Investment Chat Board Lawsuits Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who started this subject	5/28/2002 4:16:45 PM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Read Replies (1) of 12465

From today's "Bambi Francisco's Net Sense" column at marketwatch.com === This leads me to wonder whether the $100 million sends a big enough message. It doesn't. And here are the numbers that explain why it doesn't. Others have noted that the amount is a fraction of the total $3.78 billion Merrill earned in 2000. But comparing the $100 million to that amount is misguided. Given that this scandal is about separating investment banking and research, then we should look at the pot that really matters: the investment banking business. According to Sanford Bernstein's estimates, Merrill Lynch earned $254 million in 1999 and $303 million in 2000. Therefore, Merrill still walked away with money. The $100 million is less than 20 percent of the profits during those two years. In this matter, a just penalty should have been a loss. Yet the penalty isn't even a wash. In other words: If I stole five cookies from the cookie jar, and was told to return just one, I still get away with having stolen four cookies. Even worse, I might just have enough guts to steal more cookies in the future. === cbs.marketwatch.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next