Posted on 04/03/2008 9:22:59 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
April 3, 2008
Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse
Dearbail Jordan
US Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, today revealed that Bear Stearns was just one day away from going bust when the central bank stepped in to save the Wall Street bank to prevent chaos and a "severe" impact on confidence.
Speaking for a second day in front of US Congress, Mr Bernanke attempted to justify JP Morgan Chase's rescue of Bear Stearns, in a deal that included the US Fed agreeing to back $29 billion of the troubled investment bank's assets.
Mr Bernanke said: "... on March 13, Bear Stearns advised the Federal Reserve and other government agencies that its liquidity position had significantly deteriorated and that it would have to file for bankruptcy the next day unless alternative sources of funds became available."
The Fed chairman said that the central bank was forced to step in because the US financial system is "extremely complex and interconnected", and the collapse of Bear Stearns would have led to a "chaotic unwinding of positions in those markets are could have severely shaken confidence".
Mr Bernanke added: "Given the exceptional pressures on the global economy and financial system, the damage caused by a default by Bear Stearns could have been severe and extremely difficult to contain."
JP Morgan Chase agreed to acquire Bear Stearns for an initial $2 a share, valuing the lender at just $240 million. However, an investor outcry forced JP Morgan to increase the offer to $10 a share, as well as taking on $1 billion of Bear Stearns' assets with the remaining $29 billion backed by the US Fed.
Jamie Dimon, chief executive at JP Morgan, who was also appearing before Congress today, said the bank would not have offered to buy Bear Stearns if the Fed had not agreed to back the assets. His co-speaker, Alan Schwartz, chief executive at Bear Stearns, said today that the bank was not involved in negotiations between JP Morgan and the government regarding the $30 billion asset deal.
Mr Schwartz also maintained, as he said days before Bear Stearns nearly went bust last month, that the run that brought the lender to its knees was due to a lack of confidence and not because of a lack of capital or liquidity.
Mr Bernanke today reiterated his forecast that the US economy would slow in the first half before staging a recovery in the second half. However, like yesterday, Mr Bernanke refused to label the current economic situation as a recession.
It emerged today that US unemployment claims unexpectedly spiked last week by 38,000 to the highest rate since September 2005, alarming investors ahead of monthly jobless figures due out tomorrow.
New data revealed that the number of unemployment claims rose to 407,000 for the week ended March 29, above an expected 370,000 and the previous week's total of 369,000.
The sudden rise in benefit claims sent the Dow Jones industrial average down 48.6 points at 12,556.7 as investor grew nervous that today's figures are an indication of employment numbers that are due out tomorrow that are expected to show non-farm pay rolls for March have fallen by 60,000.
Yes, I'm very happy to know that you no longer accept welfare payments from the American taxpayers.
I quit just to make you happy.
haaaaaaaaaaa
My only question is, if the taxpayers are stuck with any part of this fiasco, do the CEO and other bigwigs still get their multi-million golden parachute retirements?
foflololol!
Fair enough, I did already say I could see how that could happen. Why so defensive?
"In the letter, Treasury agrees that the Fed can bill Treasury for any losses from the Bear Stearns deal"
You mean do I agree that the Paulson letter says:
QUOTING HERE!!!!
"On behalf of the Department of the Treasury, I support this action as appropriate and in the government's interest, and acknowledge that if any loss arises out of the special facility extended by the FRBNY to JPMCB, the loss will be treated by the FRBNY as an expense that may reduce the net earnings transfered by the FRBNY to the Treasury general fund"
CLOSE QUOTE!!!
*scratching head* Well, it does say what it says, doesn't it???
You need to be more specific. You said the above in response to a post with 6 separate points. It's possible I agreed with some or all, but didn't know which one (or ones) you were talking about.
This one of LS's points:
QUOTING HERE!:
"since no bank EVER has enough money to meet all liabilities in cash"
END OF QUOTE!
Looking back I realized that you had never actually said it in so may words, you had just set up a strawman scenario to prove me wrong that required 40 250 lb contractors to descend on my imaginary bank and demand all their loans IN CASH RIGHT NOW, (when, BTW, I had only made 33 loans!) to prove that I knew nothing of banking.
So although you never said a bank needs to be able to cover all liabilities in cash, you used an example of precisely that AND more, to prop up your argument.
For some silly reason I briefly thought you meant that a bank must keep enough cash on hand to cover every loan in cash, since that was the standard you were trying to hold the First National Bank of Nully to.
My mistake, sorry.
lolol!
Assuming the worst case, the whole $29 billion is lost (ya - ya I know) that works to roughly $93 bucks worth of exposure for each 'Murican.
Now compare that to the guaranteed down the rat hole $50 Billion Dubya is proposing for Africa, comes to about $166 per 'Murican.
Help with the ... well you know how us Protectionists are with math?
Sounds like we got a bargain.
Excellent! Does that mean the same as
"In the letter, Treasury agrees that the Fed can bill Treasury for any losses from the Bear Stearns deal."
I don't think it does.
So although you never said a bank needs to be able to cover all liabilities in cash, you used an example of precisely that AND more, to prop up your argument.
No bank has enough cash on hand to pay back all their depositors. In your example, you didn't have enough money (cash or deposits at the Fed) to cover all your loans. On your first day in business.
I see.
If you were expecting, say, $1000.00 from me and I offset MY expenses by taking some of YOUR $1000.00, and I only gave you, say, $700.00, you wouldn't think I'd billed you?
OoooooooKAY
No bank has enough cash on hand to pay back all their depositors.
Bingo!
You said I did need to by the very nature of your strawman argument.
Silly me! I took you at your word!
Sounds like the Treasury has to give tax dollars to the Fed. I disagree.
If you were expecting, say, $1000.00 from me and I offset MY expenses by taking some of YOUR $1000.00, and I only gave you, say, $700.00, you wouldn't think I'd billed you?
If you expect $100 from your Aunt on your birthday and she loses at the casino and only gives you $50, did the casino bill you?
No bank has enough cash on hand to pay back all their depositors.
Bingo!
You said I did need to by the very nature of your strawman argument.
Ummmmm....the heavy set men in your lobby were not your depositors. They had checks that you gave out as loans. Bouncing a loan check is not the best way to start your new bank.
Silly me! I took you at your word!
Silly you, you misunderstood, again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.