WE NEED YOUR HELP! Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Current Topics
Trump 2.0
by rporter314 - 03/16/25 05:10 PM
2024 Election Forum
by perotista - 03/16/25 12:02 PM
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 10 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Agnostic Politico, Jems, robertjohn, BlackCat13th, ruggedman
6,305 Registered Users
Popular Topics(Views)
10,261,138 my own book page
5,051,299 We shall overcome
4,251,059 Campaign 2016
3,856,704 Trump's Trumpet
3,055,894 3 word story game
Top Posters
pdx rick 47,431
Scoutgal 27,583
Phil Hoskins 21,134
Greger 19,831
Towanda 19,391
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
Irked 1
Forum Statistics
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,550
Members6,305
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
itstarted,
I am deeply concerned by this development, and also the method by which it was accomplished. Fed Invokes Little-Used Authority to Aid Bear Stearns
Quote
``The Fed really doesn't have any obligation to help a non- bank aside from its role or responsibility to keep the financial markets functioning,'' said Hembre, who helps oversee $107 billion as chief economist at FAF Advisors Inc. in Minneapolis. ``They made a judgment, probably an accurate one, that they're not going to function very well if you've got a full-blown crisis with a major Wall Street firm.''

Unanimous Vote

The Fed said in a statement that it will ``continue to provide liquidity as necessary to promote the orderly functioning of the financial system,'' repeating reassurances the central bank has made often since credit strains arrived in August. The statement said the Fed Board unanimously approved the arrangement with JPMorgan and Bear Stearns.
And how was that "good news" received?
Quote
47% Plunge

Bear Stearns shares plummeted a record 47 percent on news of the bailout. The announcement, coupled with a report showing U.S. consumer prices were unchanged in February, led traders to place 56 percent odds that Fed policy makers will lower their benchmark interest rate by a full percentage point at their March 18 meeting, to 2 percent.
Uh oh,....


A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
#56185 03/15/08 03:02 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,428
Likes: 1
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,428
Likes: 1
NWP... yes... exactly

...and to take it a little further from your quoted article...
Quote
``What they're doing now is going to help, but I don't know that it will solve all the problems out there,'' said Thomas Garcia, managing director of Thornburg Investment Management in Santa Fe, New Mexico, which oversees $50 billion.

Bear Stearns's liquidity problem ``definitely gives some doubt as to whether other firms are releasing all available information, and whether this credit crunch is really over,'' Garcia said.

Bear Stearns isn't alone among financial institutions stung by the credit squeeze to be bailed out. The U.K. government was forced to nationalize Northern Rock Plc last month after the first run on a British bank in more than a century and take on 100 billion pounds ($203 billion) in liabilities. Two German banks have also received emergency aid.

While U.S. authorities have been faster than their U.K. counterparts in announcing the rescue package for Bear Stearns, former Bank of England policy maker Willem Buiter says that doesn't make their course of action was the correct one.

``This creates the same moral hazard issues that we saw with Northern Rock,'' said Buiter, now a professor at the London School of Economics. ``This bank is being given access to public money, and we don't know what the terms are.''

... and while it should self evident, this is the problem:

First, the brokers or banks have to make public their financial statements. This means that they must total their assets and liabilities. In the assets column is what they hold, and what they are owed, and that's the part that is causing the uncertainty in the markets. The dollar amount assumes that the banker/broker actually considers these amounts to be real, and based on values that are updated to be current. This current valuation is called "marking to market"... and means that the amounts claimed are the best estimate of the current value.

That's the part that isn't happening... "Marking to Market". If the asset is correctly rated, it means that it should be redeemable at that amount.

Because of the slicing and dicing and hedging and derivatives and credit swaps that are included in the "assets" there is no way to estimate the actual value... and depending on who you listen to, the current redemption value of the questionable assets is estmated by some sources to be anywhere from 50% to 80% and possibly even less.

Now, as long as the bank doesn't properly "mark to market", and if the investors consider the assets to be as stated, there is no problem.

The problem arises when investors don't trust the stated assets. Afraid of not getting their money back, they try to "cash out" before the firm declares bankruptcy. This is the "RUN" on the banks.
................................

Yeah... that's pretty self evident, right? As the article states:
Quote
Bear Stearns's liquidity problem ``definitely gives some doubt as to whether other firms are releasing all available information, and whether this credit crunch is really over"


Well that's it! Almost every CEO who has been questioned, stated that their asset position was safe, and they were not involved in the liquidity crisis. Now it appears that nearly every firm that was "in question"... is having more exposure than originally stated.

Now, here's one more problem that no one has yet spoken about... and that's the fact that the actual liquid assets that the firms are required to hold, has been reduced fivefold in the past ten years. The actual cash (liquid assets) on hand, is very, very small, considering the liability (the amount that depositors or debtors can legally expect to receive on demand).

Now that's so simple that it sholdn't require explanation... but that's exactly what the problem is. No cash on hand to pay debts. Theoretically, the bank or broker should be able to just sell of some of their holdings to pay these debts.

It took about 20 minutes to bring down Bear Stearns. How long would it take to place Citigroup in jeopardy? How long to drain the few remaining liquid dollars from ETrade Bank? Who believes that Morgan Stanley, or Lehman Brothers could liquidate enough holdings to withstand a loss of confidence?
.........................................
So back to the point NWP makes... how far will the Fed go to stabilize a market that may very well be beyond saving. How far will the government go to stretch or reinterpret the law to save the bankers at the full cost to the taxpayers?

A clue to the future should come during the next two weeks, because there are already 6 or 7 medium sized hedge funds with negative balance sheets that should mean bankruptcy, without a very substantial rescue, or merger.

It looks as if the five major banks may not be prepared to resolve these initial "failures". It remains to be seen if sovereign funds will enter into this risk pool.
.................................
The problem for you and me, is that the Fed may very well use our taxes/natrional debt to bail out the banks. In effect, by bailing out Bear Stearns the Fed is paying the Bear Stearns investors for debt that is likely to be worth only a small percent of the stated value.

As to blame? My own feeling is that Congress is complicit through it's easing of protections, and lack of oversight of the actions of the SEC. Many of the problems began during the last two years of the Clinton Administration, but the past seven years of negligence falls on both parties.

Here's another opinion as to "BLAME".

The Villain?

Last edited by itstarted; 03/15/08 03:11 AM.

Life is Good!
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003
Likes: 191
Everything you say I agree with, Itstarted, and it scares the bejesus outtame. Bear Sterns has assets "valued" at $400 Billion - about the same as our annual deficit. The problem, as I have complained about numerous times, is that our "economy" has been entirely skewed to protect "investors" and hang everyone else - labor, taxpayers, consumers - out to dry. Now that these investors are at risk, they are getting bailed out - again - by the government which means that once again you and I will bear the brunt of the costs of "other peoples' risk." So to save:
Quote
* Joseph C. Lewis with 8.1 million shares, about 7% of the company
* Putnam Investment Management (largest institutional shareholder) with 7.03 million shares, about 6% of the company
* Bear Stearns Chairman James E. Cayne, owns about 5.8% of the company
Bear Stearns - Wikipedia
We're going to pick up the tab. Again, the government gives an advantage to billionaires at the expense of the workers. I'm f'n tired of it. Of course, we're screwed either way, because our pension accounts are tied up in these investments as well. What a bunch of incompetents. Greedy incompetents.

Last edited by NW Ponderer; 03/15/08 03:49 AM.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
#56198 03/15/08 04:00 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Member
CHB-OG
Offline
Member
CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
...from itstarted's link:

Quote
On Monday, when the Federal Reserve announced a new facility to help banks finance themselves by posting previously unacceptable collateral, stock and credit markets jumped for joy. That is, until someone started asking slightly cute questions on the lines of just who was in so much trouble that the Fed had to rush through an ill-prepared intervention.
'Rushing through an ill-prepared intervention' is straight out of The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.


Contrarian, extraordinaire


Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,428
Likes: 1
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,428
Likes: 1
I know there will be other threads on the current market upset, but I'd like to keep the sequence on this thread.

Today in the 16th... and by tomorrow, my thinking may change, but it looks as if we may be on the verge of a very big sea change in the global market.

The thing that was so unthinkable may very well be here... a total market meltdown. Since nobody has been right yet, perhaps this is premature, but the nervousness in the international markets looks to be ready to cause a run on Brokerages.

Here's an interim report, that may or may not be valid.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/17/ccbear117.xml

The part that's scary , is that there seems to have been more of a cash position in Bear Stearns than what I or others may have thought. If this is the case, and other brokerages have been under the gun with investors turning to a cash position as well, then investors could be on a crash program to get out with whatever cash they can.

No one wants to be left out.

At this time...11PM Sun ET... the Asian markets are already down about 6%.

The Fed has dropped the rate .25% for liquid loans (Discount rate t0 other than banks), and it looks as if this isn't making a dent.

Also...Carlysle is being liquidated.

The Fed has Panicked!

stay tuned...

Last edited by itstarted; 03/17/08 03:18 AM.

Life is Good!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 973
F
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
F
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 973
Guess it's time for another chat with my bank. Being as illiterate as I am about the workings of big financial markets as a whole, this sort of thing scares the bejeebers out of me.

I don't have a lot of money, but I'd like to make sure I keep what I do have

Is this a matter of what goes up must come down? Aren't hedge funds by their very inception high risk? And why the heck do 'we' have to keep bailing out the very wealthy and their high risk ventures?

Or is my lack of understanding making my questions sound incredibly stupid?

Last edited by Frazier; 03/17/08 10:13 AM.

Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 728
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 728
just moved EVERYTHING into cash, after listening to GWB.


(I did this for the good of the country, as whatever I do, it's always the wrong thing.)

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,428
Likes: 1
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,428
Likes: 1
I'd like to add another point about the why..
Why no one trusts the banks' estimate of how liquid it really is.

It has to do with "Mark to market"

Very simply it is the question as to whether the bank should tell the public about it's worth.

Simple?... no!

As of last November, because of the problems with sub-prime loans didn't have the value that was on the books, the law FAS157 was enacted.

This required that banks make visible on their asset sheets, the estimated value of the assets that they claim.

Becuase this is not as somple as it seems, the requirement is to classify the assets (loans) in one of three ways.

#1. Actual current and measurable values.
#2. Value according to similar and comparable assets.
#3. Where value is not obvious, it must be assessed according to an estimate backed by an actual current review of the loan.

Banks don't like this because they have been piling huge $$$ in loans into the third category, and estimating the value, based on marking to models, or marking to history.

In effect, this third category gave the banks carte blanche to value loans any way they wished, without having to provide proof to an auditor... (or shareholders).

It is because of #3 that there is such illiquidity in the market.
The banks have kited that figure as being valid and collectible loans. As long as everyone agreed there was no problem.

When it became apparent that the only way to restore trust in the banking system, pressure is on to make the banks divulge the calculated value of their clamied assets. The Banks do not want to do this. They want to be allowed to use historical data (IMHO cowdung).

The banks claim that if they have to do an actual mark to market, it will bring down the financial system.

In other words, they claim that if they are just allowed to lie, then the global markets will be ok.

The problem is... until investors believe in what the banks say... the liquidity will be frozen.

Watch for more on this. Especially watch to see WHO wants to go along with the LIES. A good chance to pick out the crooked Congressmen.

This is just an opinion... Opinions to the contrary are welcome... I'd really like to be convinced that I'm wrong.

More here:
Mark to Market FAS157

Last edited by itstarted; 03/17/08 06:12 PM.

Life is Good!
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226
Wow, that is scary stuff, Itstarted. Fascinating information. I only wish I was reading it about some other country's banks.

Another reason your post is interesting is that I listen to the BBC World Service on and off almost everyday. Today they talked about the U.S. economic situation and Bear Stearns and interviewed a number of authorities, experts and opposing views. For the first time ever that I can recall experts and learned people are saying "recession or worse" or "deep recession or worse". OR WORSE! Yikes! "Or worse" in my limited economic vocabulary means - depression.

Further, the disagreement among experts interviewed seemed to concern what to do about the situation; throw money in or not, bail banks out or not and why. No one seemed to disagree that "deep recession or worse" was incorrect. Holy smokes!




____________________



You, you and you, panic. The rest of you follow me.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740
Likes: 1
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Slipped Mickey
Wow, that is scary stuff, Itstarted. Fascinating information. I only wish I was reading it about some other country's banks.

Its no less depressing Mick


"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)

Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5