The question continues to be asked, so the answer seems need answered, and that in the positive, why does BAC continue this ill advised relationship crafted in crisis only, the taking over of Merrill Lynch? Has it ever helped in the BAC bottom line? NO! Does BAC earnings continue to suffer due to this ML anchor? YES! This flawed merger out of desparation has helped noone, despite BM continuing to drink the Ken Lewis KoolAid that ML would somehow validate the failed similar BAC business he had been making excuses for for years prior. It has not. Sure, the failure of ML along the lines of Lehman would had brought down JPM and probably BAC and perhaps Wells but BAC is the only one that continues to be saddled with this boat anchor each quarterly report. Shareholders should demand it to be fluffed off. The employees of other more profitable business units continue to suffer cost cutting ax of BM while ML continues largely unaffected. WHY???? Seems some sort of protection by rite, like the Queen of England. Cut the charade, start axing ML hard, or get rid of it. BAC would prosper much more without the illusion that this somehow helps universal banking model. Universal banking model is a joke, everyone knows it BM, get rid of it.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/05/13/how-bank-of-america-came-to-own-merrill-lynch.aspx?source=yahoo-2&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=yahoo-2