SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: T L Comiskey who wrote (11136)1/6/2003 8:42:09 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Have Merrill's Bulls Been Led to Pasture?

By LANDON THOMAS Jr.
The New York Times
January 5, 2003

IN quick succession, just days after E. Stanley O'Neal took over as chief executive of Merrill Lynch on Dec. 2, the firm announced several executive changes. G. Kelly Martin, a member of Merrill's executive committee, stepped down as president of the international private client business to pursue other interests. Michael J. P. Marks, the chairman of its European, Middle East and African operations, retired. Paul D. Roy, the co-president of its global markets and investment banking business, said that he, too, would leave the firm.

Absorbing their portfolios were James P. Gorman, president of Merrill's brokerage network in the United States and a former McKinsey & Company executive who joined the firm in 1999, and Arshad R. Zakaria, Mr. Roy's co-president, who at 40 is now the youngest head of any big banking and securities division on Wall Street, the unit responsible for 60 percent of Merrill's profits.

It happens all the time — a new chief executive names his own team, after all. But at Merrill, the bloodletting has actually been going on since Mr. O'Neal became president in July 2001, starting with the resignations, under pressure, of Jeffrey R. Peek, the head of asset management, and Thomas W. Davis, who had run the firm's investment banking business.

More important, it signals a cultural and management revolution unique in the firm's history. In contrast with its peers on the Street, Merrill, under Mr. O'Neal's iron grip, is ruled by the cold, hard view that the current malaise of the markets will not dissolve anytime soon.

Mr. O'Neal's Merrill, it seems, is no longer bullish on America.

Over the last two years, Mr. O'Neal's crew, which also includes Thomas H. Patrick, the executive vice chairman, has presided over the loss of 18,600 jobs at Merrill, or 25.8 percent of the work force. No other investment firm has come close to cutting so deeply.

Merrill's new management team is viewed by insiders and outsiders alike as extraordinarily numbers-oriented — realists, to supporters; cynics, to detractors.

Mr. Zakaria's ascent, in particular, has raised eyebrows on Wall Street. He is "a quant," expert at putting together complicated financial instruments, but lacking in experience in relationship banking, which generally demands more advanced people skills, investment bankers who have worked with him say.

That Mr. Zakaria is talented, there is no doubt. What matters more to Mr. O'Neal, however, is loyalty, which all in the new guard at Merrill have in spades.

The revolution will be complete in April, when David H. Komansky, the former chief executive and current chairman, departs. Mr. Komansky, with his back-slapping bonhomie, born of his years as a top-producing broker, is already a faded symbol of a global expansion strategy that resulted in the corporate bloat that Mr. O'Neal is working so hard to pare.

Inside Merrill, several employees said, morale is grim. One former employee likened the environment in the investment banking ranks to Afghanistan under the Taliban. Bankers who have left Merrill in recent years express amazement that the banking and securities business — home to high-profile areas like mergers and acquisitions and equity underwriting — is being run by Mr. Zakaria. He may be recognized within the firm as a tax expert and may well have made a large number of client calls last year, but he is no relationship banker, they say.

Mr. O'Neal and company — all of whom declined to be interviewed for this article — do have supporters who believe that they are the right managers at the right time.

"These guys are workers," said Stephen L. Hammerman, a former Merrill vice chairman who retired from the company last February. "They are rolling their sleeves up and are here to do a job. They know how to deal with clients and they know how to deal with money."

TO impose his view, Mr. O'Neal has brought in a group of people that contrasts sharply with past management teams.

Mr. Gorman, 44, is from Melbourne, Australia. Mr. Zakaria hails from Bombay. The new chief financial officer, Ahmass L. Fakahany, also 44, is from Cairo. Sergio Ermotti, 42, co-head of global equity markets, is from Lugano, Switzerland. Dow Kim, 40, the firm's head of global debt, is a native of Seoul, South Korea.

Robert C. Doll Jr., a 48-year-old American from Philadelphia, now heads asset management.

Merrill's top managers are among the youngest executives on the Street. None have been with Merrill Lynch for more than 20 years, and none have risen from within the firm's vast private client group — Merrill's usual source for top managers. For all of them, starting with Mr. O'Neal, the idea of Mother Merrill as a nurturing bureaucratic womb is dead, according to top bankers at the firm.

Mr. Zakaria is the prime example of that. His startling ascent through the Merrill management ranks and his instinctive understanding of some of the most esoteric, profitable and controversial financial products that Wall Street has to offer, combined with his uncanny ability to navigate the firm's byzantine political ways, symbolizes the new Merrill manager in many ways.

Throughout his 15-year career at Merrill, Mr. Zakaria has had a hand in devising and selling some of the most lucrative financial products ever to come out of Merrill Lynch. These range from off-balance-sheet tax-shelter partnerships in the late 1980's to a variety of equity-linked instruments in the mid-1990's that allowed Merrill's corporate and individual clients to raise billions in cash while escaping hundreds of millions in taxes.

The son of an upper-class family in Bombay (his brother Fareed is a columnist and the editor of Newsweek International), Mr. Zakaria has always been at the top of his class. At Harvard, he graduated summa cum laude with a degree in applied mathematics and won an $8,000 prize from Morgan Stanley for a paper he wrote on pricing call options.

In 1985, he made the unusual jump directly to the Harvard Business School — and he breezed through it, winning a Baker scholarship and a Loeb Rhoades finance fellowship.

After earning his M.B.A. in 1987, and after a vigorous bidding war for him among all the big investment banks, he signed on with Merrill Lynch for $150,000 a year, an extremely high salary for a business-school graduate with no full-time banking experience.

Mr. Zakaria skipped through the training program and went directly to work for E. S. Purandar Das, a managing director and fellow Indian who was involved in an effort to create tax-shelter partnerships and sell them to Fortune 500 companies looking to avoid capital gains taxes. Mr. Das, a former chemical engineer with a deep understanding of the United States tax code, had less expertise in creating financial products — where Mr. Zakaria was useful.

At the time, according to court documents cited in news accounts, several big Merrill Lynch clients, like Schering-Plough, AlliedSignal and Colgate-Palmolive, were eager to lower the taxes they were paying on subsidiary sales. Mr. Zakaria worked on a team with Mr. Das that solved the problem with a plan to set up an offshore fund with a foreign partner for each client. Within the fund, securities would be bought and sold, generating an eventual loss that could be carried forward to offset the company's capital gain.

It was a brilliant piece of financial craftsmanship. One of the first purchasers was Robert P. Luciano, then the chief executive of Schering-Plough and a Merrill board member, a position he still holds. The fees for Merrill ran as high as $15 million a client.

By 1990, Mr. Zakaria was a full-fledged star. As the recession's teeth sank deeply into the firm, Mr. Zakaria, Mr. Das and Mr. Luciano's son, Richard, who had joined their team, flew around the country in a Gulfstream jet, pitching their partnerships to eager corporate clients, the court papers show.

That year, say a number of former Merrill bankers who declined to be identified, that small group pulled in more than $100 million in revenue. The combined cut for Mr. Das and Mr. Zakaria was around 20 percent, these people say. Their rewards were so large that Barry S. Friedberg, the head of investment banking at the time and a member of the compensation committee, made a private deal with his two banking stars to prevent the spread of jealousy. Mr. Friedberg, who is leaving the company, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Nevertheless, word spread: Mr. Zakaria, then 27 and just three years out of business school, was pulling down nearly $5 million, making him one of the highest-paid bankers not only at Merrill but also on Wall Street.

In the end, though, the partnerships were too good to be true. By 1995, the Internal Revenue Service had begun to close them down as part of a drive to close tax loopholes. Mr. Das, his career already on the wane, was forced to testify in court on the nature of the partnerships and went on to identify the clients involved. Mr. Das, who later left the company, refused to comment.

Mr. Zakaria, however, moved on and has never been tainted by the fallout from the partnerships.

By that time, he had developed a close relationship with Mr. Patrick, a senior Merrill Lynch banker with a keen interest in the tax work that Mr. Zakaria was doing.

Mr. Patrick oversees all finance, tax, legal and research functions within Merrill and is a close adviser to Mr. O'Neal. He is seen within the firm as a de facto president and as an architect of its restructuring efforts.

During his 24 years at the firm, Mr. Patrick has twice served as chief financial officer, has headed the equity markets group and has run the insurance business. He is best known for having helped invent zero-coupon bond instruments convertible into equity, called Lyons for liquid-yield option notes, in the mid-1980's.

Arcane yet lucrative, these products opened a new vista for Merrill corporate clients, allowing them to raise cash by issuing debt, pay out less in interest and get a tax break in the process. They were a wild success, generating hundreds of millions in fees for Merrill and spurring copycat products from Merrill's peers.

IMPRESSED with Mr. Zakaria's work on the tax shelters, Mr. Patrick became his mentor and moved him to the firm's corporate finance group. Although the tax shelters were an embarrassment for the firm, the powerful demand for them, together with the success of the Lyons, made it clear to top Merrill executives like Mr. Patrick that the real potential on Wall Street was in the design of instruments that allowed clients to raise money while paying less taxes.

By the mid-1990's, Mr. Zakaria and his team, under the careful eye of Mr. Patrick, were churning out and marketing several similar tax-avoiding financial instruments. Called trust-preferred securities, they were an evolution of the Lyons product, with specific trademarked names like Strypes and Prides.

Each served a different purpose, but the overriding aim was the same: to allow a company or individual to raise cash while paying as little tax as legally permissible.

Mr. Zakaria's team manufactured the products, and Mr. Patrick, an experienced relationship banker, sold them to clients like Sam Zell, the Chicago-based real estate investor, and Eli Broad, the chairman of SunAmerica. While the I.R.S. has raised questions from time to time about these products, it has never prohibited them and they have wide acceptance on the Street.

On the surface, the relationship between Mr. Patrick and Mr. Zakaria seems an odd one. Gruff and cocksure, Mr. Patrick, 57, is of Irish descent, a graduate of Rutgers with an M.B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh, and a product of gritty Youngstown, Ohio. The urbane Mr. Zakaria comes from a different world.

But many who know them say they have much in common. They are both schooled in numbers and are supremely confident in their own abilities, sharing a propensity to snap at those who fail to grasp their logic. Both are golf enthusiasts and have been known to drop everything to play.

They even invest together. They were partners in their own personal investment fund, called Youngstown Global Partners, after Mr. Patrick's hometown. The fund would take positions in everything from stocks traded on the Bombay Stock Exchange to hot initial public offerings like Einstein Bagels, a company that Merrill bankers took public in 1996, which later filed for bankruptcy protection and is now owned by New World Coffee-Manhattan Bagel.

The Youngstown fund is inactive, but it is indicative of the pair's close relationship.

In 2000, Mr. Patrick was appointed chief financial officer for the second time by Mr. Komansky. One of his first moves was to recommend that Mr. Zakaria be named head of corporate risk management. That happened in May 2000, with Mr. Zakaria reporting to Mr. Patrick.

About that time, the race to succeed Mr. Komansky as chief executive was heating up. The Merrill board had decreed that by the end of 2001, Mr. Komansky was to anoint a president who would then take over as chief.

It was a bitterly contested race among Mr. O'Neal, who headed the private client business at the time; Mr. Peek, of asset management; and Mr. Davis, of investment banking. Top Merrill executives picked their horses early and hoped for the best, knowing that their jobs could well depend on who eventually won.

Early on, several Merrill bankers said, Mr. Patrick sided with Mr. O'Neal. Mr. Patrick knew Mr. O'Neal when he was a rising star in Merrill's high-yield bond department in the early 1990's, and had been impressed with his analytical mind as well as his client skills. What's more, Mr. Patrick had a contentious relationship with Mr. Peek, who was seen as a favorite of Mr. Komansky's.

Mr. Patrick and Mr. Komansky had their differences, too.

In 1993, the two were contenders for the presidency of Merrill, and when Mr. Komansky won, Mr. Patrick endured seven years of exile in Chicago, running the firm's special advisory group.

Mr. Patrick has always had a green-eyeshade mentality when looking to the firm's future. He looked askance at Mr. Komansky's charge into new markets like Canada, Australia and Japan, insiders say. In fact, like many other Merrill executives, he was an aggressive seller of the company's stock through much of 2000 and 2001, according to securities filings.

In July 2001, the Merrill board, concerned about the firm's shrinking profits, forced Mr. Komansky's hand, and Mr. O'Neal became president and the chief executive heir apparent.

Driving the decision was Mr. Luciano, who in his position as chairman of the board's management committee led the search for a new chief. He remembered Mr. Patrick and Mr. Zakaria well from their work 10 years earlier on the tax shelters for Schering- Plough and came to know Mr. O'Neal through them. The four also shared a passion for golf and spent hours together at Mr. Luciano's various golf clubs.

Several senior Merrill Lynch bankers now say Mr. Luciano was convinced that Mr. O'Neal — with Mr. Patrick and Mr. Zakaria being crucial members of his team — would have the colder, more objective approach needed to cut the fat from the firm.

Behind the scenes, William A. Schreyer, Merrill's chief executive during the 1980's, also played a significant role, these people say. He, too, knew Mr. Zakaria and Mr. Patrick from their tax-shelter work and cast his influential vote in favor of the O'Neal team.

On Oct. 5, 2001, Mr. O'Neal promoted Mr. Zakaria to his current post at global markets and investment banking. Later, in November, he named Mr. Patrick executive vice chairman.

For the moment, analysts are cheering Mr. O'Neal and his number crunchers. Profit margins in important areas like investment banking and the brokerage business are rising in the wake of the layoffs. The company's stock fell 27 percent in 2002, in line with other brokerage stocks, and closed on Friday at $39.97, 32 percent off its 52-week high.

OTHER large Wall Street firms are increasing layoffs, a sign that they, too, are growing more concerned about the depths of the market's slide.

"Although you worry that they may have cut too far, the fact that Merrill's competitors are throwing in the towel is a confirmation that O'Neal was right," said Guy Moszkowski, a brokerage analyst at Salomon Smith Barney. "And while they have downsized at just about every level, they have kept their rainmakers."

Still, many wonder how a bear-market Merrill will fare when equity markets rebound. Over the last year, many top deal makers have left the firm, and Merrill has dropped to sixth place, from third, in worldwide merger advisory work. If Mr. O'Neal and his team are wrong about the length of the market's collapse, Merrill may well suffer — and require another redesign.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

nytimes.com



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (11136)1/6/2003 8:48:03 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
RECLAIMING OUR COURAGE

It’s hard to maintain hope when greed and fear seem to hold all the cards. Despite Bush’s mangled phrases, the political operatives who surround him are as ruthless and cunning as any in recent memory. Some of them believe they’re taking orders from God. Others are simply playing the political game. Either way, they’ll do whatever they can to maintain and increase their power. With the help of a compliant media and a fearful and distracted populace, they may even temporarily prevail. But ultimately they’ll succeed only if those of us who embrace more humane visions give up in despair. It’s tempting simply to wait for the Republicans to overreach, or be brought down by a stagnating economy. But when facing men who lack any sense of humility, limits, or shame, we can’t let them keep setting the agenda. Think of the critical Georgia Senate race. Republican TV ads linked Senator Max Cleland with videos of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and explained that because Cleland opposed Bush’s homeland security bill, he lacked “the courage to lead.” Cleland lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. His Republican opponent, Saxbe Chambliss, never wore a uniform. But that didn’t matter to the Republican chicken-hawk strategists. And the ad helped knock Cleland out of his seat. I recently asked former United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights (and Irish President) Mary Robinson how citizens could resist this bullying politics. The Bush administration had just forced Robinson out of her job for questioning the United States’ exclusion of Afghan detainees from the standard protections given prisoners of war. “People need the courage to stand up for what they believe,” Robinson said. “If I’d backed down just because the US is the most powerful nation in the world, it would have sacrificed all the moral credibility of my office. By standing up, I preserved it. You have to keep standing up even if it’s hard. You have to be willing to pay the costs.” Calling for moral courage sounds like praising mom and apple pie. But what would it mean for us to apply Robinson’s message to our own lives? To begin with, it would mean speaking out in contexts where not everyone agrees with our words, because only then can our culture change. Whether as members of civic or religious organizations, as educators, or simply with co-workers, neighbors, and friends, we can’t be afraid to raise the difficult questions—challenging the administration’s right to attack any other nation at will, to deny critical environmental crises like global warming, and to hand over national policies to the Enrons of the world. Sometimes our words will draw heat. After Sept 11, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, an organization co-founded by Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynn, publicly targeted professors who made even the mildest suggestion that the terrible attacks might have deeper roots. But if our democracy is devolving into a manipulated nation of inattentive spectators, we have the responsibility to speak honestly about our national choices, and to do so even if we feel hesitant or scared. Overcoming fear means thinking about the kind of world we’d actually like to see, and not being afraid to advocate for it. In Poland, in the early 1980s, leaders of the workers support movement KOR made a point of printing their names and phone numbers openly on the back of mimeographed sheets describing incidents of police harassment against then-unknown activists like Lech Walesa. It was as if, in the words of reporter Lawrence Wechsler, they were “calling out to everyone else, ‘Come on out! Be open. What can they do to us if we all start taking responsibility for our true dreams?’” Whether we’re raising questions in difficult contexts or engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, that might be a model for us now. We might actually make a public issue of the very ruthlessness that put this administration in power. It’s easy to dismiss the Cleland ad and others like it as politics as usual. But when I’ve spoken about these ads, even very conservative people have had trouble justifying their moral viciousness. We can point out how attacking the patriotism of a man who lost three limbs for his country parallels the shamelessness of so many high administration officials whose careers have embodied contempt for democracy: Otto Reich, Elliott Abrams, John Poindexter, and John Negroponte lying during the Iran-Contra investigations; Henry Kissinger (now resigned but still kitchen cabinet) launching a secret invasion of Cambodia and a military coup in Chile; John Ashcroft obstructing the registration of African American voters in inner-city St. Louis; Dick Cheney opposing the freeing of Nelson Mandela; and Trent Lott waxing nostalgic about the good old days when Strom Thurmond fought to keep blacks in their place. It’s an ugly legacy, and when administration spokesmen say Americans have no right to disagree, we need to respond with outrage. They’ll also suggest we lack the knowledge or standing to speak out: Professors are academic eggheads. Religious leaders are unrealistic. Students are too young. Baby boomers are reliving the sixties. Immigrants are disloyal suspects. Celebrities are limousine liberals. We’re conditioned to accept an impossibly perfect standard on political speech that dismisses everyone but the Kissingers and Rumsfelds as insufficiently credentialed. We need the courage to challenge this standard, and recognize that we all have the right--and responsibility--to act. We also need to develop new ways to speak out together. This means connecting with whatever organizations can give us shared strength, and working to bring together the often-fragmented groups that promote more humane social visions. More than ever, we need to leave our comfort zones, reach past what divides us, and find opportunities for common action. We particularly need to approach those vast numbers of individuals who are exposed to little beyond the official manipulations and lies. Since only 17 percent of eligible Americans actually voted for the Republicans this round, the potential for outreach is huge. Some of this outreach has already begun. In the past few elections, unions have developed worker-to-worker outreach projects that often made a critical difference in key campaigns. Even in the most recent defeat, they mobilized significant numbers of voters and volunteers, but found themselves lacking enough other organized allies to prevail in areas where their strength was limited. What would happen if unions joined environmental and social justice groups to foster local discussions on key issues? In early December, a coalition of Seattle peace activists drew together 2,000 ordinary citizens to spend an afternoon talking in neighborhood- based groups from the city and its suburban fringes. Each group then collected local emails and developed neighborhood education and action projects, like vigils, tabling, and letter-writing campaigns. The same week, organizations including the National Council of Churches, N.A.A.C.P., Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Organization for Women, Working Assets and MoveOn.org launched a new national peace coalition, Win Without War. Major labor leaders are also interested. Imagine if the Seattle approach was combined with the grassroots resources of these groups, and if the coalition took on domestic issues as well. The resulting pressure might even wake the Congressional Democrats from their slumber. Courage requires reaching out to those who may not share all our assumptions or agree with us on every issue. The Republicans have seized power through an unholy alliance between corporate interests whose dollars buy the ads, and religious conservatives who supply the volunteer energy. But when the Pew Center For the People & the Press has surveyed the conservative religious constituency they call "the moralists," they've found that a solid majority of them mistrust corporate power, support environmental protection and regulation, and believe the government should take an active role in improving health care, housing, and education, for low and middle income families. Many also mistrust an all-powerful government monitoring every corner of our private lives. If we talk clearly enough about common concerns, they may well respond. In 2002, with another core Republican constituency, non-union gun owners in Michigan went for George Bush, by more than two to one. But union gun owners went solidly for Gore, by nearly as great a margin. Once people felt part of a union community and had access to alternative perspectives, this trumped the Republican propaganda. In Washington state, my best friend, a commercial fisherman and environmental activist, recently defeated an initiative to ban family fishing by pulling together an unlikely coalition of fishermen, environmental organizations, Native American tribes--and some highly conservative fundamentalist churches. An Assembly of God minister even gave an invocation against corporate greed on the steps of the state capitol. I saw people celebrating election night who would never have even sat at the same table to talk. There’s no guarantee we’ll succeed. The political Right has been organizing for over 30 years, lining up foundations, think tanks, and media commentators, cultivating wealthy donors, building the alliance between corporate interests and religious conservatives. The power the administration now holds makes it easier for them to hand out patronage, reward financial donors, and distribute incentives to potential supporters. They won’t be defeated easily. But as Vlacav Havel wrote before the epochal Eastern European revolutions, “Hope is not prognostication.” Since we can never know how long it will take to turn things around, the courage we need most is the courage to persevere. It’s tempting simply to give up, to say that the deck is too stacked. Yet we might remind ourselves that Rosa Parks was a civil rights activist for a dozen years from her first NAACP meeting until the stand we all remember on the Montgomery bus. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in a South African jail, with no notion that he’d ever become President of South Africa. Those who brought democracy to Eastern Europe struggled for decades, then saw the brutal dictatorships they challenged collapse, one after another, when confronted by a defiant civilian population. We can take heart from the persistence it took to achieve these victories. Many of us have fought for a more humane world for a long while. It’s daunting to face an administration so intent on handing over every aspect of American life, and indeed of the planet, to small groups of wealthy men like themselves. But we also never know when history may turn--and when our efforts to stem the tide of destructive actions may spark a resurgence of conscience, commitment, and hope. If we reach deeply enough into our reservoirs of courage and vision, keep asking the hard questions, and keep connecting with our fellow citizens, there’s no telling what we can eventually create.
_____________________________________________________

Paul Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time and three other books on citizen action. See www.soulofacitizen.org. To receive his articles regularly, email list@soulofacitizen.org

soulofacitizen.org