BAC-WT - Bank of America Warrants

[berkshiremystery]

The Final Days of Merrill Lynch

By William D. Cohan

September 2009 - The Atlantic Magazine

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/william-d-cohan/

 

 

[berkshiremystery]

Here are the archives with old historical annual reports of Merrill Lynch from 1995-2006.

 

The Merrill Lynch Factbook's give the best short and easy overviews of their business activities in a glance. I would everybody encourage to take a peek into them.  ;)

 

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2006/ar/archives.asp

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep95/main.htm

 

===========================

 

 

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 1995

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep95/main.htm

 

--

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 1996

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep96/main.htm

 

--

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 1997 (PDF)

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep97/main.htm

Editorial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep97/pdfs/97REVIEW.pdf

Financial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep97/pdfs/97REPORT.pdf

 

--

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 1998 (PDF)

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep98/main.htm

Editorial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep98/pdfs/editorial.pdf

Financial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep98/pdfs/financial2.pdf

 

--

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 1999 (PDF)

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep99/main.html

Editorial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep99/pdfs/editorial.pdf

Financial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep99/pdfs/financial.pdf

 

--

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 2000 (PDF)

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep00/pdfs/ar2000Fin.pdf

 

--

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 2001 (PDF)

Editorial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep2001/ar-pdf/ml-annual.pdf

Financial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/annrep2001/ar-pdf/ml-financial.pdf

 

--

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 2002 (PDF)

Editorial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/ar-pdf/2002-annual.pdf

Financial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/ar-pdf/2002-financial.pdf

 

--

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 2003 (PDF)

Editorial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2003/ar/pdf/annual_report_2003_complete.pdf

Financial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2003/ar/pdf/annual_report_2003_financials.pdf

Restated Financial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2003/ar/pdf/Y96779_clean_1653.pdf

 

--

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 2004 (PDF)

Editorial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2004/ar/pdfs/annual_report_2004_complete.pdf

Financial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2004/ar/pdfs/annual_report_2004_financials.pdf

Factbook

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2004/ar/pdfs/2004Factbook.pdf

Proxy Statement

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2004/ar/pdfs/ps_2005_complete.pdf

 

--

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 2005 (PDF)

Editorial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2005/ar/pdfs/annual_report_2005_complete.pdf

Financial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2005/ar/pdfs/annual_report_2005_financials.pdf

Factbook

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2005/ar/pdfs/2005Factbook.pdf

Proxy Statement

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2005/ar/pdfs/ps_2006_complete.pdf

 

--

 

Merrill Lynch - Annual Report 2006 (PDF)

Editorial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2006/ar/pdfs/annual_report_2006_complete.pdf

Financial

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2006/ar/pdfs/annual_report_2006_financials.pdf

Factbook

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2006/ar/pdfs/2006Factbook.pdf

Proxy Statements

http://www.ml.com/annualmeetingmaterials/2006/ar/pdfs/2007Proxy.pdf

 

##

 

 

 

 

 

[wescobrk]

Here is an excerpt from an interview in late Nov with Wells CEO:

 

"Even at incredibly low rates. In fact we think there's something between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion on businesses' and consumers' balance sheets that is sitting in our vaults. I've never seen it like this before. I've never seen the deposit growth the way we have it, and it's not because the yields are so high. It's security."

 

This will likely continue. It doesn't get mentioned (besides Buffett) how wonderful of an asset their depsosit base is of BAC. It is really underestimated in the market. Even with the big run recently we are still about 55% of book and Wells I believe is at 1.2x book. Obviously their legacy issues are materially different but still find it interesting the difference between these two banks in valuation.

[sswan11]

US tax question:

 

if expected income > $250K for 2012 and 2013

 

better to sell some/all BAC 14 LEAPS for short-term cap gain in 2012 or for long-term cap gain in 2013 given likely tax increases?

[txlaw]

In addition to everything you said above, I've also been very impressed with what Moynihan is doing with ML.  It appears to be moving up in the rankings of i-banks thanks to Moynihan's focus, and perhaps it can be best in class?

 

Any bankers out there want to comment on this conjecture?

 

I am not sure "moving up" is correct.  ML is a very good investment bank.  It's certainly one of the top ones.  I am not sure how much higher they go.  In terms of best in class, you've kind of got Goldman and despite what some people might wish, I don't see that changing any time soon.  You've got MS.  ML is certainly right up there with usual crowd.  It's a very nice asset to have at BAC.  I wouldn't be surprised to see it spun off at some point.  Maybe whenever the next frothy bull run is to get super maximum value.

 

Perhaps you're right, Kraven.  I was thinking more of "moving up" in the sense of cleaning house and having a different culture that was more like a GS or MS.  I just recall Charlie Munger saying something about how there were definitely some "crooks" at ML as a result of acquisitions (Countrywide, I suppose, was the same deal for BAC).

 

I was also thinking of ML possibly being put on the same pedestal as GS and MS.  Probably wishful thinking on my part to think that ML can ever be held in the same esteem as GS.

 

Kraven, what's your sense of what it means to be an i-banker at ML or another bulge bracket firm versus a boutique firm like Lazard or Greenhill?  Are the boutique bankers more productive?  Do they get more choice deals?  Also, what do you think of JEF?  Every boutique banker I've ever spoken to (one or two, really) has said JEF's name with disdain.

[racemize]

US tax question:

 

if expected income > $250K for 2012 and 2013

 

better to sell some/all BAC 14 LEAPS for short-term cap gain in 2012 or for long-term cap gain in 2013 given likely tax increases?

 

I've been assuming a long term gains tax rate of 20% in the future, but even worse case scenario it would be at marginal rates, which is the same as short term gains, so I don't see any reason to go short versus long.

[Kraven]

In addition to everything you said above, I've also been very impressed with what Moynihan is doing with ML.  It appears to be moving up in the rankings of i-banks thanks to Moynihan's focus, and perhaps it can be best in class?

 

Any bankers out there want to comment on this conjecture?

 

I am not sure "moving up" is correct.  ML is a very good investment bank.  It's certainly one of the top ones.  I am not sure how much higher they go.  In terms of best in class, you've kind of got Goldman and despite what some people might wish, I don't see that changing any time soon.  You've got MS.  ML is certainly right up there with usual crowd.  It's a very nice asset to have at BAC.  I wouldn't be surprised to see it spun off at some point.  Maybe whenever the next frothy bull run is to get super maximum value.

 

Perhaps you're right, Kraven.  I was thinking more of "moving up" in the sense of cleaning house and having a different culture that was more like a GS or MS.  I just recall Charlie Munger saying something about how there were definitely some "crooks" at ML as a result of acquisitions (Countrywide, I suppose, was the same deal for BAC).

 

I was also thinking of ML possibly being put on the same pedestal as GS and MS.  Probably wishful thinking on my part to think that ML can ever be held in the same esteem as GS.

 

Kraven, what's your sense of what it means to be an i-banker at ML or another bulge bracket firm versus a boutique firm like Lazard or Greenhill?  Are the boutique bankers more productive?  Do they get more choice deals?  Also, what do you think of JEF?  Every boutique banker I've ever spoken to (one or two, really) has said JEF's name with disdain.

 

I see what you're saying.  Culture is a funny thing at these places.  It's there and it's not.  I think at Goldman in particular, but also at MS, it's hard for me to tell exactly what is culture and what is just the confidence (arrogance?) in thinking and believing you're the best.  I think like anything once the views on what is "best" are set it's very hard to change.  Goldman and MS have been viewed as the creme of the crop for a very long time. 

 

That's not to say there aren't other very good IBs, there are, but it's hard to break into the upper realm.  Think of it like college. You've got Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.  Now someone might argue that they will get the same quality education at "State", but it's not the same.  They may very well be right, but it's the intangibles that can't be matched.  At some point people have to ask whether it matters to them.  For some it does, for others it doesn't.  ML is a very good IB.  Whether it will ever have the same cache as a GS or something I don't know.

 

In terms of the difference between being a banker at a place like ML vs a boutique like Lazard or Greenhill or something, I don't really have much of an opinion.  I never worked much with any of the boutiques.  I think there is a difference in type of deal.  I think that at the boutiques perhaps more so than the bulge brackets it is more of a star system.  That is, there will be a few people who are viewed as great and the rest are support.  Not that it's so different at other places, other than maybe a GS and MS, but the difference as I see it is one of resources.  A boutique will often be more in an advisory role while a larger IB can provide financing and the like.  I think if someone is at a boutique and they get hooked up with the right person it can be fantastic, but if not I think someone is perhaps better off at a larger IB.  Just my opinion. 

 

As to JEF, I think they have always been viewed as a good, mid tier IB.  Nothing special at all.  Kind of reminds me of the line from Seinfeld (different context), when Elaine says that men are utiliatrian, for getting around like a jeep.  That's JEF and it's ilk.  It's for getting around. 

[Uccmal]

Great summary Alex!

 

We pegged ML somewhere between 50 to 100 B months ago in this thread.  Dont ask me where.

 

After selling 30 or so options I bought 150 15 x 2015 options on Thursday, last week.  Sometimes I am a little indecisive.  Only slightly mind you.  In total I now hold nearly 100 k of shares (notional).

 

I figure we get a pop on Monday or Wednesday when the can gets kicked down the road by the US gov't. 

[txlaw]

In addition to everything you said above, I've also been very impressed with what Moynihan is doing with ML.  It appears to be moving up in the rankings of i-banks thanks to Moynihan's focus, and perhaps it can be best in class?

 

Any bankers out there want to comment on this conjecture?

 

I am not sure "moving up" is correct.  ML is a very good investment bank.  It's certainly one of the top ones.  I am not sure how much higher they go.  In terms of best in class, you've kind of got Goldman and despite what some people might wish, I don't see that changing any time soon.  You've got MS.  ML is certainly right up there with usual crowd.  It's a very nice asset to have at BAC.  I wouldn't be surprised to see it spun off at some point.  Maybe whenever the next frothy bull run is to get super maximum value.

 

Perhaps you're right, Kraven.  I was thinking more of "moving up" in the sense of cleaning house and having a different culture that was more like a GS or MS.  I just recall Charlie Munger saying something about how there were definitely some "crooks" at ML as a result of acquisitions (Countrywide, I suppose, was the same deal for BAC).

 

I was also thinking of ML possibly being put on the same pedestal as GS and MS.  Probably wishful thinking on my part to think that ML can ever be held in the same esteem as GS.

 

Kraven, what's your sense of what it means to be an i-banker at ML or another bulge bracket firm versus a boutique firm like Lazard or Greenhill?  Are the boutique bankers more productive?  Do they get more choice deals?  Also, what do you think of JEF?  Every boutique banker I've ever spoken to (one or two, really) has said JEF's name with disdain.

 

I see what you're saying.  Culture is a funny thing at these places.  It's there and it's not.  I think at Goldman in particular, but also at MS, it's hard for me to tell exactly what is culture and what is just the confidence (arrogance?) in thinking and believing you're the best.  I think like anything once the views on what is "best" are set it's very hard to change.  Goldman and MS have been viewed as the creme of the crop for a very long time. 

 

That's not to say there aren't other very good IBs, there are, but it's hard to break into the upper realm.  Think of it like college. You've got Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.  Now someone might argue that they will get the same quality education at "State", but it's not the same.  They may very well be right, but it's the intangibles that can't be matched.  At some point people have to ask whether it matters to them.  For some it does, for others it doesn't.  ML is a very good IB.  Whether it will ever have the same cache as a GS or something I don't know.

 

In terms of the difference between being a banker at a place like ML vs a boutique like Lazard or Greenhill or something, I don't really have much of an opinion.  I never worked much with any of the boutiques.  I think there is a difference in type of deal.  I think that at the boutiques perhaps more so than the bulge brackets it is more of a star system.  That is, there will be a few people who are viewed as great and the rest are support.  Not that it's so different at other places, other than maybe a GS and MS, but the difference as I see it is one of resources.  A boutique will often be more in an advisory role while a larger IB can provide financing and the like.  I think if someone is at a boutique and they get hooked up with the right person it can be fantastic, but if not I think someone is perhaps better off at a larger IB.  Just my opinion. 

 

As to JEF, I think they have always been viewed as a good, mid tier IB.  Nothing special at all.  Kind of reminds me of the line from Seinfeld (different context), when Elaine says that men are utiliatrian, for getting around like a jeep.  That's JEF and it's ilk.  It's for getting around.

 

Thanks for the input, Kraven.

[jay21]

I see what you're saying.  Culture is a funny thing at these places.  It's there and it's not.  I think at Goldman in particular, but also at MS, it's hard for me to tell exactly what is culture and what is just the confidence (arrogance?) in thinking and believing you're the best.  I think like anything once the views on what is "best" are set it's very hard to change.  Goldman and MS have been viewed as the creme of the crop for a very long time. 

 

That's not to say there aren't other very good IBs, there are, but it's hard to break into the upper realm.  Think of it like college. You've got Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.  Now someone might argue that they will get the same quality education at "State", but it's not the same.  They may very well be right, but it's the intangibles that can't be matched.

 

Might be worth studying JPM to see how they did it.

[Kraven]

I see what you're saying.  Culture is a funny thing at these places.  It's there and it's not.  I think at Goldman in particular, but also at MS, it's hard for me to tell exactly what is culture and what is just the confidence (arrogance?) in thinking and believing you're the best.  I think like anything once the views on what is "best" are set it's very hard to change.  Goldman and MS have been viewed as the creme of the crop for a very long time. 

 

That's not to say there aren't other very good IBs, there are, but it's hard to break into the upper realm.  Think of it like college. You've got Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.  Now someone might argue that they will get the same quality education at "State", but it's not the same.  They may very well be right, but it's the intangibles that can't be matched.

 

Might be worth studying JPM to see how they did it.

 

I have no idea of what you're talking about. JPM has always been a top institution. They've certainly improved their IB capabilities over the years but on a pure IB basis are not viewed as in the same league as GS for example. So before you make condescending suggestions to people who actually have experience in the area it might make sense to stop and think for a second. Perhaps when you actually have experience in the real world this will make sense to you. Maybe when you're 22.

[berkshiremystery]

Some interesting point might be the unusual comparison of APPL & BAC, two companies in totally different industries, or even better the comparison of two CEO's, the late Steve Jobs vs the current Brian Moynihan. In a couple of years Moynihan might get that silent rock-star status for a CEO, who archived some legendary banking turnaround.

 

Apple vs. Bank of America: A Vital Comparison Every Investor Should Know

2012-12-28 Fool.com

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/12/28/apple-vs-bank-of-america-a-vital-comparison-every.aspx

 

[jay21]

I see what you're saying.  Culture is a funny thing at these places.  It's there and it's not.  I think at Goldman in particular, but also at MS, it's hard for me to tell exactly what is culture and what is just the confidence (arrogance?) in thinking and believing you're the best.  I think like anything once the views on what is "best" are set it's very hard to change.  Goldman and MS have been viewed as the creme of the crop for a very long time. 

 

That's not to say there aren't other very good IBs, there are, but it's hard to break into the upper realm.  Think of it like college. You've got Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.  Now someone might argue that they will get the same quality education at "State", but it's not the same.  They may very well be right, but it's the intangibles that can't be matched.

 

Might be worth studying JPM to see how they did it.

 

I have no idea of what you're talking about. JPM has always been a top institution. They've certainly improved their IB capabilities over the years but on a pure IB basis are not viewed as in the same league as GS for example. So before you make condescending suggestions to people who actually have experience in the area it might make sense to stop and think for a second. Perhaps when you actually have experience in the real world this will make sense to you. Maybe when you're 22.

 

IDK how you interpreted my post as condescending.  I'm usually a poster asking questions to more knowledgeable posters.

 

My thought was that JPM has significantly improved their IB and now are in the same category as GS.  If I am wrong, I hope someone like you would say "Actually JPM's IB is not on the same level as GS because x,y,z.  A better example of someone breaking into the upper realm is Firm X." 

[Kraven]

I see what you're saying.  Culture is a funny thing at these places.  It's there and it's not.  I think at Goldman in particular, but also at MS, it's hard for me to tell exactly what is culture and what is just the confidence (arrogance?) in thinking and believing you're the best.  I think like anything once the views on what is "best" are set it's very hard to change.  Goldman and MS have been viewed as the creme of the crop for a very long time. 

 

That's not to say there aren't other very good IBs, there are, but it's hard to break into the upper realm.  Think of it like college. You've got Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.  Now someone might argue that they will get the same quality education at "State", but it's not the same.  They may very well be right, but it's the intangibles that can't be matched.

 

Might be worth studying JPM to see how they did it.

 

I have no idea of what you're talking about. JPM has always been a top institution. They've certainly improved their IB capabilities over the years but on a pure IB basis are not viewed as in the same league as GS for example. So before you make condescending suggestions to people who actually have experience in the area it might make sense to stop and think for a second. Perhaps when you actually have experience in the real world this will make sense to you. Maybe when you're 22.

 

IDK how you interpreted my post as condescending.  I'm usually a poster asking questions to more knowledgeable posters.

 

My thought was that JPM has significantly improved their IB and now are in the same category as GS.  If I am wrong, I hope someone like you would say "Actually JPM's IB is not on the same level as GS because x,y,z.  A better example of someone breaking into the upper realm is Firm X."

 

I am sick and grumpy and irritable. The whole family has been sick and its been a long week. Sorry I misunderstood.

 

JPM is a wonderful business and they have a fine IB sub. I don't consider it in the same category as GS and MS.  It's hard for a commercial bank (a "real" commercial bank) to compare to an IB. Of course these lines have been blurred of late. At the end of the day don't confuse prestige with ability. Most of the major IBs can do generally do the same things with more or less similar levels of skill.

 

But as I noted above prestige is a funny thing. It's very hard to change perception. Despite all the changes in past decades Wall Street is very traditional. It's hard to see the prestige rankings changing much. Whether that matters or not I leave to others.  In general IBs are in businesses where the cliche that a rising tide lifts all boats is very true. When business is good there is more than enough to go around that all the major banks will do exceptionally well.

[berkshiremystery]

How Safe Is Today's Banking Sector?

2012-12-18 Fool.com

 

Interview with Mohamed El-Erian, CEO of bond giant PIMCO

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/12/18/how-safe-is-todays-banking-sector.aspx?source=iaasitlnk0000003

 

and also at:

 

Exclusive: Mohamed El-Erian on Why So Many Failed to Foresee the Financial Crisis

2012-12-17 Fool.com

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/12/17/exclusive-mohamed-el-erian-on-why-so-many-failed-t.aspx

 

 

[Parsad]

How Safe Is Today's Banking Sector?

2012-12-18 Fool.com

 

Interview with Mohamed El-Erian, CEO of bond giant PIMCO

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/12/18/how-safe-is-todays-banking-sector.aspx?source=iaasitlnk0000003

 

and also at:

 

Exclusive: Mohamed El-Erian on Why So Many Failed to Foresee the Financial Crisis

2012-12-17 Fool.com

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/12/17/exclusive-mohamed-el-erian-on-why-so-many-failed-t.aspx

 

I'm tired of listening to El Erian!  He's on tv almost every day, and I'm finding he doesn't know any more than anyone else.  Cheers!

[bmichaud]

How Safe Is Today's Banking Sector?

2012-12-18 Fool.com

 

Interview with Mohamed El-Erian, CEO of bond giant PIMCO

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/12/18/how-safe-is-todays-banking-sector.aspx?source=iaasitlnk0000003

 

and also at:

 

Exclusive: Mohamed El-Erian on Why So Many Failed to Foresee the Financial Crisis

2012-12-17 Fool.com

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/12/17/exclusive-mohamed-el-erian-on-why-so-many-failed-t.aspx

 

I'm tired of listening to El Erian!  He's on tv almost every day, and I'm finding he doesn't know any more than anyone else.  Cheers!

 

Amen. Sick and tired of reading his seemingly weekly FT columns.

[Guest wellmont]

el erian: banks aren't safe but Pimco is.  ;D

[MYDemaray]

Broad settlement with government and banks rumored to be close: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N0A50VK20121231?irpc=43

[meiroy]

Broad settlement with government and banks rumored to be close: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N0A50VK20121231?irpc=43

 

That continues that Bernanke's remark awhile go, doesn't it; if it's indeed the deal that ends all deals, it's not only good for the banks but also for the entire US economy.  It also connects somehow to the TARP sell off.  Which leaves Dodd-Frank...

[berkshiremystery]

el erian: banks aren't safe but Pimco is.  ;D

 

 

Hahaha,... I know, you made my day,....

 

We should rather call him, "el erian: pimp my gov bond ride @ Pimco",... ah, just kidding,...

but I was thinking about a similar MTV show,... isn't there one car tuning show called almost the same...  ;D

 

-----

 

 

 

 

Bank Of America: Expect Stock Buyback In 2013

December 28, 2012 

SeekingAlpha.com

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1086221-bank-of-america-expect-stock-buyback-in-2013

 

 

To recap briefly, the valuation analysis assumed an annual return-on-equity at BAC of 11% and noted that, since new purchasers of common stock can buy in at ~55% of book value, this translates into an annual return on investment of ~20%. The opportunity arises because, despite this year's strong performance, BAC's stock price stands at just over $11 against reported book value per share of $20.4.

 

 

 

[Parsad]

Broad settlement with government and banks rumored to be close: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N0A50VK20121231?irpc=43

 

More details on the settlement and how the negotiations began.  Cheers!

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100345785

[jay21]

I am sick and grumpy and irritable. The whole family has been sick and its been a long week. Sorry I misunderstood.

 

NP.  Hope you and they feel better.

 

 

[fareastwarriors]

Things have not sold-off despite the fisical cliff debates. I was hoping for an opportunity to buy more.

[wescobrk]

Once they agree on the sequester (only sticking point now) BAC will be at 12.50 within days. Maybe TBV for a short time.