Jim Rogers’ Opinion On Bear Stearns’ Bail-Out
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXUU_lyb0Lc[/youtube]
While Jim Rogers has never had a good opinion of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanake, he seems particularly upset with his latest actions. He thinks that he had no right to bail-out Bear Stearns (BSC) to the tune of $230 Billion of the US taxpayers money. He claims that if BSC had filed bankrupcy,the billions of dollars of bonuses paid out in January would have to be returned. So effectively Bernanke facilitated a bail-out so that his pals on Wall Street could continue to drive their Maseratis! Sounds a bit too conspiracy-theory to me, but in principle I agree with him. It’s not fair that the Wall Street guys take huge risks to make huge amounts of money, but when they mis-calculate, instead of being punished by the market (in terms of bankruptcy and financial ruin) the Fed just bails them out.
He also admits that he’s been buying agriculture for a while, since its the cheapest commodity and that he’s also out of the dollar. He also thinks that gold should be over $2,000, adjusting for inflation. The short term dollar rally isn’t fooling him, he’s using it to liquidate the rest of his dollars.
If you found this post helpful, consider donating to my coffee fund!![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
- Top 5 Greatest Investment Book Authors Today's guest post comes from Ryan of Semperfinance, a military-community oriented personal finance and stock investment blog. Education is the key to developing successful investment strategies. Blogs, websites and periodicals are great for staying up to date on the latest and greatest in the financial world, but nothing beats a......
- Heard On The Street What's the difference between a pigeon and a Wall Street banker? The pigeon can still make a deposit on a Porsche! Meanwhile, in what looks like a stunning display of stupidity, the Federal Reserve recently hired someone to "assess the safety and soundness of domestic banking institutions." The new employee......
- Video: Cramer Frothing At The Mouth Here's an interesting video of Jim Cramer imploring Ben Bernanke to stick his head out of the Fed window and see whats happening in the markets. Pretty amazing for a 52 year old man to get so worked up over a lousy rate hike. I think he might be losing......
Related Websites
- TARP 18x: the Unknown Bailout that Requires a Supreme Court Ruling for Full Disclosure The gray zone between what people say they're doing and what they're really doing is where true journalists make their value known. No better examples exist than Bloomberg's Mark Pittman (deceased) and Bob Ivry who are suing the Federal Reserve to quantify the true cost of the Wall Street Bailout.......
- Supracurrency Coin Proposed as United World Reserve Currency Is the supranational currency proposed by Russian President Medvedev for real? At the G8 meeting in L'Aquila, Italy (July 8-10, 2009), Medvedev is reported to have brought a sample of a new "united future world currency" coin minted in Belgium and bearing the words "unity in diversity." According to Bloomberg,......
- Wall Street Fraud & Moral Corruption Runs Deep Review of The Inside Job by Charles Ferguson (2010). Despite the fact that it's a trite truism that Wall Street is fueled by greed and "greed makes the world - or at least the markets - go round," it's merely the tip of the iceberg of moral depravity and social......
[All content is copyright of Living Off Dividends & Passive Income]
March 24th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I agree with you – it’s a bit too oonspiracy-theory for me. Maybe Rogers had puts on BSC?
The Fed didn’t exactly “bail-out” Bear (though the revised price of $10/share) definately helps the shareholders. But a bailout would have preserved Bear as a bank, or at least enabled it to continue to operate until a real auction could have taken place. Many of the employees will wind up out of work. It is hard to see how bankruptcy would have been better for shareholders than the deal they are getting, even if the bonuses were to be returned.
What the Fed did was protect Bear’s counterparties – for a maximum loss of $29 billion they prevented a forced liquidation of the hedge funds to which Bear was prime broker. It has been estimated that together with Bear’s own commitments, these hedge funds were counterparties to $4 trillion in derivative contracts.
Allowing that much disruption was simply not an option. JPM will take a large write-down (around $6bn) in acquiring BSC and apparently now pay over $1 billion more for Bear. If the purchase produces the profits for which JPM hopes it will turn out to produce solid returns, but not outrageous ones.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:13 am
If you talk to Bear’s shareholders and employees they will tell you it was not a bail out. A bail out as I see it is making something whole again and in this case Bear owners are never whole and lost most of their investment so I fail to see it as a bail out.
I have no problem with what the fed did. The fed mandate is to protect the financial institutions and regulate them. Their actions here is not unwanted but you can argue that the fed did a poor job regulating the banks in the first place.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Sami & Doug…you guys have no idea what you are talking about.
Essentially you paid for this bailout (I will cover why it is a bailout below) by the Fed devaluing the money you currently have by printing more money. This cost YOU money.
Sure allowing Bear Sterns to go bankrupt would cause a lot of turmoil in the market, but it would recover, and fairly quickly once the excesses are out. Plus, not allowing Bear Sterns to go bankrupt tells the other investment banks to keep doing the samething that got us here, as the Fed is telling them “will save you.”
It is a bailout, as Bear Sterns would have gone to zero without the Feds help. All their assets were fleeing with their clients and no one was hiring them to do the investment banking side of any deals (they had no assets or leverage), thus no fees were being generated. They obviously aren’t making any money from their investments right now, so the drop in fees would have meant they would eventually go under. This cycle, unfortunately, is almost impossible to break, as it is a crisis of confidence. Would you have risked your millions with Bear or with Goldman Sachs right now? It’s rhetorical, as we all know the answer.
Note that the very brief reasons I gave here are only a very very very small part of the entire debacle.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
[...] The events of Bears and Sterns/JP Morgan/Federal Reserve remains fresh in the minds of many. More popular, common place thinking believes this was nothing more than high paid executives, trying to protect their year bonuses. [...]
March 27th, 2008 at 10:08 am
This is a great topic. Jim Rogers is always a good solid straight shooter. I enjoy his interviews.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:00 am
[...] sure we’ll tax our way out of it). The government bails out investment banks, rescuing the bonuses of top management (which would have been reclaimed in bankruptcy) but refuses to do the same for homeowners swamped [...]
March 14th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
[...] sure we’ll tax our way out of it). The government bails out investment banks, rescuing the bonuses of top management (which would have been reclaimed in bankruptcy) but refuses to do the same for homeowners swamped [...]