Morgan Stanley’s $9 Billion Check(andrewrosssorkin.com)
andrewrosssorkin.com
Morgan Stanley’s $9 Billion Check
http://www.andrewrosssorkin.com/?p=355
4 comments
But...
Paper checks don't actually move money around, computers changing numbers in electronic ledgers do. A paper check is just a device to trigger that process.
I'm not sure this story makes any sense to me.
Paper checks don't actually move money around, computers changing numbers in electronic ledgers do. A paper check is just a device to trigger that process.
I'm not sure this story makes any sense to me.
The distinction is most probably legal. The transaction couldn't close until payment was received - and the paper check could be "received" but a wire transfer couldn't until the next day.
Likewise, they could put the funds on their balance sheet at the moment the check changed hands. I'm sure they also had accounts payable, so this allowed them to be solvent despite the fact that the check hadn't yet been deposited.
Likewise, they could put the funds on their balance sheet at the moment the check changed hands. I'm sure they also had accounts payable, so this allowed them to be solvent despite the fact that the check hadn't yet been deposited.
What matters is that they had proof of funds, which they needed to avoid bankruptcy.
Here is to hoping it might have been as simple as the person who would authorize electronic transfers was on holiday.
The check wasn't meant to be deposited through traditional means. Checks like that give creditors some tangible evidence that the company will not collapse because of the imminent cash infusion.
Whatever you think about the rationale behind this check (I don't buy the story about electronic systems being down on a holiday either), I encourage you to read Rolling Stone's irreverent take[1] on Goldman Sach's role in this whole saga, as a valuable counterpoint to the fawning "all-nighter swinging dick" worship[2] as can be seen from the excerpt of this guy's book in Vanity Fair.
1. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_grea... 2. http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2009/11/too-big-...
1. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_grea... 2. http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2009/11/too-big-...
Interesting. Why was a Japanese bank willing to risk that much on a bank that made bad choices?
They got 21% of the company.
"Why was a Japanese bank willing to risk that much on a bank that made bad choices?"
Imagine buying an Xbox for $30. (It was a bargain.)
Imagine buying an Xbox for $30. (It was a bargain.)
Japs are pretty heavily controlled by the American elite. There is actually a fairly big underground movement in Japan to throw them off and stop stuff like this from happening. Japanese banks and politicians though have been paying tribute to America for a long time.
references needed
It's a tough thing to reference. But I've read from many Japanese authors about the kind of reverence that Japan holds for America even today. It's almost a religious kind of awe, and so when American powerbrokers visit Japan there is a kind of unsaid understanding that the Japanese aristocrats will make concessions and "pay tribute". After WW2 all the current Mitsubishi Group banks very much became an international operation. And it holds tremendous power, and yet is extremely - almost inexplicably - conciliatory to America.
Some Japanese people are unhappy with this vassal kind of relationship between their most powerful institutions (which, let's face it, are the political Kingmakers of Japan just like the corporatocracy in America) and the Western Elite.
Some Japanese people are unhappy with this vassal kind of relationship between their most powerful institutions (which, let's face it, are the political Kingmakers of Japan just like the corporatocracy in America) and the Western Elite.
So, on a holiday, the electronic systems were "closed", but the paper check could be deposited normally? Irony abounds.