Posted on 04/03/2008 1:48:16 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
US senators expressed concern Thursday that billions of dollars in taxpayer funds has been put on the line to back the emergency takeover of troubled investment bank Bear Stearns.
Republican Senator Jim Bunning branded the move an act of "socialism," as the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing into Bear Stearns' takeover by banking giant JPMorgan Chase.
JPMorgan Chase agreed to take over Bear Stearns for just over one billion dollars last month in a deal backed by the US central bank which stumped up 29 billion dollars to support the transaction in exchange for collateral from Bear Stearns.
The Federal Reserve's backing of the deal was unprecedented and has triggered several congressional investigations into its role as a widespread credit crunch continues to bruise Wall Street.
"What it looks like if I had to frame this to people is that we've socialized risk and privatized reward," the panel's Democratic chairman, Senator Christopher Dodd, said.
Lawmakers voiced worries that the taxpayer-supported bailout would encourage financial firms to speculate more aggressively, and expect government aid if they get into difficulties.
"The Fed has set a new precedent. Such policy decisions must be fully considered by this committee," said Republican Senator Richard Shelby.
Other senators were adamant that taxpayer money should not be put at such risk.
"That is socialism. And it must not happen again," Bunning said in a hearing room packed with besuited bankers and lawyers and several colorful demonstrators protesting the costs of the Iraq war.
Bear Stearns weathered a near meltdown in March as it struggled to absorb mortgage-related investment losses of almost two billion dollars and other banks ceased doing business with it.
Rival banks are also enduring mounting losses in the billions of dollars due to soured mortgage investments triggered by one of the worst US housing market slumps in decades.
Bear Stearns' management encouraged JPMorgan to takeover their firm and a deal was brokered on March 16. The Fed granted its approval the same day.
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, called before Congress to answer lawmakers' concerns, defended the central bank's response and said a Bear Stearns collapse would have sent shock waves through the global financial system.
"Given the exceptional pressures on the global economy and financial system, the damage caused by a default by Bear Stearns could have been severe and extremely difficult to contain," he said.
Bernanke was supported by the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Timothy Geithner, and Treasury undersecretary Robert Steel, both of whom also defended the involvement of authorities.
America's top central banker, reiterating comments from a hearing a day earlier, said the Fed did not bail out Bear Stearns and stressed that "shareholders certainly lost a huge amount."
Bunning and other lawmakers said Fed officials should have realized that complicated mortgage investments could have sunk even one of the country's biggest investment banks like Bear Stearns.
Geithner said the government could make money from the deal if the value of the distressed assets the Fed is holding as collateral for its 29 billion dollars in financing rises in value.
"There is risk in this transaction, there's no doubt about it," he also conceded.
Part of the collateral held by the Fed consists of mortgage-backed securities which have plunged in value in recent months.
The central bank has appointed financial firm BlackRock to manage the investments pledged as collateral.
The chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, told Congress his bank would not have agreed to buy Bear Stearns without the Fed stepping in to support the deal.
"We got involved in this matter because we were asked to help prevent a Bear Stearns collapse that had the potential to cause serious damage to the financial system," Dimon said.
For the good of the country, it was the best move the government could make. The chain reaction that would have occured would have ruined a whole lot of people. There is concern that this whole thing started in Europe and could have been a terrorists attack. Actually, our financial system is a lot more fragile that people believe. That’s why BinLaden said he will attack out financial system and ruin us.
We need more than “worry”. BLOCK IT DAMNIT. This IS Socialism. Why should we pay for their mistakes? If things get worse so be it. Otherwise these thugs would keep taking their bonues and robbing us blind.
The panic and the chain reaction that would have ensued if this bank failed would have been paramount to 1929 again.
Yes. And the government may well end up making money on this “bailout.”
The only bailout that is being considered is the insane plan by The Beast and other Democrats to prohibit foreclosures for five years. That would directly interfere with private financial contracts, and is EXACTLY why undeveloped countries failed to attract capital in the past. Who would invest in a country if a change in government occured and a whacko like Castro (or the Beast) took office and the government seized private assets?
The Beast is evil, but she is a lawyer and is not stupid. She knows damned well that her proposal would never pass Constitution muster, due to contract protections.
Perhaps a lawyer here can explain it better than I.
THIS IS SOCIALISM.
NO taxxayer money should have been spent.
It’s BAD DECISION MAKING by a coproration getting a free pass and YOU payng for it. Even BUSINESS like SOCIALISM when it is covenient.
I am disgusted.
Bull.
It was GOVERNMENT involvement that caused the SEVERE DEPRESSION then. READ YOUR HISTORY! LEARN from mistakes for a change! GEESH!
I can’t believe how STUPID and unimformed even some FREEPERS are. GEESH! It’s SOCIALISM.
Partly only because the rush on banks was not foreseen and ill-handled. I submit we do not learn from history.
The market is run by emotion whether you and I like it or not.
Crisis are like bowling pins set up for a strike.
I think the real problem is that the executives, earning 7 figure salaries, who presided over this mess, should have to answer for it.
The $30mm was not a bailout. The feds backed underlying loans in order to facilitate a takeover of Bear. Had Bear collapsed, the effects on worldwide money markets could have been disastrous.
I’m generally against government regulation, but in the financial markets, the government needs to set the rules, IMO, and then private players can compete. These investment banking houses still are largely unaccountable to anyone, even with recent reforms splitting investment banking operations from research, for example. (Much as I hate the guy, Spitzer was responsible for that....)
Requiring investment banks to have greater capital will hurt their profitability, but enhance their stability. These are multi trillion dollar markets, and these banks and the rating agencies have created a credit disaster.
How much was?
“US senators expressed concern Thursday that billions of dollars in taxpayer funds has been put on the line to back the emergency takeover of troubled investment bank Bear Stearns.”
Does that answer your question?
“Put on the line” or “spent?”
Looks more like - spent.
“JPMorgan Chase agreed to take over Bear Stearns for just over one billion dollars last month in a deal backed by “the US central bank which stumped up 29 billion dollars to support the transaction in exchange for collateral from Bear Stearns.”
The Federal Reserve’s backing of the deal was unprecedented and has triggered several congressional investigations into its role as a widespread credit crunch continues to bruise Wall Street.”
The ONLY money the government has is the money it extorts from YOU, the tax payer.
The Fed is not the government.
So piling up lie after lie on the basis of taxpayer dollars is a good thing ?
No, those who live beyond their means, including banks who over leverage themselves, need to pay the cost of their stupidity.
Dodd, that idiot, got one thing right - we’re privatizing the rewards and socializing the losses.
Bad, bad policy.
Yep. And guess what - people learned not to overleverage themselves.
It seems like people need to learn it again, and they won’t if they keep getting bailed out by taxpayers.
Actually, it’s fascism.
Just as bad, probably worse.
The Fed is backing loans worth - what ? Funny, they don’t know. These are mark-to-fantasy “assets” that BSC couldn’t even use to raise money, so they’re probably worth little or nothing.
No, the BSC takeover was also the raid of one bank on another. Jamie Dimon was the only player offered the chance to acquire BSC, Dimon also sits on the board of the NY Fed, they have “hired” Black Stone to manage this with no fees set up front, and BSC was acquired by screwing the shareholders of BSC. The bondholders were protected. BSC was also not told that the following week the Fed TAF was to be opened to them, so they were not aware they had any options.
This is fascism, crony capitalism, and market manipulation right out in the open.
And all you sheeple buy the party line that it was for all our good.
Bye bye America-it was nice knowing ya.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.