1.) Nothing will really change from a leadership point of view. ML will get a new guy, maybe BlackRock's Mr. Fink. He'll talk a good game, hire a few new faces, move things around and then proceed to manage the balance sheet like it's the last day of his and the firm's life. But that's about the extent. Leaders don't always translate into leadership. This is proving particularly true on Wall Street these days. If anyone thinks risk as far as the eye can see behavior is going to change, then they're delusional. Case in point: The structured investment vehicle (SIV) bailout and its dwindling list of "debt on top of debt" contributors.
2.) Big banks are all the same. Very little to no differentiation. No real products or services set them apart. Insiders will argue this point vehemently. Here's a test. Go to anyone -- business and/or consumer -- who has an account with Merrill, Bank of America or Citi. Ask them point blank, "what do you get from your bank that you can't get anywhere else?" That's right. NADA, nothing. No wonder O'Neal was interested in Wachovia other than the potential payoff despite the fact he will likely get a similar amount via his separation agreement.
3.) Very little board room or palace intrigue. Unlike the Morgan Stanley drama that played out for months between Purcell, Mack and investors, Merrill Lynch is getting caught relatively flat footed. O'Neal handpicked most of the board, and with the exception of a few lone voices, there's not enough conflict to get any of the usual juices flowing. "Largest ever" loss highly damaging but not all that revealing in a forward looking turnover or succession context. Mainly because the poor judgment was so obvious. About the only thing left worth watching is how high the loss number will go, not who takes the reins.
Looking ahead...How many top people will bail out of Merrill in the coming weeks? That's where the real consequences lie, not how many millions Stanley gets to take home. Someone wake us when this one is over.
# # #
