[DannyTN]

Didn’t read the entire article, but if true, shouldn’t this be prosecutable under the hardly ever enforced anymore anti-trust laws.

[2banana]

If Bear Sterns had a positive cash flow, conservative assets, no level III junk...etc...they would tell them to blow it out their ear.

[theDentist]

SOunds like a conspiracy, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke was in the middle of it.

[JSteff]

bump for later

[wideawake]

This article makes an enormous leap: it says that "immediately following the lunch, no one wants to buy securities from Bear Stearns" and then it quotes Dealbreaker as saying: "Hours after the meeting every bank on Wall Street reportedly began refusing to issue credit protection on the debt of Bear."

Further, it quotes Eric Salzman as saying: "the Fed, who maintained that they only became aware of Bear Stearns dire liquidity situation Thursday night, March 13."

The Fed did not say that they were unaware of Bear's difficulties before March 13 - just that they did not have full details of the extent of the crisis until the 13th - likely true. Bear's competitors probably raised their concerns at the lunch meeting, but Bear's competitors could not speak with perfect knowledge of Bear's books.

There is a difference between not buying securities from a firm and not selling credit default swaps on a firm.

The author is trying to portray the refusal to sell third-party swaps on Bear as a refusal to do business with Bear.

Either the author has no clue what a credit default swap is, or he is intentionally misleading his readers.