I think it’s pretty safe to say that Bear Streans is more or less finished.

[Arraya]

Giving money to institutions that failed at their only job, which was to have money, may not be the best strategy. -the onion

[drunkle]

dave:

why should the bond holders be saved, but not the equities? aren’t they both “investments”? who are more likely to hold what: j6p = common shares vs ib = bonds?

neither should be saved, imo. cnbc reported that this was a non recourse loan to jp in order bail out bear. non recourse… we get to prop up the bond market. hurray.

btw, the taf and the taf2 should be shut down, all institutions forced to use the discount window and DECLARE THEIR FUCKING (IN)SOLVENCY. these cocks straight lied not 2-3 days ago about their situation… this kind of nonsense at the gov, fed, institution, ratings and media levels all destroy trust across the board which is ultimately going to be much much worse…

[drunkle]

dave:

why should the bond holders be saved, but not the equities? aren’t they both “investments”? who are more likely to hold what: j6p = common shares vs ib = bonds?

neither should be saved, imo. cnbc reported that this was a non recourse loan to jp in order bail out bear. non recourse… we get to prop up the bond market. hurray.

btw, the taf and the taf2 should be shut down, all institutions forced to use the discount window and DECLARE THEIR FUCKING (IN)SOLVENCY. these cocks straight lied not 2-3 days ago about their situation… this kind of nonsense at the gov, fed, institution, ratings and media levels all destroy trust across the board which is ultimately going to be much much worse…

[drunkle]

dave:

why should the bond holders be saved, but not the equities? aren’t they both “investments”? who are more likely to hold what: j6p = common shares vs ib = bonds?

neither should be saved, imo. cnbc reported that this was a non recourse loan to jp in order bail out bear. non recourse… we get to prop up the bond market. hurray.

btw, the taf and the taf2 should be shut down, all institutions forced to use the discount window and DECLARE THEIR FUCKING (IN)SOLVENCY. these cocks straight lied not 2-3 days ago about their situation… this kind of nonsense at the gov, fed, institution, ratings and media levels all destroy trust across the board which is ultimately going to be much much worse…

[drunkle]

dave:

why should the bond holders be saved, but not the equities? aren’t they both “investments”? who are more likely to hold what: j6p = common shares vs ib = bonds?

neither should be saved, imo. cnbc reported that this was a non recourse loan to jp in order bail out bear. non recourse… we get to prop up the bond market. hurray.

btw, the taf and the taf2 should be shut down, all institutions forced to use the discount window and DECLARE THEIR FUCKING (IN)SOLVENCY. these cocks straight lied not 2-3 days ago about their situation… this kind of nonsense at the gov, fed, institution, ratings and media levels all destroy trust across the board which is ultimately going to be much much worse…

[drunkle]

dave:

why should the bond holders be saved, but not the equities? aren’t they both “investments”? who are more likely to hold what: j6p = common shares vs ib = bonds?

neither should be saved, imo. cnbc reported that this was a non recourse loan to jp in order bail out bear. non recourse… we get to prop up the bond market. hurray.

btw, the taf and the taf2 should be shut down, all institutions forced to use the discount window and DECLARE THEIR FUCKING (IN)SOLVENCY. these cocks straight lied not 2-3 days ago about their situation… this kind of nonsense at the gov, fed, institution, ratings and media levels all destroy trust across the board which is ultimately going to be much much worse…

[Arty]

It’s an investment bank, and probably doesn’t have your traditional savings accounts that’s typical for average joe’s. Anyway, even if Bear Stearns is your bank, what assets?

If you have brokerage account with them, it may be wise to transfer the stocks you have to another brokerage. In theory, the stocks you have just like your money in the bank but without FDIC insurance and you don’t know if BS still have them physically :). At least that’s my take and I can be wrong.

[Arty]

It’s an investment bank, and probably doesn’t have your traditional savings accounts that’s typical for average joe’s. Anyway, even if Bear Stearns is your bank, what assets?

If you have brokerage account with them, it may be wise to transfer the stocks you have to another brokerage. In theory, the stocks you have just like your money in the bank but without FDIC insurance and you don’t know if BS still have them physically :). At least that’s my take and I can be wrong.

[Arty]

It’s an investment bank, and probably doesn’t have your traditional savings accounts that’s typical for average joe’s. Anyway, even if Bear Stearns is your bank, what assets?

If you have brokerage account with them, it may be wise to transfer the stocks you have to another brokerage. In theory, the stocks you have just like your money in the bank but without FDIC insurance and you don’t know if BS still have them physically :). At least that’s my take and I can be wrong.

[Arty]

It’s an investment bank, and probably doesn’t have your traditional savings accounts that’s typical for average joe’s. Anyway, even if Bear Stearns is your bank, what assets?

If you have brokerage account with them, it may be wise to transfer the stocks you have to another brokerage. In theory, the stocks you have just like your money in the bank but without FDIC insurance and you don’t know if BS still have them physically :). At least that’s my take and I can be wrong.

[Arty]

It’s an investment bank, and probably doesn’t have your traditional savings accounts that’s typical for average joe’s. Anyway, even if Bear Stearns is your bank, what assets?

If you have brokerage account with them, it may be wise to transfer the stocks you have to another brokerage. In theory, the stocks you have just like your money in the bank but without FDIC insurance and you don’t know if BS still have them physically :). At least that’s my take and I can be wrong.

[davelj]

drunkle,

I’d prefer that neither the equity nor debt holders be bailed out. But IF we’re going to bail people out – and that’s a given as far as I can tell – the LEAST the Fed can do is let the equity of these companies go to $1 (or thereabouts). (They can wipe out the preferred holders as well, if they like.) Again, the debt holders should feel pain too. No doubt about it. But that may be asking too much from the current Fed. Thus, all I ask is that at MINIMUM the equity holders get hosed. Recall that we already have something called the FDIC which is going to bail out most bank depositors (which are really just banks’ senior most debt holders). Extending such protection to the next level of debt holders in the capital structure isn’t a stretch considering all the BS that’s been going on as of late.

[davelj]

drunkle,

I’d prefer that neither the equity nor debt holders be bailed out. But IF we’re going to bail people out – and that’s a given as far as I can tell – the LEAST the Fed can do is let the equity of these companies go to $1 (or thereabouts). (They can wipe out the preferred holders as well, if they like.) Again, the debt holders should feel pain too. No doubt about it. But that may be asking too much from the current Fed. Thus, all I ask is that at MINIMUM the equity holders get hosed. Recall that we already have something called the FDIC which is going to bail out most bank depositors (which are really just banks’ senior most debt holders). Extending such protection to the next level of debt holders in the capital structure isn’t a stretch considering all the BS that’s been going on as of late.

[davelj]

drunkle,

I’d prefer that neither the equity nor debt holders be bailed out. But IF we’re going to bail people out – and that’s a given as far as I can tell – the LEAST the Fed can do is let the equity of these companies go to $1 (or thereabouts). (They can wipe out the preferred holders as well, if they like.) Again, the debt holders should feel pain too. No doubt about it. But that may be asking too much from the current Fed. Thus, all I ask is that at MINIMUM the equity holders get hosed. Recall that we already have something called the FDIC which is going to bail out most bank depositors (which are really just banks’ senior most debt holders). Extending such protection to the next level of debt holders in the capital structure isn’t a stretch considering all the BS that’s been going on as of late.

[davelj]

drunkle,

I’d prefer that neither the equity nor debt holders be bailed out. But IF we’re going to bail people out – and that’s a given as far as I can tell – the LEAST the Fed can do is let the equity of these companies go to $1 (or thereabouts). (They can wipe out the preferred holders as well, if they like.) Again, the debt holders should feel pain too. No doubt about it. But that may be asking too much from the current Fed. Thus, all I ask is that at MINIMUM the equity holders get hosed. Recall that we already have something called the FDIC which is going to bail out most bank depositors (which are really just banks’ senior most debt holders). Extending such protection to the next level of debt holders in the capital structure isn’t a stretch considering all the BS that’s been going on as of late.

[Author]

Posts