Near Sterns

[arnaldoabru 11]

Was trading over 150$ a share a year ago.Just sold today for 2.00$ a share.You guys are right the economy is looking great.Way to go W only a few more months.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

You mean "BARE" Sterns...

It's intentional, and Greenspan is to blame for this mess too, along with everyone who favors the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The dollar must collapse to usher in the North American Union and another worthless currency the "AMERO".

There use to be a day when....

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/...353352140828128

[BamaGrad03 0]

Was trading over 150$ a share a year ago.Just sold today for 2.00$ a share.You guys are right the economy is looking great.Way to go W only a few more months.

Please outline SPECIFICALLY what "W" did to put Bear Stearns in this problem...

If it's W's fault, wouldn't have affected EVERYONE? Including JP Morgan/Chase who had the liquidity to buy Bear Stearns?

BTW, Bear Stearns was grossly over-valued at 150 a share. Looks like firms like Lehman Brothers and Goldman are still in business.

A firm on wall-street going south would be the LAST thing that you could attribute to a president. And if anything, you would have to blame it on the same fed chairman who was there under Clinton's watch.

I love how people who are uneducated make claims just because they heard it on talk radio.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Was trading over 150$ a share a year ago.Just sold today for 2.00$ a share.You guys are right the economy is looking great.Way to go W only a few more months.

Please outline SPECIFICALLY what "W" did to put Bear Stearns in this problem...

If it's W's fault, wouldn't have affected EVERYONE? Including JP Morgan/Chase who had the liquidity to buy Bear Stearns?

BTW, Bear Stearns was grossly over-valued at 150 a share. Looks like firms like Lehman Brothers and Goldman are still in business.

A firm on wall-street going south would be the LAST thing that you could attribute to a president. And if anything, you would have to blame it on the same fed chairman who was there under Clinton's watch.

I love how people who are uneducated make claims just because they heard it on talk radio. at moveon.org or kos or huffington or any other of the far left hate sites.

Fixed that for you BG.

[Tigermike 3,055]

March 18, 2008

Was Bear Stearns the Sacrificial Lamb?

By Lawrence Kudlow

Did Bear Stearns really need to go down in flames? It's a question that needs to be asked, and my answer is no.

Of course, I don't know the value of Bear Stearns's assets, and whether they could have served as collateral for private or government loans. So I cannot be entirely certain that my answer is correct. But here's how I see it:

Since the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 -- a move that broke down the wall separating commercial and investment banks that had existed since the 1930s -- the Federal Reserve never changed its discount lending policies. In other words, until Sunday night, when Bear Stearns was already destined for the dustbin, the Fed was able to make loans to commercial banks like JPMorgan Chase, but not directly to brokers like Bear Stearns.

Throughout the credit crisis, which dates back to last summer, the Fed's discount lending to banks was supposed to trickle down to brokers. But it never really did. Big banks either horded their cash or spent it for their own various purposes. As one Bear Stearns official noted to me, this is the first credit and lending crisis since the end of Glass-Steagall. And the consequences for Bear Stearns were catastrophic. While the Fed announced a $200 billion auction lending facility for both banks and brokers last Tuesday, that facility won't be activated for a couple more weeks. So no help there.

But if the Fed had changed its discount polices to reflect the post-Glass-Steagall era, Bear Stearns could have accessed short-term Fed loans, even for a few days. That could have made all the difference in the world.

Watching the venerable old firm pawned off to JPMorgan Chase for a couple hundred million bucks -- basically a bag of peanuts -- is painful to me. The building itself is worth at least $1.5 billion. And even though Bear made big mistakes with sub-prime hedge funds, the firm is chock full of talent and brainpower. Down through the years, the smart people at Bear were able to avoid numerous financial difficulties while helping the firm stay profitable. Bear alumni are scattered everywhere, as successful investment bankers, broker-dealers, and financial advisors.

And yes, even one TV broadcaster. I served two stints at Bear Stearns, as chief economist and partner. I was there from 1978 to 1980, before heading to Washington to work for President Reagan. I was there again between 1986 and 1994, after which I resigned for difficult personal reasons.

But I won't let my personal involvement with Bear cloud my judgment of recent events: In waiting so many years to revise its discount policies in a manner consistent with congressional legislation, the Fed is guilty of a serious policy error.

All of this kind of makes me wonder whether Bear Stearns wasn't some kind of sacrificial lamb. Did government policy makers hope to convince the public that a big Wall Street firm could indeed fail? Or wouldn't be bailed out? Listen, they were buried, not bailed out.

The fact is, Bear shareholders got creamed with the $2 per share purchase price. The shareholders include all the men and women who've worked there for years, and who own roughly one-third of the firm's equity.

I applaud the Fed for backstopping the financial system and preventing a run on the whole banking sector. That's what it's there to do. Treasury Secretary Paulson said repeatedly, "the government is prepared to do what it takes to maintain the stability of our financial system." He is absolutely right. So is President Bush, who said "we've taken strong and decisive action in challenging times," adding that "in the long run our economy is going to be fine."

While the media is trying to make pessimism our new national pastime, the president is right. The U.S. has faced numerous credit crunches down through the years and the free-market economy has survived very well.

What's more, while the usual clamor for more government action is coming out of Washington, let's not forget that it's the private sector that drives our great economy towards success. Prosperity-killing actions from Washington, like tax hikes, trade protectionism, or massive over-regulation, would certainly stunt the long-run health of the economy.

Ultimately, market prices in the housing sector must adjust. That is the only viable solution. And while some families will be forced to become renters, other families will have a chance to purchase a new home at affordable prices. Capitalism is all about winners and losers, and it's the market that must drive the adjustment, not the government.

And for all the disappointed Bear Stearns partners out there, including the many families and friends that I know well, hold your heads up high. Better days are coming.

Lawrence Kudlow is a former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Visit his blog, Kudlow's Money Politics.

link

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Kudlow? Oh gawd, I don't listen to what Kudlow has to say. He's a bull on the US Dollar, LOL.

As Glenn Beck said last night, It's socialism for the financial sector.

Here is the guy I like. I also like his fund:

http://www.safehaven.com/article-9695.htm

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Schiff/mar142008.html

mms://media.kitco.com/weeklyreport/korelin20080317.wma

The funniest thing I heard yesterday was Paulson stating that they have a strong dollar policy. I'm sorry I fail to see the strong dollar policy he is speaking of. To the contrary, like everything else coming out of DC, it seems they say the opposite of the truth. So, I'll continue to have that psyche when listening to anyone from the US govenment talk about anything because they lie about everything.

What Peter Schiff does do is balme the current administration for the financial crisis, and I admit it's partially true. You see "W" doesn't want to go down in the history books as the prez who broke the bank. Well, he is and he'll never live that down. And, the fed bailout of Carlyle Holdings is just further evidence of Poppy's influence on the US economic policies. Bare Sterns is just another tip of the iceberg. This thing could take years to work itself out, and I have been hands off for the entire time. It's kind of fun watching from the outside in, sittin' on gold.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Was trading over 150$ a share a year ago.Just sold today for 2.00$ a share.You guys are right the economy is looking great.Way to go W only a few more months.

Please outline SPECIFICALLY what "W" did to put Bear Stearns in this problem...

If it's W's fault, wouldn't have affected EVERYONE? Including JP Morgan/Chase who had the liquidity to buy Bear Stearns?

BTW, Bear Stearns was grossly over-valued at 150 a share. Looks like firms like Lehman Brothers and Goldman are still in business.

A firm on wall-street going south would be the LAST thing that you could attribute to a president. And if anything, you would have to blame it on the same fed chairman who was there under Clinton's watch.

I love how people who are uneducated make claims just because they heard it on talk radio. at moveon.org or kos or huffington or any other of the far left hate sites.

Fixed that for you BG.

I have an I-Pod

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Rex 84. I'm most probably on the list, and that's okay with me. I'm a patriot, not a brown shirt. I will NEVER sell out my Republic for a lie. My gold isn't even in country, so they can't get it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...h&plindex=2

[autiger4life 3]

I love that TM makes fun of someone for going to huffington post, and yet always quotes his far right blogs as his sources. Classic.

As far as the Fed, while I don't always agree with what the Fed does, I would hate for the government to be in charge of it. Sometimes action is required immediately, or actions that aren't politically popular and we know politicians don't do a good job at either of those. Both politicians and the people in charge of the Fed would mess up sometime, so I would rather it not be a politician if I had to choose.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

autiger4life,

The Fed is a failed policy plain and simple. It goes against everything this country was founded on. The Banking Act along with the sixteenth amendment have devastated property rights in this country. It's tough to save when inflation eats away at every dollar you earn. Not to mention taxes which when all added up are about 50% of gross income. Then the church wants 10%, NOT. And for what? Defense? Government spending? Retirement programs for the liberal military, federal and congressional retirees. Give a break. I'm sick of it all.

BF

The disease:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...h&plindex=1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...h&plindex=1

[autiger4life 3]

BF,

I agree that there are times that the Fed does not act very smart or make smart decisions, but I also don't trust the congress to do any better with it and if I had the choice I wouldn't give it to politicians who are up for re-election so much.

I agree with you about property rights.

[Tigermike 3,055]

I love that TM makes fun of someone for going to huffington post, and yet always quotes his far right blogs as his sources. Classic.

As far as the Fed, while I don't always agree with what the Fed does, I would hate for the government to be in charge of it. Sometimes action is required immediately, or actions that aren't politically popular and we know politicians don't do a good job at either of those. Both politicians and the people in charge of the Fed would mess up sometime, so I would rather it not be a politician if I had to choose.

Provide one far right blog I have quoted.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Wow. Dow's up 261 points today.

From CNN.com

Stocks rallied Tuesday as better-than-expected earnings from Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers helped offset worries about financial markets, ahead of an expected interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve later in the day.

Man, I hate being right...but I'm right. Soooooo Mr. Sour Thread Starter...when should we expect you to sing praises to "W" for this economic boon?

[autiger4life 3]

Provide one far right blog I have quoted.

Okay

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=46481

Your link goes to National Review Online

A conservative News Site with stories including:

LIBERAL FASCISM

The Wright Questions: Does nothing but Bashes Obama

PLANET GORE

http://www.nationalreview.com/

Info about NRO from answers.com

"Seen as the quintessential conservative magazine, National Review provides coverage of national, international and cultural affairs, placing an emphasis on Washington and other centers of political activity."

___________________________________

Here comes another one:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=46470

The link takes you to www.politico.com

Fredrick Ryan Jr. is the President and CEO of the politico.com. He is also the former assistant to President Regan and current Chairman for the BOT for the Reagan Library.

When Joe Allbritton(Provides majority of funding for politico.com) was CEO of Riggs Bank, Riggs, in 1997, purchased the company owned by President George W. Bush's uncle, Jonathan Bush, and Jonathan Bush then became a top Riggs official serving alongside Joe Allbritton.

Politico CEO and President, Frederick Ryan donated $1,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaign in 1999 (earlier this year Bush interrupted his press conference to flamboyantly plug Ryan's Politico).

______________________________________

And again:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=46441

Link takes you to the Weekly Standard website.

Here is what fair.org says while actually talking about bias in media:

The most obvious sign of Fox's slant is its heavily right-leaning punditry. Each episode of Special Report with Brit Hume, for example, features a three-person panel of pundits who chat about the day's political news at the end of the show. The most frequent panelist is Fred Barnes, the evangelical Christian supply-sider who edits the Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard. He sits proudly on the rightward flank of the Republican party (and often scolds it for slouching leftwards).

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

_______________________________________

So those are just from the first two pages. Let me know if you need more.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Provide one far right blog I have quoted.

Okay

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=46481

Your link goes to National Review Online

A conservative News Site with stories including:

LIBERAL FASCISM

The Wright Questions: Does nothing but Bashes Obama

PLANET GORE

http://www.nationalreview.com/

Info about NRO from answers.com

"Seen as the quintessential conservative magazine, National Review provides coverage of national, international and cultural affairs, placing an emphasis on Washington and other centers of political activity."

___________________________________

Here comes another one:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=46470

The link takes you to www.politico.com

Fredrick Ryan Jr. is the President and CEO of the politico.com. He is also the former assistant to President Regan and current Chairman for the BOT for the Reagan Library.

When Joe Allbritton(Provides majority of funding for politico.com) was CEO of Riggs Bank, Riggs, in 1997, purchased the company owned by President George W. Bush's uncle, Jonathan Bush, and Jonathan Bush then became a top Riggs official serving alongside Joe Allbritton.

Politico CEO and President, Frederick Ryan donated $1,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaign in 1999 (earlier this year Bush interrupted his press conference to flamboyantly plug Ryan's Politico).

______________________________________

And again:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=46441

Link takes you to the Weekly Standard website.

Here is what fair.org says while actually talking about bias in media:

The most obvious sign of Fox's slant is its heavily right-leaning punditry. Each episode of Special Report with Brit Hume, for example, features a three-person panel of pundits who chat about the day's political news at the end of the show. The most frequent panelist is Fred Barnes, the evangelical Christian supply-sider who edits the Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard. He sits proudly on the rightward flank of the Republican party (and often scolds it for slouching leftwards).

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

_______________________________________

So those are just from the first two pages. Let me know if you need more.

National Review, Weekly Standard and politico are hardly far right blogs. Hardly. Do they present conservative views? Yes. Are they in the same hate filled category as huffington, kos or moveon? Not even close.

So try again that just don't float.

[autiger4life 3]

National Review, Weekly Standard and politico are hardly far right blogs. Hardly. Do they present conservative views? Yes. Are they in the same hate filled category as huffington, kos or moveon? Not even close.

So try again that just don't float.

Not as far right as moveon, but no one really quotes that one. I think the only time it has been used was for making fun of it.

politico is not far right, but still is right and the other two are definately right. I guess my point is this, I personally don't care where a opinion comes from, whether it is weekly standard or huffington, a good point and good article is a good article from wherever it comes from and a bad point or article is bad no matter where it comes from. I guess I don't understand why people pay attention to it. If the article holds no water then attack the article, it should be easy. If you can't attack the article then why does it matter where it was posted?

So that is why I don't understand

I love how people who are uneducated make claims just because they heard it on talk radio. at moveon.org or kos or huffington or any other of the far left hate sites.

If it doesn't make sense then attack that and that should be plenty. Otherwise all it looks like is you cannot find any substance and so you go after something else.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I love that TM makes fun of someone for going to huffington post, and yet always quotes his far right blogs as his sources. Classic.

As far as the Fed, while I don't always agree with what the Fed does, I would hate for the government to be in charge of it. Sometimes action is required immediately, or actions that aren't politically popular and we know politicians don't do a good job at either of those. Both politicians and the people in charge of the Fed would mess up sometime, so I would rather it not be a politician if I had to choose.

Provide one far right blog I have quoted.

You gotta be kiddin me?

[BamaGrad03 0]

arnaldoabru,

Why no comment on Goldman and Lehman's news today?

[arnaldoabru 11]

haven't had time to look it up.Thanks for bringing it up.Will do tonight