Monday, March 17, 2008

Why some are against this great Bear Bailout!

Here's a great article opposing the Bear bailout! Rescue Me: A Fed Bailout Crosses a Line


  • But why save Bear Stearns? The beneficiary of this bailout, remember, has often operated in the gray areas of Wall Street and with an aggressive, brass-knuckles approach. Until regulators came along in 1996, Bear Stearns was happy to provide its balance sheet and imprimatur to bucket-shop brokerages like Stratton Oakmont and A. R. Baron, clearing dubious stock trades.

    And as one of the biggest players in the mortgage securities business on Wall Street, Bear provided munificent lines of credit to public-spirited subprime lenders like New Century (now bankrupt). It is also the owner of EMC Mortgage Servicing, one of the most aggressive subprime mortgage servicers out there.

    Bear’s default rates on so-called Alt-A mortgages that it underwrote also indicates that its lending practices were especially lax during the real estate boom. As of February, according to Bloomberg data, 15 percent of these loans in its underwritten securities were delinquent by more than 60 days or in foreclosure. That compares with an industry average of 8.4 percent.

    Let’s not forget that Bear Stearns lost billions for its clients last summer, when two hedge funds investing heavily in mortgage securities collapsed. And the firm tried to dump toxic mortgage securities it held in its own vaults onto the public last summer in an initial public offering of a financial company called Everquest Financial. Thankfully, that deal never got done.

    Recall, too, that back in 1998, when the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund required a Fed-arranged bailout, Bear Stearns refused to join the rescue effort. Jimmy Cayne, then chief executive at the firm, told the Fed to take a hike.

    And so, Bear Stearns, a firm that some say is this decade’s version of Drexel Burnham Lambert, the anything-goes, 1980s junk-bond shop dominated by Michael Milken, is rescued. Almost two decades ago, Drexel was left to die.

    Bear Stearns and Drexel have a lot in common. And yet their differing outcomes offer proof that we are in a very different and scarier place than in the late 1980s.

    “Why not set an example of Bear Stearns, the guys who have this record of dog-eat-dog, we’re brass knuckles, we’re tough?” asked William A. Fleckenstein, president of Fleckenstein Capital in Issaquah, Wash., and co-author with Fred Sheehan of “Greenspan’s Bubbles: The Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve.” “This is the perfect time to set an example, but they are not interested in setting an example. We are Bailout Nation.

And what's most interesting was the integrity issue on how the events unfolded. As mentioned in the same article.

  • Only last Monday, for example, Bear put out a press release saying, “there is absolutely no truth to the rumors of liquidity problems that circulated today in the market.” The next day, Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said he was comfortable that the major Wall Street firms were resting on satisfactory “capital cushions.”

    Three days later, it was bailout time for Bear.
No problems! No truth to the rumours!

Now? On a Sunday evening, Bear Stearns was sold for $2 per share!
( see Some Bear Issues )

3 comments:

lsb said...

Back home its call cronyism and corruption. You can expect what we have in M'sia, its many times a magnitude in the U S, its just that nobody talk about the abuses of the No. 1 in the world, you get clobbered doing so. Carlyle'safusjt people say it all.

kayroll said...

In my opinion, simply for the reason of BearStearn's brand name, it should be bail-out. It has became so big and so used to financial world that financial/business people cannot ignore that name. I would also suggest a SWF to buy the right to use that name, if not the whole company. Business people is buying the brand, not the company.

kayroll said...

In my opinion, simply for the reason of BearStearn's brand name, it should be bail-out. It has became so big and so used to financial world that financial/business people cannot ignore that name. I would also suggest a SWF to buy the right to use that name, if not the whole company. Business people is buying the brand, not the company.