Merrill Lynch paid itself $4 Billion in bonuses 3 days before the bankrupt company was taken over by Bank of America?!!!!
Three questions: Where was the oversight? Surely, once it was known that bailout money was going into the banks (and Merrill, or its rescuer was clearly going to be a recipient), a method of overseeing the financial management of these companies needed to be created? Or did the government just trust that they would do ‘the right thing’?
Secondly: What on earth was Bank of America doing? Didn’t they do any checks, or did they just assume that the government would cover all of the losses incurred?
Thirdly: How do we change corporate culture to get the definition of ‘bonus’ to return to be something that is paid for creating success, not just turning up every day?
This article tries to absolve short selling of responsibility for the bank values crash a couple of weeks ago (it does look like institutions dumped their bank stock as soon as they found out that short-selling was being re-enabled).
But the interesting statistic in this article is that over 3 percent of Barclays shock was out on loan, even while short-selling was banned. Which begs a question:
Why would people or institutions want to borrow stock, if they are not using them to sell short?