lehman and Merrill, are buying up these almost worthless IBs, reinforces the argument that the government should play a more significant role in monitoring Wall Street.

I would say the lesson here is the government should provide more sensible, consistent regulation of the markets to prevent the most irresponsible behavior on Wall Street on the front end and protect the tax payers on the back end is a better policy than laissez faire, 'the market will fix everything' philosophy followed by a financial meltdown, taxpayer overexposure and goverment overreaction.

This is a pretty funny cartoon on the BA/ML affair:

toon-2008-09-17_2_.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like some others, the intracacies of the financial markets is not my strongsuit, but I would think that most of this mess (~95%) falls on Greenspan & the Fed. He has already admitted some responsibility for not forseeing the impact of shakey lending practices, but at the time when some called for more protection, Greenspan was all hands off. I do think that we can learn from some of the fallout. Three points:

(1) When you have mortgages being peddled by brokers, and those loans are repackaged, bought and sold as 'securities' on Wall Street, ALL risk is transferred to the investor and away from the the person who would otherwise be responsible. The original backer of the loans now has zero responsibility for the initial risk, which is then spread to potential investors all over the world. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the problem with that arrangement. The Fed should have never allowed this to occur.

(2) Most corporate CEOs are given exhorbitant salaries. I don't have too much issue with them getting paid handsomely for the tremendous responsibility of running a multi $B business. The problem lies where the CEOs are given incentives for large stock gains, but not penalized for losses they inflict with a bad deal. Thain, the Merrill CEO is going have a nice golden parachute to relax on when this is over, while his shareholders and employees are left holding stock certificates worth a fraction of their value... not to mention those at Lehman, etc. I'm not sure if there is anything appropriate to do with respect to salaries from a regulation perspective, but when the leaders of these companies are not penalized for risky behavior, and potentially backed up by the federal goverment when things fall apart (moral hazard), there is a problem.

(3) The fact that several large commercial banks, which are more regulated than investment banks like Lehman and Merrill, are buying up these almost worthless IBs, reinforces the argument that the government should play a more significant role in monitoring Wall Street.

I would say the lesson here is the government should provide more sensible, consistent regulation of the markets to prevent the most irresponsible behavior on Wall Street on the front end and protect the tax payers on the back end is a better policy than laissez faire, 'the market will fix everything' philosophy followed by a financial meltdown, taxpayer overexposure and goverment overreaction.

Just for fun...

(1) - What's the problem with re-allocation of risk in the form of a R/CMBS? Selling mortgages in order to finance the underwriting of more mortgages to willing investors? What's wrong with that? (Besides the fact that ratings agencies weren't doing their job)? Also, note that investors purchased a form of insurance on most of the securities. These are sophisticated investors. There was nothing wrong with the "structured products" market - just the investment decisions (and the ratings, in my opinion).

(2) - As an example, Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehman Bros., held Lehman securities valued well into the tens of millions as recently as this summer. He sold most of his stock yesterday and didn't even make $1m. Officers often reap what they sow (sp?) - in the form of stock-based compensation.

(3) - Where commercial/retail banks purchase investment banks, I think you will find the market actually provides a solution. The investment banks owned by commercial banks can't leverage their investments against the deposits in the retail portion of the bank. The investment philosophies of investment banks affiliated with commercial/retail banks has (at least as long as they have been tied-up post-GLBA) always been more conservative and, by necessity, is considerably less-leveraged than stand-alone investment banks. Inasmuch as depository institutions continue to purchase bulge-bracket IBs, your concern in (3) works itself out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Thanks for pointing out Rating Agencies......I thought of them after I made my list of blame yesterday, but forgot to add them. Had they done their job, and used some common sense regarding the economy, they would have downgraded appropriate banks much earlier, which would have cooled this off slower than the sharp plummet that is now leading to a rapid downward spiral for some banks. What's worse, I regularly read Moody's Economy reports for different metros, and even though that side of the business was reporting severe troubles in the housing market, their Credit Rating side wasn't responding by downgrading banks with high exprosures in those markets....I'm looking at you WaMu and Wachovia and IBs that were holding former Golden West packaged RMBS.

________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

Looking at the stock quotes at the moment, WB is up, MS is down. Wachovia now has a higher market cap that Morgan Stanley. Obviously there are many factors at work, but it this trending certainly makes a Wachovia purchase of Morgan more likely. It seems like the betters think its good news for WB and bad news MS....and they're probably right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Thanks for pointing out Rating Agencies......I thought of them after I made my list of blame yesterday, but forgot to add them. Had they done their job, and used some common sense regarding the economy, they would have downgraded appropriate banks much earlier, which would have cooled this off slower than the sharp plummet that is now leading to a rapid downward spiral for some banks. What's worse, I regularly read Moody's Economy reports for different metros, and even though that side of the business was reporting severe troubles in the housing market, their Credit Rating side wasn't responding by downgrading banks with high exprosures in those markets....I'm looking at you WaMu and Wachovia and IBs that were holding former Golden West packaged RMBS.

________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

Looking at the stock quotes at the moment, WB is up, MS is down. Wachovia now has a higher market cap that Morgan Stanley. Obviously there are many factors at work, but it this trending certainly makes a Wachovia purchase of Morgan more likely. It seems like the betters think its good news for WB and bad news MS....and they're probably right.

Nice to have another realistic poster. Add to ratings agency culpability their ratings decisions on the actual RMBSs.

Also watching MS's precipitous decline and WB's modest gains. I think that if anything happens, it will be a zero-premium deal. The term "merger of equals" is thrown around way too often and in a misleading sense, but when/if it is used to describe this deal, it will be pretty true. Just the possibility of it happening has helped close the credit default swap spreads for Morgan Stanley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... Selling mortgages in order to finance the underwriting of more mortgages to willing investors? What's wrong with that?....
That should be easy to figure out. If you create a business selling a product then it's assumed you grow your business by selling even more product. This means you have to increase buyers and increase the supply of your product. Pretty simple stuff.

However... We are talking about real estate loans. The only way to increase supply is to make more loans and because of that there has been enormous pressures and incentives to create all kinds of "creative" loans so there is more to sell. It feeds on itself. Now if you subscribe to Adam Smith 101, which I assume most here do, then its a recipe for disaster because motivated self interest is going to lead to excesses the market has to eventually correct.

But..... This isn't an Adam Smith situation. This is an industry that can't exist without significant investment, support and guarantees by the federal taxpayers. So when the market gets forced to do a big time correction, the taxpayers are left holding the bag. This is "what is wrong with that". The results speak for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure anyone on here is supporting an Adam Smith solution. I know I've said the The Fed should have had a much more long-term approach to the economy following Tech-Stock meltdown and 9/11. Instead of dumping cheap money, then cutting the supply, then dumping again, they should have regulated much less drastically (this is different than not regulating). In the short-term it would have caused longer period of economic melaise than 2001-2003, but we would have avoided the extremem housing run up and ensuing bubble pop.

Also, Adam Smith wouldn't agree with my opinion that the general population is too stupid or greedy to make prudent financial choices. I say this tongue in cheek, but perhaps its not too bad of an idea, firsttime homebuyers should get a homebuyers license (classes can be tax dedcutible :) ) before they are allowed to purchase a house. In this class they will learn about basic math, economics, and budgeting, and must pass a test.

________________________________________________________________________________

______

As far as WB and MS, even in a merger of equals, I expect Steel to be CEO. He is the new blood, not made any missteps, and has the government connections, while also understanding the IB business. Steel likely = Charlotte HQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....Also, Adam Smith wouldn't agree with my opinion that the general population is too stupid or greedy to make prudent financial choices. ......
Indeed. The failure to make prudent financial decisions is what led to the excesses of the 1920s and the end result was the collapse of the stock market and the failure of a lot of banks which wiped out almost everyone. This is why the government at the time decided that Adam Smith should not apply to the American finance system and slapped a bunch of controls and guarantees on banking that kept it out of trouble until the 1980s when the decision was made to begin dismantling these controls. It's no surprise that banks which have been at the leading edge of this movement are the ones in the most trouble.

BTW, I agree complete with Adam Smith theory, but I don't agree that it should be the basis for an economy as it leads to the excesses that result in many of the things we don't like about our cities. Probably the subject of a different topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for fun...

(1) - What's the problem with re-allocation of risk in the form of a R/CMBS? Selling mortgages in order to finance the underwriting of more mortgages to willing investors? What's wrong with that? (Besides the fact that ratings agencies weren't doing their job)? Also, note that investors purchased a form of insurance on most of the securities. These are sophisticated investors. There was nothing wrong with the "structured products" market - just the investment decisions (and the ratings, in my opinion).

(2) - As an example, Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehman Bros., held Lehman securities valued well into the tens of millions as recently as this summer. He sold most of his stock yesterday and didn't even make $1m. Officers often reap what they sow (sp?) - in the form of stock-based compensation.

(3) - Where commercial/retail banks purchase investment banks, I think you will find the market actually provides a solution. The investment banks owned by commercial banks can't leverage their investments against the deposits in the retail portion of the bank. The investment philosophies of investment banks affiliated with commercial/retail banks has (at least as long as they have been tied-up post-GLBA) always been more conservative and, by necessity, is considerably less-leveraged than stand-alone investment banks. Inasmuch as depository institutions continue to purchase bulge-bracket IBs, your concern in (3) works itself out.

You obviously are a lot more knowledgable than me about this subject, so how about answer a few more questions.

So the ratings agencies (S&P, Moodys) are to blame for not downgrading the packaged mortage securities ratings? What ensures their independence, why did the system break down, and what in the current marketplace ensures that this will not happen again? After all, at the end of the day, taxpayers are now on the hook for Fannie, Freddie, Bear, AIG, and counting.

It does not compute for me how there were not protections in place, either through moderate govt. regulation or appropriate ratings of these hyper-risky investments, that millions of people were even able to qualify for 110% LTV sub-prime rate mortgages with little or poor credit, just as an example. Obviously, you are making the argument against further govt regulation of the markets. If there were no bailouts, I would agre with you. But the average middle class investor, taxpayer and homeowner with good credit and a good job is now on the hook for all this in tax burden, losses, credit crunch, etc, after doing things the 'right way' and probably does not want to hear now that 'this is just the market working itself out.' People (like me) want to know who is accountable, and that something will be done to ensure that this doesn't happen again. I need to be convinced that the market does not need a little hand-holding at this point, and I suspect there are millions of Americans who agree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously are a lot more knowledgable than me about this subject, so how about answer a few more questions.

So the ratings agencies (S&P, Moodys) are to blame for not downgrading the packaged mortage securities ratings? What ensures their independence, why did the system break down, and what in the current marketplace ensures that this will not happen again? After all, at the end of the day, taxpayers are now on the hook for Fannie, Freddie, Bear, AIG, and counting.

It does not compute for me how there were not protections in place, either through moderate govt. regulation or appropriate ratings of these hyper-risky investments, that millions of people were even able to qualify for 110% LTV sub-prime rate mortgages with little or poor credit, just as an example. Obviously, you are making the argument against further govt regulation of the markets. If there were no bailouts, I would agre with you. But the average middle class investor, taxpayer and homeowner with good credit and a good job is now on the hook for all this in tax burden, losses, credit crunch, etc, after doing things the 'right way' and probably does not want to hear now that 'this is just the market working itself out.' People (like me) want to know who is accountable, and that something will be done to ensure that this doesn't happen again. I need to be convinced that the market does not need a little hand-holding at this point, and I suspect there are millions of Americans who agree with me.

Let's start with this. Some of you might have already seen it.

http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=d...=true&pli=1

PM me if the link doesn't go to the powerpoint or if there are other problems.

Hope you enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's start with this. Some of you might have already seen it.

http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=d...=true&pli=1

PM me if the link doesn't go to the powerpoint or if there are other problems.

Hope you enjoy.

LMAO at that one, after the last few days, I needed that. That pretty much sums up how this happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now the banks get another $500B from the federal government. Which brings the total up to $1.4 Trillion. There is going to be a new federal agency, very similar to the RTC that was created when the last Bush was in office, that is going to buy up all this bad debt from the banks. This works out to something like a direct tax liability on every man woman and child in the USA of $5000. Of course this liability will be much higher as all of this money is being borrowed. I call this "trickle up" economics. You work, and your earnings trickle up to The "professionals" at the top.

It does appear there are going to be some new regulations slapped down on the banks as a result of this mess. More to come. It's unknown how this will directly affect the Charlotte banking industry, but no doubt they are going to have to change their business models since a lot of what they had been doing is not going to be allowed now. It's also going to put a big brake on financing on property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now the banks get another $500B from the federal government. Which brings the total up to $1.4 Trillion. There is going to be a new federal agency, very similar to the RTC that was created when the last Bush was in office, that is going to buy up all this bad debt from the banks. This works out to something like a direct tax liability on every man woman and child in the USA of $5000. Of course this liability will be much higher as all of this money is being borrowed. I call this "trickle up" economics. You work, and your earnings trickle up to The "professionals" at the top.

True, the total is up to $1.4 trillion of government cash infusions. However, I don't believe this directly translates to $5000 per US citizen at all. The government is taking an ownership stake in a lot of these companies they are tossing cash at, Freddie, Fannie, & AIG. The golden parachutes don't exist at these places and the government is going to eventually sell off a lot of their new ownership interests once the facilitate an orderly dismantle of AIG and a re-structure of Freddie and Fannie. Money will be made back from these endeavors. The amount of money made will be directly in line with how much they have to take out of the federal coffers (AKA tax money). Also, the 85 billion that AIG got is at a ridiculous interest rate, AIG is heavily inclined to pay back that loan soon by the sale of assets. So we really don't know how much liability the taxpayers will ultimately have, except that taxpayers definitely are not on the hook for the full amount.

Also, the RTC-like organization now being created behind closed doors will also be putting up taxpayer monies to fund its purchases of bad securities. But the RTC organization will most likely be using a reverse auction structure for its security purchases where whoever wants to unload their securities at the lowest price (example: Morgan Stanley has a $1 Billion security that is bad, wants to dump it, offers it to the new RTC for $250 million just to get it off the books) The government can then restructure it and resell it to someone else for a steal or an increase to let them hold the risk, which ultimately won't be nearly as great as when the security was valued at $1 Billion. So in essence the Federal government may very well break even or maybe make some money on some of these bailouts. Capitalists still manage our government financial institutions, there is a method to this madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Actually we don't really know as it appears the full US Congress has to approve this deal and there are already calls from both sides to change the terms, slap new regulations on the banks and of course not do it at all. Fortunately this will be vetted in this manner so it's not just the sole decision of basically two people.

--------------------------

It's also being reported in some of the foreign press that Morgan Stanley, is in talks with the China Investment Corp (the finance arm of the Communist Party) for the CIC to purchase 49% of the company. They already own 9%. It's being said they prefer this route over a merger with Wachovia because it allows them to remain independent. The communists for their part are flush in trillions in cash, (every wonder where the profits of all those Target purchases really go?) and have been funneling cash into foreign businesses in part to make more money and in part to influence governmental policy towards China.

Two things that might make it not happen. The CIC is faced with internal debate on using "the peoples" money to do this as there have been some significant losses. The communists may not have the political support to do it. There will be no doubt a great deal of US federal resistance to a deal like this but given what has happened, who knows? It isn't like the US doesn't already owe a kings ransom to China now.

In any case if there are merger talks going on with Wachovia, this would seem to give MS another card to play in such negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is your criticism coming as an amateur..... or as a professional?

It's also being reported in some of the foreign press that Morgan Stanley, is in talks with the China Investment Corp (the finance arm of the Communist Party) for the CIC to purchase 49% of the company. ... communist ... communist.

From the perspective of a professional. In the context of this board, an amateur (unless someone wants to pony up)!

As for the totalitarian Chinese, they're about as Communist as we are, at this point. That is as much meant to embarass the U.S. as it is to laugh at the "Communist" modification of "Chinese." Totalitarian? Yes. Communist? In name only.

EDIT: It's my understanding that CIC is the original Chinese SWF that MS has been negotiating with. Reports from Wednesday mis-identified the prior bank.

Also - I agree with QC kid. I shudder when I imagine the discount that RTC II is going to get when it buys this paper. They're capitalists, alright - and I expect them (and, by extension, all of us) to make a killing on these dramatically undervalued assets. It's misleading to conclude one's analysis of the latest and greatest bailout at "$5000 per capita tax liability."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the totalitarian Chinese, they're about as Communist as we are, at this point. That is as much meant to embarass the U.S. as it is to laugh at the "Communist" modification of "Chinese." Totalitarian? Yes. Communist? In name only......
Huh? Are you kidding? The official party that controls the state government of China and the CIC as well is the "Communist Party of China". It's a simple statement of fact. Here is their official news Website. Note the red banners and the Stalinist hammer and sickle logo. I suggest you click on their "Theory and Opinion" link and read the part where they vows to uphold Marxism as guiding ideology. Now if you are saying they are that in name only and that they are a democracy then I think you might want to go and check up on your facts.

If the banks that wish to do deals with these people want to hide behind the notion that China, "isn't really like this anymore", that's fine but it's nothing really but another distortion of the facts. I guess this is common business practice in America these days. If they are closer to us, it's because we are the ones moving closer to them as this would seem to demonstrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? Are you kidding? The official party that controls the state government of China and the CIC as well is the "Communist Party of China". It's a simple statement of fact. Here is their official news Website. Note the red banners and the Stalinist hammer and sickle logo. I suggest you click on their "Theory and Opinion" link and read the part where they vows to uphold Marxism as guiding ideology. Now if you are saying they are that in name only and that they are a democracy then I think you might want to go and check up on your facts.

If the banks that wish to do deals with these people want to hide behind the notion that China, "isn't really like this anymore", that's fine but it's nothing really but another distortion of the facts. I guess this is common business practice in America these days. If they are closer to us, it's because we are the ones moving closer to them as this would seem to demonstrate.

How did you glean 'China isn't communist, it's a democracy" out of my post? Ridiculous. Not being communist doesn't make them democratic. That's why I used the word "totalitarian". Red banners, parades and Marxist pronouncements on its websites = Communist in name (image) only. Look at policy decisions and the market's evolution over the last 15 years. You can't call that a command ecomony with a straight face. As for whether and how we do business with them, you'll eat this up ...

Latest and greatest has the Wachovia-Morgan Stanley merger progressing with Wachovia divesting undesirable assets and then merging the "good" bank with Morgan Stanley, with the new combined entity receiving the capital infusion from CIC. Just think of the gastronomic possibilities for South Tryon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.