Merrill Lynch & Co. reported its first quarterly loss in six years after a larger-than-forecast $7.9 billion of writedowns for subprime mortgages and asset- backed bonds, the highest reported by any Wall Street firm. The third-quarter loss of $2.24 billion, or $2.82 a share, compared with net income of $3.05 billion, or $3.17, a year earlier, the New York-based firm said in a statement distributed by Business Wire. The loss exceeded the 45-cent average estimate of 17 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Merrill said Oct. 5 that it would report a loss of as much as 50 cents a share. Outsch !:eek:
you know the market is fucked up when a $7billion loss is treated as good news because it could have been $12 billion loss. the us investment banks are bankrupt effectively. their assets are worthless but some of them chose not to mark to market. some of the others ones must be sitting on some monumental losses. another slap in the face of common sense. stocks will finish up today on the back of this.
SO what is the end game, and what is the catalyst? Total bailout by the FED and more inflation? Thinking...
same as 29. you got to to let hem go. some banks will go bust but this will be covered up by merging them. the fed will purchase all the bad assets. the rules of the game will change. wall street has put the fed in an embarrasing position. so now the fed will take charge of wall street. i will be surprised if they cut next week as well. this will send a stronger signal. the fed aint your bitch.
FED´s mission is NOT to destroy economic development, but to bolster prosperity. You can be sarcastic about the timing of FED´s decissions but not be nihilistic to their actual actions.
Shows you how devalued the dollar is when a $7.9 billion writedown is looked on as good news and not deemed significant enough to bankrupt the i-bank. Back in Leeson's day, $1 bill was good enough to KO an i-bank, albeit one much smaller than Merrill.
You guys need to watch the Marc Faber interview on Bloomberg where he talks about all the recent Fed bailouts from the S&L crisis to today
Is it also to prevent normal, healthy corrections in over-inflated bubble markets so that when they finally do correct, nothiing can save investors from the chaos and turmoil? I'm not sure why you're trying to defend the Fed from it's irresponsible behavior, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the Fed is one of the many responsible parties here for various aspects (such as the destruction of the dollar's value) that should otherwise be corrected naturally.
What I wonder about guys like Faber: Was he ever bullish? I mean is there - in his mind - ever a chance to make any money on the long side of equities?