Merrill Lynch Is Finally Put to Rest by Bank of America


Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Five years ago, Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) acquired Merrill Lynch, the nearly 100-year-old investment banking franchise. But it wasn't until today that Merrill Lynch officially ceased to exist.

In a press release issued this morning, the nation's second largest bank by assets announced that, as of Oct. 1, it has completed the merger of Merrill Lynch.

On the surface, the move means very little to the average investor or customer of either company. Merrill Lynch will continue to operate under the same name and brand. And Bank of America's primary broker-dealer, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, will continue to do so as well.

But digging below the surface, it's more significant.

The consummation of the merger means Bank of America has formally assumed all of Merrill Lynch's obligations, "including its outstanding U.S. and non-U.S. debt securities, its obligations regarding outstanding trust-preferred securities, and its guarantees of both outstanding non-U.S. debt securities issued by its subsidiaries and trading contracts of its subsidiaries."

It also means Merrill Lynch will no longer have to file separate reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

One thing it doesn't do, however, is answer the numerous questions that have been raised since the deal was inked over that fateful weekend in September of 2008.

Why did Bank of America pay so much? Had it waited one more day, it could have had a sweetheart deal like JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) did in its acquisition of Bear Stearns. Instead, Bank of America paid $29 a share even though Merrill's co-president Greg Fleming had been advised by a colleague to prepare for an offer of just $3 per share.

Why did the bank fire its general counsel immediately after he uncovered the extent of Merrill's losses? The decision -- or, rather, the bank's failure to adequately disclose the losses to shareholders -- subsequently prompted a lawsuit, costing the bank more than $2 billion to settle.

But despite these questions, there's little doubt that the acquisition has ultimately played out in Bank of America's favor. "Without Merrill's contribution," I said here, "Bank of America would have recorded a net operating loss over the last five years of somewhere in the range of $29 billion as opposed to the $11 billion in profit it notched instead."

If nothing else, moreover, today's announcement is yet one more milestone between Bank of America and the financial crisis that brought the megabank to its knees.

Finding the next bank stock home run
Have you missed out on the massive gains in bank stocks over the past few years? There's good news: It's not too late. Bargains of a lifetime are still available, but you need to know where to look. The Motley Fool's new report "Finding the Next Bank Stock Home Run" will show you how and where to find these deals. It's completely free -- click here to get started.


Read/Post Comments (0) | Recommend This Article (2)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

Be the first one to comment on this article.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2663412, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/1/2014 2:47:40 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement