Will Morgan Stanley Survive?


Here's an interesting question for those who might be in a place to know. Aside from the fact that Morgan Stanley is fighting for its life right now I think there is a more interesting question to be asked: did the ouster of Phil Purcell and the installation of John Mack have anything to do with risk management at the firm becoming laxer? And thus leading to the kind of problems we're now seeing? My personal opinion (and one based on some conversations of folks from Morgan) is that Purcell was pushed out for being too conservative. After all, this was the guy who created and built the Discover card brand, and from my experience at the company he was always very conservative when it came to reserves for the CC business and other aspects of the entire investment banking business. (He was never liked by the wheeler-dealer types at the company for just such a reason.) So, was he ousted for being too conservative? I think so, after all, the price of the stock when he left had stalled and those of Merrill and Goldman and Lehman and Bear were rallying hard. Did the boardroom coup lead, albeit indirectly, to some of Morgan's bigger problems right now? I think so. After all, Mack the Knife, as he is called, is a famous risk-taker. Perhaps some of the Morgan Stanley employees that read this site can chime in, anonymously, of course. I'm very curious to know the answer. And if it sounds as if I have some residual loyalty/affection for the company based on my post, well, you would be right. I do. I still have a lot of friends there and I do worry about them and their families. Hard working guys who played by the rules don't deserve the fate upper-management has foisted upon them.


Sean Paul Kelley October 13, 2008 - 12:06am
( categories: Economics: USA | The Markets )

Already has in Asia and Europe.

Amazing what happens when every major country in the Western world simultaneously creates a bunch of cash out of thin air.

All the crooks get to keep their (our) money. No one goes to jail. Big happy world, no?

With infinity as the limiting number of cash that can be produced and the ability to change the rules as necessary to allow unlimited production of money, it seems the powers that be can make any screwing acceptable. What's a hundred trillion in derivative losses when quadrillions are just around the corner waiting to be had?

The slaves remain complacent as long as the soup and a few stale loaves of bread keep coming.

I did inhale.

Don October 13, 2008 - 9:11am

So governments step in and guarantee against all systemic risk, and flood the markets with liquidity to get the same old game going again — the one that got us here back in the first place (dot.com), uh, the second place (housing), no, the third place (credit).

Doesn't take a genius to see where this one's headed.

tjfxh October 13, 2008 - 11:01am

http://www.kunstler.com/

...

I go along with Nassim Nicholas Taleb's idea -- read "The Black Swan" -- that nobody really knows anything. We construct our narratives to try and explain circumstances that are unraveling non-linearly before us, and some narratives are more plausible than others, depending on your vantage point. There are infinite narratives. This is nothing more than my narrative. The circumstances we're entering appear, for the moment, to take the shape of a compressive deflationary depression with the cherry-on-top add-on of a hyper-inflation further down the road -- meaning initially that jobs, incomes, and pensions are lost, but that later on even the little money that people manage to get -- perhaps mostly from government hand-outs of one kind or another -- steadily loses its value. Every way you jigger things, it just ends up meaning the same thing: a much poorer society. It certainly won't be a society of recreational shoppers plying the Target store aisles for scented candles and home accents. Hyper-inflation could make old debts meaningless, but it would also make credit meaningless and spending absurd.
Given the way our society has evolved to operate -- as an endless upward spiral of borrowings -- you can see an awful lot of things not working anymore, and an awful lot of people not working in them or at them. Maybe the governments of the G-7 will get lending unstuck at the upper levels, but who, exactly, is able to borrow now besides companies on the verge of bankruptcy -- and why continue to lend to them? (Except to maintain the pretense that "something is being done.") Besides, there's much too much previously borrowed money that won't ever paid back, and the "work-out" of all that debt only implies the continued distress sale of any-and-all assets -- so that the USA in effect becomes yard-sale nation.
Personally, I think all the rejiggering in the world of numbers and indexes will not solve anything, and really only represents a kind obsessive-compulsive neurosis related to numerology that will do nothing to readjust our daily activities toward the production of things that have real and enduring value. In my narrative, the fate of industrial nations really depends on energy resources. The price of oil may be going down for the moment -- perhaps due to the deleveraging of hedge funds, banks, and invested individuals, perhaps combined with a perception of "demand destruction" -- but the geology and geopolitics of oil have not changed since June of this year when oil was at $147. Let's say US oil consumption is down one million barrels of oil a day. Within the next two years, we're liable to lose more than that in import declines from Mexico and Venezuela alone. The International Energy Agency's latest estimate is for only slightly less of an increase in worldwide oil demand than was previously posted. It's still a net demand increase. World oil consumption still exceeds world production now, perhaps permanently so. Finally, the current plunge of oil prices has suddenly halted the very capital ventures in exploration and development that were hoped to increase the worldwide supply of oil. All this portends an aggravation of oil supply and allocation problems in the five years ahead, and ultimately much more expensive, harder-to-get oil.
What we can't face is the prospect that we might become something other than an industrial "consumer" society. My narrative includes the conviction that we will have trouble producing food for ourselves as petro-agriculture fails, and since society can't go on without food production, I see this activity coming back much closer to the center of our daily lives. We're not ready to think about that. The downside of our unreadiness may be that a lot of Americans will go hungry in the decade ahead.
None of this is an argument for despair, by the way, but it certainly invokes the need for steeply revised expectations and serious attention to a national "to-do" list. We're on our way to becoming another nation, whether we like it or not. No amount of numerological augury or even hand-wringing will change that. The big question for, say, the 24 months ahead is: how disorderly will we allow this transition to be?

I did inhale.

Don October 13, 2008 - 11:20am

Why is the barometer of how well the nation and society are doing the condition of the stock market? That's like assuming that the condition of citizens in a city like Las Vegas or Atlantic City are indicated by the results shown on any spin of a roulette wheel at one of the casinos in town. Just ignore the inanity coming out of the media sources like CNBC or Fox Business, which are, at their cores, unpaid (who knows?) infomericals for the casino market business.

VizierVic October 13, 2008 - 1:28pm

Wow, "we" are giving Mega bucks to Wall Street.

Since the market has bounced up a little, I am thinking that now is the time to cash out my IRA and play the lottery.

Megabucks for me!!

Mad_nVT October 13, 2008 - 8:23pm

Bloomberg

Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration will announce a plan to rescue frozen credit markets that includes spending about half of a total of $250 billion for preferred shares of nine major banks, people briefed on the matter said.

The companies are Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, State Street Corp., and Bank of New York Mellon Corp., the people said. One of the people also said Merrill Lynch & Co. will receive an investment.

In England they'd say the banks were nationalised. Here we say they're rescued. dhfjr.

I did inhale.

Don October 13, 2008 - 9:23pm

Lehman Brothers cost 300 billions outside the USA. Foreigners are not going to pay another American bankruptcy.

Singular October 15, 2008 - 1:45pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.