Originally Posted by NoahJ
"The Board Minutes further state that the "Board clarify[ied] that is [sic] was not persuaded or influenced by the statement by the federal regulators that the Board and management would be removed by the federal regulators if the Corporation were to exercise the MAC clause and failed to complete the acquisition of Merrill Lynch."
I do think that the pressure to merge was administered poorly, but I still do not see this as a "forced" merger.
I also think that the merger should not have gone through, and that Merrill should have been left to languish in their muck.
And if B of A is now showing signs of failure, I think they should be left to languish in theirs.
I do not believe in corporate bailouts.
But, with that in mind, and looking at the graph above, how many of the mergers represented there were influenced by government policy rather than economic environment? Can you show another example besides Merrill?
I still strongly believe that the main reason for the conglomeration, and the main reason for deterioration of our financial systems as a whole, has been deregulation. You haven't shown otherwise.
And the only reason Merrill and others were facing such problems in the first place was because of their actions made possible only by deregulation, and sometimes by fraud, aided by deregulation, and regulators "looking the other way". We saw it with Enron. We saw it with Lehman. We saw it with AIG. We saw it with Merrill Lynch.
Again, getting back to the topic of the thread, it's not government that's the problem, it's the death of business ethics in America.