The legality of the Bear Stearns "rescue"

Financial Planning - Financial planning in general. (Moderated) 

  Yahoo!   Google   Windows Live   del.icio.us   digg   Netscape

Subject Author Date The legality of the Bear Stearns "rescue" PeterL 03-24-2008  Re: The legality of the Bear Stearns "rescue" beliavsky 03-24-2008  Re: The legality of the Bear Stearns "rescue" Mark Bole 03-24-2008  Re: The legality of the Bear Stearns "rescue" Douglas Johnson 03-24-2008  Re: The legality of the Bear Stearns "rescue" Gil Faver 03-25-2008
Posted by PeterL on March 24, 2008, 12:15 pm An interesting article on the Bear Stearns "rescue": http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080324.htm "Bear Stearns is trading at $6 instead of $2 because unelected bureaucrats went beyond their legal mandates, delivered a windfall to a single private company at public expense, entered agreements that violate the the public trust, and created a situation where even if the bureaucratic malfeasance stands, the shareholders of Bear Stearns will either reject the deal or be deprived of their right to determine the fate of the company they own. Very simply, Bear Stearns is still in play. Still, when all is said and done, my own impression is that the ultimate value of the stock will not be $2, but exactly zero." -------------------------------------- Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the Newsgroup. Posted by on March 24, 2008, 7:17 pm > An interesting article on the Bear Stearns "rescue": > > http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080324.htm > > "Bear Stearns is trading at $6 instead of $2 because unelected > bureaucrats went beyond their legal mandates, delivered a windfall to > a single private company at public expense, entered agreements that > violate the the public trust, and created a situation where even if > the bureaucratic malfeasance stands, the shareholders of Bear Stearns > will either reject the deal or be deprived of their right to determine > the fate of the company they own. Very simply, Bear Stearns is still > in play. Still, when all is said and done, my own impression is that > the ultimate value of the stock will not be $2, but exactly zero." I don't see the direct relevance of this message to MIFP. In any case, it appears that Hussman is wrong about the value of Bear Stearns stocks, with JP Morgan having increased its bid from $2 to $10. ======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: Posters to this thread should relate comments to general financial planning. -------------------------------------- Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the Newsgroup. Posted by Mark Bole on March 24, 2008, 9:15 pm beliavsky@aol.com wrote: >> An interesting article on the Bear Stearns "rescue": > I don't see the direct relevance of this message to MIFP. I see quite a bit. Investing is all about risk and return. When a company is sold, such as BARRA, or Peoplesoft, or Palm/US Robotics/3Com, (all companies I went through this same type of thing with) investors need to know what possible outcomes to expect, and who the players are. The players sometimes include governmental/regulatory entities as well as private investors. I have read only a few other musings of respected financial pundits, some claim the Bear Stearns "save" was critical to avoid major meltdown of the markets (something about not knowing what one's own exposure was, as well as not knowing what one's clients' exposures were). -Mark Bole -------------------------------------- Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the Newsgroup. Posted by Douglas Johnson on March 24, 2008, 10:51 pm >I have read only a few other musings of respected financial pundits, >some claim the Bear Stearns "save" was critical to avoid major meltdown >of the markets (something about not knowing what one's own exposure was, >as well as not knowing what one's clients' exposures were). Here is such a viewpoint from one of my favorite investment writers. http://www.investorsinsight.com/otb_va_print.aspx?EditionID=667 His argument is that, like Long Term Capital, letting Bear Sterns go down would have frozen the credit markets, caused a stock market crash, and triggered a mild depression. He further suggests that the Fed may end up making a profit, but that they do have $30 billion at risk in the meantime. -- Doug -------------------------------------- Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the Newsgroup. Posted by Gil Faver on March 25, 2008, 5:31 am > > >>I have read only a few other musings of respected financial pundits, >>some claim the Bear Stearns "save" was critical to avoid major meltdown >>of the markets (something about not knowing what one's own exposure was, >>as well as not knowing what one's clients' exposures were). > > Here is such a viewpoint from one of my favorite investment writers. > > http://www.investorsinsight.com/otb_va_print.aspx?EditionID=667 > > His argument is that, like Long Term Capital, letting Bear Sterns go down > would > have frozen the credit markets, caused a stock market crash, and triggered > a > mild depression. > > He further suggests that the Fed may end up making a profit, but that they > do > have $30 billion at risk in the meantime. I didn't think the Fed's end of the deal was structured for any potential upside. It should be, as was done with Chrysler. -------------------------------------- Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the Newsgroup. Similar Threads Posted how to protect retirement assets during bear markets April 16, 2007, 8:34 am