ML in a mess again
27 RepliesJump to last post
Mike I hope you are right and I am wrong.
But from what I have seen and heard from reps I am not. Have a great weekend.[quote=Greenbacks]Sedona
It is not about the firms losing money. It is about ML trying to defer the loss illegally according to the SEC. As far as the reps are concerned I believe most of them try to do the right thing for the firms clients. But the rep can only do what the firm wants them to do. If push comes to shove the client and the rep will lose and the firm will win. This has been proven time after time. Everyone of us makes mistakes but when you are being lied to or forced to do the wrong thing, from your employer you will then understand why reps leave wirehouses. You will also get tired of explaining the bad press your firm recieves to the firms clients. [/quote]"It is about ML trying to defer the loss illegally according to the SEC. " ==> I didn't know the SEC had reached a conclusion yet, but why let the facts get in front a a good speculation...
"This has been proven time after time." ==> When will you publish your findings and research professor?
No one in their right mind would claim that any firm is perfect, especially a large national firm. But with nearly $2 trillion in client's assets, 9 million accounts, 16,000 FAs, ML would have to fool a lot of smart people into doing business with them. Unlikely in a highly competitive industry.
[quote=Sedona]
[quote=Greenbacks]Sedona
It is not about the firms losing money. It is about ML trying to defer the loss illegally according to the SEC. As far as the reps are concerned I believe most of them try to do the right thing for the firms clients. But the rep can only do what the firm wants them to do. If push comes to shove the client and the rep will lose and the firm will win. This has been proven time after time. Everyone of us makes mistakes but when you are being lied to or forced to do the wrong thing, from your employer you will then understand why reps leave wirehouses. You will also get tired of explaining the bad press your firm recieves to the firms clients. [/quote]"It is about ML trying to defer the loss illegally according to the SEC. " ==> I didn't know the SEC had reached a conclusion yet, but why let the facts get in front a a good speculation...
"This has been proven time after time." ==> When will you publish your findings and research professor?
No one in their right mind would claim that any firm is perfect, especially a large national firm. But with nearly $2 trillion in client's assets, 9 million accounts, 16,000 FAs, ML would have to fool a lot of smart people into doing business with them. Unlikely in a highly competitive industry.
[/quote]
And yet they have....a tribue to their ability to obfuscate and confuse.....
Staying with the Facts…
WALL ST JOURNAL ISSUES CORRECTION…
Shortly after Merrill Lynch ousted its chairman and
chief executive several weeks ago, a report in The Wall Street Journal
added to the firm’s troubles by saying it had committed to
off-balance-sheet deals with hedge funds to delay the reporting of
potential losses. The Journal article even mentioned the dreaded “E”
word: Enron (a Merrill client for whom the bank allegedly tried to help hide losses via sham transactions involving Nigerian barges).
But on Monday, The Journal issued a correction to the story, saying that the transaction it cited as an example never happened.
The Nov. 2 article suggested that Merrill may have been trying to “park” certain troubled assets, in essence making deals with no purpose except to create the appearance that risk had been transferred elsewhere — at least temporarily.
In its one example, The Journal said that Merrill sold commercial-paper assets to a hedge fund, with the agreement that the hedge fund could sell the assets back to Merrill in a year, with a guaranteed minimum return. The Journal pointed out that the assets in question weren’t on Merrill’s balance sheet to begin with. Still, if the paper couldn’t be sold, Merrill may have been required to take a write-down.
At the time, DealBook and others said that Merrill’s latest transactions with hedge funds could be totally legitimate. The firm wouldn’t comment to the Journal about specific deals, but said it stood by the way it calculated its recent write-downs. (The day the article appeared, Merrill issued another statement saying the same thing.)
In its correction on Monday, The Journal said that the deal didn’t go through. “Merrill didn’t complete the deal after the firm’s finance department determined it didn’t meet proper accounting criteria,” the paper said in its correction. “In addition, Merrill says it has accounted properly for all its transactions with hedge funds.”
I am shocked that ML would do these things…they always seem like a highly ethical firm lol
[quote=nestegg]I am shocked that ML would do these things…they always seem like a highly ethical firm lol
[/quote]
Read the retraction. The deal NEVER HAPPENED.
The model of ethics are the so-called independents (i.e. Frank Bluestein
[quote=Sedona]
[quote=nestegg]I am shocked that ML would do these things…they always seem like a highly ethical firm lol
[/quote]
Read the retraction. The deal NEVER HAPPENED.
The model of ethics are the so-called independents (i.e. Frank Bluestein
And the obvious conclusion is that ALL independents are unethical. Right? Look at the headline…