Search
All times are London time
Most Popular Posts
- Barclays flops
- Further reading
- RBS - was the bottom plumbed on July 16?
- Long oil? No, long the volatility of oil
- It's good to short
- Pink Picks
- Shorting ‘makes billions’ for fund managers
- Merrill Lynch hit by $9.4bn writedown
- Lunch wrap
- Snap News
- Show more...
- Show less...
Blogs we're reading
- 1440 Wall Street
- Abnormal Returns
- Alea
- All About Alpha
- Arbitrage View
- Bespoke Investment Group
- Big Picture
- Brad Setser: Follow the money
- Calculated Risk
- Capital Chronicle
- Capitalist Resistance
- Crossing Wall Street
- Deal Journal
- Dealbook
- Dealbreaker
- Deus Ex Macchiato
- Felix Salmon
- Financial Armageddon
- Financial Crookery
- Fintag
- Free Exchange
- Infectious Greed
- Information Arbritrage
- Intelligent Mergers
- Interactive Investor
- Jeff Matthews
- Marketbeat
- Naked Capitalism
- Naked Shorts
- Nouriel Roubini
- Practical Risk Management
- Random Roger
- Reuters DealZone
- Robert Peston
- Short Stories
- Sudden Debt
- The Aleph blog
- The Epicurean Dealmaker
- The Oil Drum
- The price of everything
- Ultimi Barbarorum
- Wallstrip
Classified Jobs
- Financial Advisers
- Recruiter: Abbey
- Commercial Accountant
- Recruiter: Chemring Defence UK Ltd
- Finance Director
- Recruiter: Sterilin Ltd
- Finance Director
- Recruiter: Red Web Security
- Finance Manager
- Recruiter: McCambridge Foods
- Assistant Management Accountant
- Recruiter: McCambridge Foods
- Accounts & Tax Manager
- Recruiter: Norla Group
- Financial Accountant
- Recruiter: London South Bank University
Site Navigation
Principal content
That Merrill statement in full
Shares in Merrill Lynch were down nine per cent by FT Alphaville home time - struck down by the Journal’s suggestion that the bank might have effectively warehoused mortgage-related losses with hedge funds, piling up potential losses for the future. Here is Merrill’s formal response, in full:
This morning, an article in the Wall Street Journal about Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., relying on unidentified sources, speculated about inappropriate transactions that “may have been designed” to avoid write-downs that “might have been” required earlier in the year. The story is non-specific and relies on unidentified sources. We have no reason to believe that any such inappropriate transactions occurred. Such transactions would clearly violate Merrill Lynch policy.
- Advertise with the FT
- Press enquiries
- Student offers
- FT Conferences
- FT Research Centre
- Corporate subscriptions
- FT Group
- Partner sites: Chinese FT.com
- Les Echos
- FT Deutschland
- Expansion
- © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2007. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd. Privacy policy
- Terms
Paul
Interesting end line in an article in today’s Economist on Investment Banks and whether bigger losses may yet be to come ie …”Mr O’Neal fell in a falling market, but perhaps nearer the top than the bottom ”
I have a feeling that will prove to be the case. Talking of falls Merrill’s statement as set out above doesn’t deny it happened it simple says they have no reason to believe inappropriate transactions occurred and such transactions would violate their policy but that is quite different from a categoric statement to the effect that they didn’t happen ie the door seems left open perhaps for a later statemnt to the effect that .. “we have been shocked to discover….”
Cynical perhaps but having ,some years ago read Philip Augar’s excellent book “The Greed Merchants ” about how the merchant banks operate (he was a merchant banker ) I find it difficult to believe anything they say and easy to understand how the current credit crisis could have arisen.