The Fall of Drexel

THE bankruptcy of Drexel Burnham Lambert has been greeted with lots of crocodile tears and even outright gloating. The huge investment bank had plenty of ill-wishers. Some of the spite came from Wall Street competitors who felt Drexel's sharp elbows in its pushy rise during the '80s.

But much of the hostility came from moralists for whom Drexel epitomized the ``greed'' that, in this view, consumes America.

Drexel is denounced for creating the market for high-yield, high-risk ``junk'' bonds, thus fueling the takeover rampage that disrupted corporate America and left companies bent under heavy debt; for paying ``obscene'' compensation to junk-bond king Michael Milken; for violating securities laws (though US prosecutors themselves may have erred in their heavy-handed use of racketeering laws against Drexel).

But amid the posthumous moralizing (and cackling), some points should be kept in mind:

Much thinking about the $200 billion high-yield bond market has been skewed by the ``junk bond'' label. These began simply as IOUs of the more than 95 percent of American companies that can't issue what the ratings agencies designate ``investment grade'' securities. Before he focused on megadeals, Mr. Milkin created a financing market for thousands of jobs-creating companies. Though the junk-bond market has softened, most of the offerings are still sound.

The takeover mania that Drexel helped foster enabled many stockholders to realize the full value of shares that were underpriced due to, among other factors, lackadaisical or self-interested management. And the mere threat of takeover energized other complacent executives.

To the extent that the buyout binge hurt companies by piling on debt, or that S&L operators, pension-fund managers, and other fiduciary investors recklessly stocked their portfolios with junk bonds, thereby impairing some people's savings, the blame must be widely dispersed.

Drexel's collapse did not start a chain reaction throughout the financial markets, which are less teetery than many people think.

The fall of Drexel Burnham Lambert was a business event, not a thunderbolt from some avenging deity. Moralistic theories don't further public understanding.

About these ads
Sponsored Content by LockerDome

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Save for later

Save
Cancel

Saved ( of items)

This item has been saved to read later from any device.
Access saved items through your user name at the top of the page.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You reached the limit of 20 saved items.
Please visit following link to manage you saved items.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You have already saved this item.

View Saved Items

OK