Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did the Fed “Bail Out” Bear Stearns?
Yahoo! Finance ^ | April 4, 2008 | Jeremy Siegel

Posted on 04/09/2008 6:50:07 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-131 next last
To: Toddsterpatriot
$30 billion of securities that belonged to Bear will be collateral.

If the $30 billion of securities that belonged to Bear had any value as collateral, why didn't some other outfit offer more than $2 per share for BSC?

Because the $30 billion of securities that belonged to Bear have no more value than Monopoly money?

61 posted on 04/09/2008 9:03:31 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
From our pockets.

carolyn

62 posted on 04/09/2008 9:04:20 AM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: green iguana
Where did I suggest that? They are off-balance sheet.

They are off the balance sheet because they don't belong to JPM.

63 posted on 04/09/2008 9:04:51 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are doom and gloomers, union members and liberals so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

My posting #56 is meant to be addressed to Toddsterpatriot, not you. My apologies.


64 posted on 04/09/2008 9:05:03 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Bailing out rich guys like LTCM isn’t part of their job

They didn't bail out LTCM or the rich guys who ran LTCM.

65 posted on 04/09/2008 9:06:19 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are doom and gloomers, union members and liberals so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

I am not sure why this is aimed at me, I completely agree with you. The FED needs abolished as far as I’m concerned... giving the bankers control of the monetary system has been an absolute disaster.

Total inflation 1789 to 1913 8% (total, not annual).. 1913 to 2008.. total inflation 2100%+... what happened in 1913? The Federal Reserve Bank was created, by a bill written 100% by bankers themselves.

It needs abolished and a return to the gold standard is needed.


66 posted on 04/09/2008 9:06:41 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
If the $30 billion of securities that belonged to Bear had any value as collateral, why didn't some other outfit offer more than $2 per share for BSC?

Fear.

Because the $30 billion of securities that belonged to Bear have no more value than Monopoly money?

I guess we'll see what value they have.

67 posted on 04/09/2008 9:07:49 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are doom and gloomers, union members and liberals so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
“Did the Fed “Bail Out” Bear Stearns?”

Of course not.
The Fed attempted to bail out the US financial system.

Bear was taken out back and shot in the head.

The Fed is trying to keep the system liquid. They forgot this minor detail in 1929 and things didn't work out so good.
As a result, we ended up with Roosevelt, the New Deal and the welfare state.

68 posted on 04/09/2008 9:08:22 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland ("We have to drain the swamp" George Bush, September 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
They are off the balance sheet because they don't belong to JPM.

Well, $1,000,000,000 worth does. And the other $29,000,000,000 would if it were not for the guarantee.

69 posted on 04/09/2008 9:08:37 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
It needs abolished and a return to the gold standard is needed.

Just what we need, more deflation.

70 posted on 04/09/2008 9:08:53 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are doom and gloomers, union members and liberals so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Where’s the New York Fed going to get 29 gigabucks to pay out if the loan goes bad?

The Fed has a portfolio of bonds. Last time I checked it was over $800 billion.

WRONG! The Treasury guaranteed this deal via a memo from Robert Paulson to Bernacke. That memo says that the NY Fed may deduct any losses from their budget. As the FED returns about $30 billion a year (all profits after expenses) to the Treasury, as mandated by law, it may be that next year Treasury gets nothing. This hits the budget of the USA, which is funded by none other than that ultimate sucker: THE US TAXPAYER.

71 posted on 04/09/2008 9:08:57 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
It is important to recognize that this sum does not represent the face value of these securities, which is far higher than $29 billion

The securities have no "face value". They previously had a higher market value, now have a lower market value, have a model value based on cash flows and expected defaults. But never had a "face value".

72 posted on 04/09/2008 9:10:08 AM PDT by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: green iguana
They are off the balance sheet because they don't belong to JPM.

Well, $1,000,000,000 worth does.

I'll bet the $1 billion they loaned to the new entity is on their balance sheet.

And the other $29,000,000,000 would if it were not for the guarantee.

They wouldn't have bought Bear if these securities were included, so they wouldn't be on their balance sheet.

73 posted on 04/09/2008 9:10:51 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are doom and gloomers, union members and liberals so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Now now, we all know how the game goes. I’m laying a foundation. Let’s not beg the question.

Are we in agreement that it meets the definition of an investment, and not the definition of a loan?


74 posted on 04/09/2008 9:12:06 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
As the FED returns about $30 billion a year (all profits after expenses) to the Treasury, as mandated by law, it may be that next year Treasury gets nothing.

And when the Fed makes a profit on its "bailout," as is expected, and pays extra into the Treasury will you be around then?

75 posted on 04/09/2008 9:12:23 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Well if you are living on a fixed income or interest deflation is a good thing. If you have a lot of bills outstanding and a job with decent expectations of your boss raising your pay inflation can be a good thing. My parents did very nicely under the Nixon/Ford/Carter inflation of the 1970s. Their $40,000 house ended up worth a few hundred thousand. Their (under 5% fixed rate loan) was paid off with mini-dollars.

The "assett bubble" has been good for speculators. Do we want to live in a casino economy?

76 posted on 04/09/2008 9:12:34 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I’ll agree with that. I’m not going to argue semantics any more.


77 posted on 04/09/2008 9:13:30 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
The loan is not funded with tax dollars.

It's funded with dollars that would otherwise go to the Treasury.

78 posted on 04/09/2008 9:14:39 AM PDT by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
The Fed has a portfolio of bonds. Last time I checked it was over $800 billion.

WRONG!

Really? How large is the Fed portfolio?

The Treasury guaranteed this deal via a memo from Robert Paulson to Bernacke.

Guaranteed? LOL!

That memo says that the NY Fed may deduct any losses from their budget.

The Fed will not deduct losses from the Fed budget. Try again?

As the FED returns about $30 billion a year (all profits after expenses) to the Treasury

Hmmmmm......I thought the Fed was using tax dollars for this? Thanks for clearing that up.

it may be that next year Treasury gets nothing.

Wrong. If the Fed swaps $29 billion in bonds or sells $29 billion in bonds or uses $29 billion in cash from maturing bonds, the Treasury's take would be reduced by the interest on those bonds, not by the value of those bonds.

79 posted on 04/09/2008 9:17:06 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are doom and gloomers, union members and liberals so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy
Are we in agreement that it meets the definition of an investment,

I agree that it is not an investment in JP Morgan.

I don't care if you define it as a loan to the "enity" or an investment in the "entity".

80 posted on 04/09/2008 9:19:22 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are doom and gloomers, union members and liberals so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson