
Steve Lipin didn’t fit the profile of a transformative media figure when he took over the mergers-and-acquisitions beat for The Wall Street Journal in 1995. His look was studious, his manner remarkably affable and low key, given the stress of his new job. His rise had not been particularly meteoric.
He had started in 1985 at the bottom of the business-news food chain, financial newsletters, then progressed to Institutional Investor, a magazine for pension-fund
managers, and then American Banker, another trade. In 1991, he followed his boss there to The Wall Street Journal, to cover banking. After four years of solid, unspectacular work, he moved to M&A, a beat that was at the time moribund.
Then the scoops started to come:
Kemper Agrees to be Acquired by Group Headed by Zurich Insurance for $2 Billion
That story, which ran April 11, 1995, reported that the financial services firm was ending a tumultuous year in which it had rejected a hostile offer from General Electric and had seen a friendly deal fall apart twice. The story was based on information from “people familiar with the transaction,” a form of attribution vague enough to encompass just about anyone involved in the deal—investment bankers, lawyers, company executives, public-relations specialists.
The scoops got bigger and more frequent:
First Union Agrees to Buy First Fidelity for $5.5 Billion—Swap Valued at $65 a Share; Combination to Create 7th-Largest U.S. Bank—June 19, 1995
Kimberly-Clark to Acquire Scott Paper in Stock Deal Valued at About $6.8 Billion—July 17, 1995
Upjohn and Pharmacia Sign $6 Billion Merger—August 21, 1995
Lipin’s scoops ranged across industries: banking, consumer products, pharmaceuticals. It didn’t seem to matter:
Boeing and Mcdonnell Douglas are Holding Merger Negotiations—Commercial, Military Aircraft Powerhouse Could Shake Industry —November 16, 1995
Week in, week out, Lipin seemed to get just about every industry-transforming blockbuster: Chase Manhattan/ Chemical (1995), $10 billion; WorldCom/mci (1997), $30 billion; BankAmerica/NationsBank, a $60-billion deal in 1998 to form Bank of America, and in the same story BancOne/First Chicago nbd Corporation, $30 billion (the combined bank is now part of J. P. Morgan Chase, formed in 2000 with the $36-billion combination of J. P. Morgan & Company and Chase Manhattan Incorporated—another Lipin scoop.)
A handful of major scoops over the course of a career is considered a job well done for an M&A reporter. Lipin had, by my count, at least seventy, with a total value of more than half a trillion dollars. He was on prominent pages of the WSJ (A1, A3, C1, and B1), more than five hundred times in five years, which could be a record. Those who traded on Lipin’s information early enough stood to make serious money. The WorldCom bid alone added $8 billion to mci’s value in a single day.
Most of the time, the names of the companies in Lipin’s scoops had never been linked, let alone reported as combining. The stories often announced talks in progress, amplifying a sense of immediacy: this was news that hadn’t even happened yet. They often said the deals “could be announced as early as today.” (Full disclosure: Lipin was a colleague of mine at the Journal, and in 2009 and 2010 he was a funder of cjr’s business desk, The Audit, which I run.)
Inside newsrooms and in the markets, major M&A scoops have an electrifying effect. Mergers represent big capital-allocation decisions affecting thousands of jobs and billions of investor dollars. And while M&A is routine on Wall Street, for most companies it is a one-time roll of the dice. An acquisition taken is a dozen alternatives foregone. Big deals are also benchmarks—important pricing moments that help determine values and, in fact, create realities. What was unthinkable one day—AOL/Time Warner, for instance—is reality the next. For a news organization, deal scoops create an aura of omniscience, a sense that it is plugged into Wall Street.
Interesting idea, Dean. I wonder how it fits in the FONosphere though, given the idea, near universal, that anything other than market-actionable "scoops" are a generalized commodity, worth nothing at all.
Also, you call Pearson PLC's $160 million expansion, which gained the company 91,000 new readers, "a success." Really? At $1,700 per?
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Tue 10 Jan 2012 at 03:56 PM
Dean - if M&A reporters jobs is to cozy up to dealmakers to get deal term scoops 1st (so readers can trade off it) than isn't the reporter just working for a few on Wall Street and not the reader. AR Sorkin's fail was to warn that any of those levered up 05-07 PE deals might also mean a fail for PE investors when the credit bubble burst. I didn't see Sorkin doing his main street investor readers(most of NYT Biz readers) any service by promoting his banker sources deals with out a few warnings on how the deal terms might bite shareholders in the rear.
#2 Posted by Teri Buhl, CJR on Tue 17 Jan 2012 at 01:17 PM
Most financial reporting can be summed up in a single word - "infomercial".
#3 Posted by Hugh Akston, CJR on Sat 21 Jan 2012 at 02:03 PM
Dean,
Quite agree. However there have been a few voices crying out in the wilderness. \
For years reporters have been pointing out that the rating agencies in the USA were corrupt; the companies being assessed are paying the rating agencies. Also the press pointed out the conflict of interest that Paulson had being a Goldman Sachs loyalist and yet working for the administration in the last crash. But the tank just keeps on rolling. Why? Most of the financial reporters are New Yorkers and steeped in that culture; accepting of Wall Street and its mores and unable to cast a critical eye over it. Like the money honey from Brooklyn, they just tell it how it is. Actually getting stuck into Wall Street is not on their radar. To get a good and aggressive business press, I suggest using more aggressive outsiders e.g. Harvard economics professors and Stanford experts too. It was a Stanford academic, a doctor with alzberger syndrome who finally worked out the mortgage CDO plot by going over k10 reports from 1 am to 5 am., according to a long piece in Vanity Fair.
But why did the press allow Pres. Clinton to abolish the Glass Steagall Act without a word? I think Americans are too much in awe of the office of President and the 'sacred' Constitution. Ridiculous. Clinton was a flawed as the rest of us. He only did it to allow the merger of Travellers and Citigroup( making along the way former Travellers CEO Sandy Weill rich beyond the dreams of avarice).
#4 Posted by Pamela Griffiths Clark , CJR on Tue 21 Feb 2012 at 07:51 AM
Hugh Akston called financial reporting an “informercial.” So it’s not really reporting. The financial media is now a trade publication, not journalism. They repeatedly interview propagandists (from Koch funded groups). It would be nice to have journalism.
Even the MSM now functions as press agent, he said she said, race barkers, and gotcha, rather than journalism. The media tells us we live in a globalized world, and then their Wall Street owners cut out investigative reporting and foreign correspondents.
Journalism is closely related to science. Throughout history, the arts and sciences have often been supported in some way by the state. They and journalism are essential public services that the market does not always support. (The cure for bad science is more science, for bad journalism is more journalism, etc.)
Successful nations have always managed their affairs and pursued their interests. Our important use of the free market is only one function. Laissez faire theory, that we should have ONLY a market, has no support in the historical record. “You can’t pick winners” is also false. Many technologies and products started with some gov’t support. We need both public policy and private entrepreneurship in a free market. A public private partnership may be needed to create business journalism.
On the issue raised by Pamela Clark, in the 1990s, the mantra of Republicans and Texas Gov. Bush was self-regulation. We saw how that worked out. Regarding deregulation under Clinton, since we do not have public funding of elections, another essential, Democrats serve business. They agreed to deregulation because the banks were doing so well, and the deal was that there would still be adequate regulation. They had no way to know that Bush/Cheney would run an orgy of deregulation, due their appointees. (Some states tried to regulate the growing subprime mess and were block by the Bush administration.)
Recall the other deals that Bush violated?
(It wasn’t a war act, it was a war powers act. Hank Paulson would not need to use what he called his bazooka if we gave it to him. Limit CO2 and other similarities to Gore. Be a uniter, instead of appointing extremists.)
#5 Posted by Harry Thorn, CJR on Thu 8 Mar 2012 at 10:15 PM