Reuters reports that Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) is taking an enormous $5.7 billion write-down on losses from mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and plans to raise $8.5 billion.

The biggest shocker was, as Reuters reports, that Merrill signed a contract with Singapore's Temasek, a sovereign wealth fund, that requires Merrill to pay $2.5 billion under terms of a previous stock sale to Temasek, along with $2.4 billion in required dividends to preferred shareholders. That's because under its previous deal, Merrill had agreed that if it sold shares at too low a price in the future, it would reimburse investors. Temasek has agreed to purchase $3.4 billion -- or 28% of the new offering. In other words, Merrill is paying an extremely high price for its capital.

The second shocker was how much of a write-down Merrill is taking on its portfolio of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Private equity fund Lone Star is paying 22 cents on the dollar, or $6.7 billion for CDOs with a stated book value of $30.6 billion. At that rate, the holders of $2 trillion worth of CDOs outstanding earlier this year would need to take a $1.56 trillion haircut if they sold all the CDOs. And I don't think they have nearly enough capital to be able to afford that.

The New York Times reported a blockbuster revelation from yesterday's Congressional testimony on the JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) acquisition of The Bear Stearns Companies (NYSE: BSC). It turns out that the religious right and government bailouts go hand in hand -- that's because Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson decided that he would not put $30 billion worth of taxpayer money at risk unless JPMorgan paid a really low price for Bear.

The reason? Moral hazard. Specifically, Paulson wanted to use Bear as an example that would scare all the other banks that borrowed $32 for every dollar of equity to buy Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) and other difficult -to-value securities. Paulson wanted to wipe out Bear shareholders so they would be reluctant to seek government help if they got into trouble.

And another thing. Alan Schwartz, Bear's CEO, claims to have misunderstood and thought it was a 28-day loan granted on Friday 14th. This would have given him a month to straighten things out. But he later learned that the loan lasted only for the weekend. And he would need to file for bankruptcy or accept the deal that Paulson was offering. Faced with two terrible choices, Schwartz took the Paulson deal.

How much will taxpayers lose due to Paulson's moral qualms? Was this really necessary? Wouldn't the 28-day loan have avoided this?

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.