<p>Bear down in flames--expect many IB layoofs. Who will be next?? The street will be full of out of work IBers handing out resumes.</p>
<p>The downturn is gonna be very long as well.</p>
<p>The people who needed to know already knew, and the people who needed to be warned haven't and probably will never work in the field. Everyone knew this was going to happen to Bear, and that their public protestations to the contrary were bs. Right now Lehman is in the exact same position Stearns was in a month ago, but I doubt the same fate will befall Lehman, they are better diversified and known for risk management. That's not to say they won't take a huge hit, they have a large vested interest in debt markets, but I doubt they'll be completely taken out in the way Bear Stearns is. I'm actually tempted to pick up stock now that they're essentially a subsidiary of JP Morgan. Nowhere to go but up... for them, anyway. What keeps me on the fence is that I don't think the worst of this has past, and I wonder if banks with better positions will become as discounted. Of course, if the absolute worst happens then everyone is screwed, so I suppose investing either way is better than keeping the money in a sock drawer.</p>
<p>If you knew this was going to happen, I sure hope you had a short position on multiple banks.</p>
<p>That's all fine and dandy. Just stay the **** out of law school.</p>
<p>What's wrong with law school?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Everyone knew this was going to happen to Bear, and that their public protestations to the contrary were bs. Right now Lehman is in the exact same position Stearns was in a month ago, but I doubt the same fate will befall Lehman, they are better diversified and known for risk management.
[/quote]
Bear wasn't known for risk management? I was led to believe contrary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's wrong with law school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>FUTURENYUSTUDENT is a prospective law student and doesn't want any additional competition. I am assuming that he made that comment because he is insecure about less than steller GPA and LSAT scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bear wasn't known for risk management? I was led to believe contrary.
[/quote]
They were years ago, but apparently their were problems under Spector, who was fired last year. A question that has been raised and hasn't been answered was whether or not they had independent (not the portfolio manager, not the trader, not using the same analytics as either) risk managers on their funds, which is pretty common practice.</p>
<p>Actually, this demise came about quicker than any of the regulators expected. See this SEC comment for some interesting info:</p>
<p>SEC</a> News Digest (Issue 2008-52; March 17, 2008)</p>
<p>Specifically note these two paragraphs:</p>
<p>"As of its most recent capital calculation as of the end of February 2008, Bear Stearns' holding company capital exceeded relevant regulatory standards. According to the information supplied to the SEC by Bear Stearns as of Tuesday, March 11, the holding company had a substantial capital cushion. In addition, as of March 11, the firm had over $17 billion in cash and unencumbered liquid assets.</p>
<p>Beginning on that day, however, and increasingly throughout the week, lenders and customers of Bear Stearns began to remove funds from the firm, despite its stable capital position. As a result, Bear Stearns' excess liquidity rapidly eroded."</p>
<p>So, in two days--from Tuesday March 11th to Thursday March 13th--the company apparently went from $17 billion in cash and unencumbered liquid assets to less than zero (a negative position prompting Bear Stearns to plan to file bankruptcy)--that's absolutely amazing--and hopefully a wake-up call to the other investment banking firms.</p>
<p>I thinking that finding a buyer to take them over in 48 hours is also quite amazing--since it was on Saturday or Sunday that the firm announced they were being bought out by JP Morgan Chase via funding by the Federal Reserve. Of course, this was at a 86% discount to their Tuesday market price. </p>
<p>I think the lawyers are going to have a field day with this one.</p>
<p>Hehe. Nice thread Barrons. I'm getting a kick out of this.</p>
<p>And the beat goes on--today the Federal Reserve loaned $29 billion to JP Morgan Chase at 2.5% interest to buy out Bear Stearns with the agreement being that JP Morgan Chase takes the first $1 billion in risk and that JP Morgan buys Bear Stearns for no less than $10/share (it's now a $30 billion purchase by JP Morgan and they end up buying 40% of the company).</p>
<p>So the stock that was down 86% last week is now trading at $12.55 (up 110% for the day).</p>
<p>Gee, I didn't know that the Federal Reserve was:
(a) in the stock-price setting business; and
(b) in the habit of negotiating loans directly with non-banks (an investment bank is nothing but a underwriter/brokerage)</p>
<p>I did know that the Federal Reserve is in the bank bailout business--as it has done over and over again--and as it continues to be by buying out mortgage-backed securities this week. </p>
<p>Welcome to Bailout Nation. I didn't expect that the Federal Reserve was this desperate to save their large-investor friends. I guess they felt they needed to keep the Bear Stearns clearing business from going under because of the effect this would have on investor confidence--and also on certain "fat cats" holdings, which are likely to rebound at least a bit now that the company is solvent again.</p>
<p>I wonder if these new Federal Reserve "duties" will get reflected in the economic classes taught at the universities across the country. I never saw them in any courses I took--not even the one taught by my MBA economics professor at UCLA--and he was the "Chief Economic advisor" to the US president before taking the job at UCLA. </p>
<p>I think the only other time I can remember any similar action being taken was when Lockheed almost went out of business back in 1971--and in that case, the Fed did nothing--and it was Congress that finally voted on and approved the $250 million in bailout funds--and they only did so since Lockheed was the company's largest defense contractor at the time.</p>
<p>There was also the Chrysler bailout and the S&L bailout. Not to mention the reverse where private firms helped bailout NYC when it was broke.</p>
<p>The problem is that everyone knows Bear Stearns has essentially gone out of business, so any perception of stability they may been trying to create is ruined. And that's the only reason for the bailout in the first place, so this is totally illogical.</p>