

Morgan Stanley’s Deep Secret Now Is Revealed - jswinghammer
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/morgan-stanley-s-deep-secret-now-is-revealed-commentary-by-jonathan-weil.html

======
jwb119
>As it turns out, the information about Morgan Stanley’s $3.5 billion
discount-window loan has been sitting on the Financial Crisis Inquiry
Commission’s website since last month. The panel didn’t mention it in its
final report. And nobody had written a story about it before.

Makes you wonder what other sort of "non-public" information is actually out
there just waiting to be found.

~~~
sks
I remember a stock trading company found Microsoft's quarterly earnings report
on their website hours before they were supposed to be made "public" and made
a neat profit.

source : [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-28/microsoft-
earnings-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-28/microsoft-earnings-
release-obtained-early-by-market-data-firm.html)

------
stretchwithme
I don't understand how the public benefits from having the true weaknesses of
companies hidden. If the Fed were truly acting in the public's best interests,
it would want you to have as accurate view as possible.

Of course, the theory is that somehow this would undermine confidence in
banks. But the opposite is actually the case. Banks would have to maintain
reserves and lend wisely in order to get your deposits. Especially if you
could actually lose your money.

Instead, everything is covered up until the government can no longer hide how
bad it is. But don't worry, you're insured, right? Yes. But it turns out
you're insured by you the taxpayer, so you're even more screwed now than you
would have been if you had incentive to use your judgement and the clarity to
see what was going on.

Smokescreen government at its worst. And all because banks tend to collapse
when bad government creates massive instability in the economy to begin with.

------
gaius
Fair's fair... So long as _every_ organization or individual that takes public
money has their affairs exposed to public scrutiny, I see nothing to argue
with.

~~~
gcb
banks does have the hability to scrutinize all your financial life before
lending you money. but all you have when giving them YOUR money is a little
pamphlet.

Also, i'm pretty sure i can pay some few bucks and also have most of that
information about you if so i desire.

~~~
gaius
You get a fair bit more than that when buying shares in a bank...

~~~
borism
if you're Warren Buffett.

I have invested in public companies for 10 years now and all I got were SEC
filings...

~~~
gaius
At any time you could have shown up to the AGM and caused a ruckus.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
An uninformed person causing a ruckus at the AGM is just a crank.

------
pdenya
It seems ridiculous that it's taken several years to get this info released.

~~~
shareme
there is 2 year limit in place,(the law passed by Obama) so that there is not
a daily run on deposits when data becomes available as obviously any recession
does not last more than 2 years..

The core problem which Obama failed to understand is that these financial
firms used uncoupled securities to pad their short term profits while at the
same time increasing their long term risks to way beyond the capital they had.

The uncoupled securities now do not just include derivatives but also
commodity contracts as exchanges no longer have the limits in place of having
actual products to enter into those contracts..

Translation: They eff'd us over..

~~~
anamax
> The core problem which Obama failed to understand

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you think that Bush intended the
likely outcomes of what he did and that you think that Obama is smarter than
Bush. Doesn't it follow that Obama intends the likely outcomes of what he
does?

Note that Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a majority
in the house. He still has a majority in the Senate.

Given a choice between blaming incompetence and blaming intent, why should I
think that Obama is the former?

------
edge17
if that $3.5b saved them, I wonder what this other $9b was for
[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-9-billion-check-to-
rescue...](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-9-billion-check-to-rescued-
morgan-stanley-2009-11)

~~~
rkalla
Bonuses? They don't pay themselves you know.

------
euroclydon
The risk of looking weak to competitors and shareholders is an inherent risk
of market participation... but only after two years, apparently.

