If you're an investor in Merrill Lynch & Co. (NYSE: MER), it really matters why your board has chosen John Thain over Laurence Fink. The reported reason for not picking Fink has changed since yesterday.

Yesterday, I posted about a CNBC report that Fink was the initial candidate. When he asked the board for a thorough reporting on Merrill's subprime problems, however, he was shunted aside. Today's New York Times suggests that Fink was not offered the job because he was too cocky, talking freely about the pros of leading Merrill compared with the cons of leaving BlackRock. The article suggests that Fink had told the press he was a shoe-in for the job, which angered the board.

I guess it's possible that Fink did not get the job for both reasons, but the notion that Fink embarrassed the board by going public with the offer certainly does not seem like a good justification for passing Fink over if he was the best one for the job. While this is not a good reason, it would concern me even more if Fink did not get the job because the board did not want to know how much of a subprime problem Merrill had before Fink decided whether to take the CEO job.