My Home About Me

In an editorial yesterday, the New York Times pontificated thus:

In any world other than the one created by Wall Street, the resignation of E. Stanley O?Neal, the chief of Merrill Lynch, would have been a foregone conclusion. A week ago, the firm reported the largest quarterly loss in its 93-year history, as a staggering $8.4 billion write-down on investments in junk mortgages and tricky debt obligations contributed to an overall loss in the third quarter of $2.3 billion.

What exactly is the Times complaining about? After all, O'Neal was ousted. The complaint seems to be that the ouster was not expected. But indeed why should it be? The New York Times Company's stock performance has been far worse than Merrill Lynch's. As reader Brian Briody points out, why isn't the ouster of Times scion Arthur Sulzberger Jr. the kind of "foregone conclusion" that is preached on the editorial page that he himself controls?

Basic Materials sector   Technical chart patterns   support/resistance levels   ETFs (exchange traded funds)   Deron Wagner   iShares Hong Kong (EWH)   S&P 500 chart pattern   emini's S&P 500   earnings   economic data   Biotech HOLDR (BBH)   Emini's Nas 100   Short selling ETFs   exchange traded funds   sector rotation   etfs   corn futures   selling options   commodities   mcio