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.
Yeah, I'm good with a link being to an outside source.
Now as an example in post #154 you quoted me, in italics like so: Null and void: "Translation: the tax payers will get stuck with the bill."
But then, typically, you attributed what I said to nicmarlo, and demanded that she defend my words that you put in her mouth.
But I didn't quote you. I copied what nic had posted. I had no idea that it was a quote from you. And I didn't demand she defend your quote, just the claim about the PDF letter.
I didn't even care about that portion, I was more interested in the claim "In the letter, Treasury agrees that the Fed can bill Treasury for any losses from the Bear Stearns deal".
Since nic is afraid to answer, maybe you'd tell us if you agree or disagree?
I also note that although you quoted me by screen name, you somehow neglected to ping me. I'm certain that this is an oversight on your part,
You're correct.
Did you ever find what you claimed I said up thread? I never saw a response to my post #124. Realize your mistake? Or just run away?
Maybe a "small" amount of Ghirardelli.
(certainly not some ridiculous amount like...was it 20 pounds??? : )
Since nic is afraid to answer, maybe you'd tell us if you agree or disagree? Yet another lie. You refuse to apologize for the lies you tell about me, you refuse to admit you have made a false claim (again) against me, and you refuse to answer questions posed to you.....instead, you respond with questions. Your behavior is contemptible
You are delusional if you think you deserve an answer concerning a statement that you FALSELY stated was "MY CLAIM," which sentence was properly formatted in BLOCKQUOTES, cited, sourced, and linked to, and WAS OBVIOUSLY A QUOTE, yet you continue to use it as part of your obsessive personal attacks against me.....
My screen name in it may have been a hint, but I can see how that could happen.
Since nic is afraid to answer, maybe you'd tell us if you agree or disagree?
Agree or disagree with what?
Did you ever find what you claimed I said up thread? I never saw a response to my post #124. Realize your mistake? Or just run away?
Referring back to the original post (#90) I clearly said AND I QUOTE: "(Assuming, of course, that I understood what he was trying to say)."
Since you objected, clearly I didn't. I pretty much thought that ended it.
I'm not one to assert that someone said something they didn't, and then badger them into defending what they didn't say.
Maybe you should cry to your mommy?
Not so. You appear to be MUCH more interested in making false accusations against me....
I'm interested if you agree or disagree with the claim.
You are delusional if you think you deserve an answer concerning a statement that you FALSELY stated was "MY CLAIM,"
Usually freepers agree with articles or links they post, unless they specifically say they disagree. Some freepers post stuff and then won't agree or disagree. That would be you. LOL!
yet you continue to use it as part of your obsessive personal attacks against me.....
Geez, take a Midol already.
Midol? Just how old are you???
But I never saw you say it. I wouldn't want to get in trouble for quoting you second hand.
Agree or disagree with what?
"In the letter, Treasury agrees that the Fed can bill Treasury for any losses from the Bear Stearns deal".
"(Assuming, of course, that I understood what he was trying to say)."
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.
Never did. I thought they quit making it when I was still in knee pants.
I note that you avoided an actual answer, and replied with a snide question.
I note that you avoided an actual answer, and replied with a snide question.
Yes, I did.
How’s my favorite welfare farmer?
Provide statistical support to prove your assertion that people who post articles: 1) agree with EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE/IDEA/INTENTION within the article or the entire article they post, unless otherwise stated; or 2) "usually" post articles they agree with unless they specifically say they do not (FOFLMAO). Perhaps .gov drones keep this kind of "statistical" information to support their CLAIMS. Yes...YOU just made a CLAIM. Please support it with something beyond YOUR OPINION.
However, that was not the point you were even attempting to make initially. That was only made AFTER you were caught in yet another lie against me and your attempt to deflect from your most recent gaff. The issue is--beyond AGREEING or DISAGREEING with what ANY article states--that you stated a quotation was MY OWN CLAIM.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE that the posting of an article TRANSFERS OWNERSHIP of ANY sentence, wording, phrasing, or idea within the article, TO the person who posted said article. That was what YOU stated: a "quotation of another author" became "my claim."
I have absolutely no doubt that upon production of your "proof" concerning such transfers of ownership, theNew York Times, the Los Angeles Times, certain judges, and even JR would be most interested in your NEW definition and interpretation of PLAGIARISM.
BTW, the person who needs meds ain't me.
I don’t farm, but then, you knew that.
No.
So, are you ever going to admit you agreed with the claim? LOL!
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.