Originally Posted by stephanie
Absolutely. I think that's why Tim had the reaction he did. I thought Timothy ended up seeming kind of ridiculous, like he was reaching for something his example didn't support.
And I agree with the rest of the post.
From a financial markets perspective, Timothy's point was obvious. Forget Corzine and compare Bank of America to smaller, sounder banks which aren't at risk of being sued out of existence. B of A's lower borrowing cost is a monumental "too connected to fail" taxpayer subsidy. A "key man" provision for shareholders
would have been a measure of Corzine's unique ability to grow MF Global, but the bondholders
accepted a lower return for his unique ability to salvage some of their investment should the stock go to zero. Unique connections would be an asset. Tim should do his homework before invoking Occam's razor, and not strain so hard against the obvious.