• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Welfare on Wall Street

fff

Well-known member
Let's hear no more about people on welfare. The entire investment banking business is on a lifeline from the Federal Reserve. These people have been drawing multimillion dollar bonuses for years, paying themselves for making so much money for their clients. Guess who gets to foot the bill now? The American taxpayer. This country's financial situation is in bad shape. So much for those fiscally responsible Republicans running things! Bring on the Democrats!

The Week That Shook Wall Street:
Inside the Demise of Bear Stearns
By ROBIN SIDEL, GREG IP, MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS and KATE KELLY
March 18, 2008; Page A1

The past six days have shaken American capitalism.

Between Tuesday, when financial markets began turning against Bear Stearns Cos., and Sunday night, when the bank disappeared into the arms of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Washington policy makers, federal regulators and Wall Street bankers struggled to keep the trouble from tanking financial markets and exacerbating the country's deep economic uncertainty.

The mood changed daily, as did the apparent scope of the problem. On Friday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson thought markets would be calmed by the announcement that the Federal Reserve had agreed to help bail out Bear Stearns. President Bush gave a reassuring speech that day about the fundamental soundness of the U.S. economy. By Saturday, however, Mr. Paulson had become convinced that a definitive agreement to sell Bear Stearns had to be inked before markets opened yesterday.

Bear Stearns's board of directors was whipsawed by the rapidly unfolding events, in particular by the pressure from Washington to clinch a deal, says one person familiar with their deliberations.

"We thought they gave us 28 days," this person says, in reference to the terms of the Fed's bailout financing. "Then they gave us 24 hours."

In the end, Washington more or less threw its rule book out the window. The Fed, which has been at the forefront of the government response, made a number of unprecedented moves. Among other things, it agreed to temporarily remove from circulation a big chunk of difficult-to-trade securities and to offer direct loans to Wall Street investment banks for the first time.

The terms of the Bear Stearns sale contained some highly unusual features. For one, J.P. Morgan retains the option to purchase Bear's valuable headquarters building in midtown Manhattan, even if Bear's board recommends a rival offer. Also, the Fed has taken responsibility for $30 billion in hard-to-trade securities on Bear Stearns's books, with potential for both profit and loss.

BEAR STEARNS FALLOUT

The question now looming over the transaction: Has the government set a precedent for propping up failing financial institutions at a time when its more traditional tools don't appear to be working? Cutting interest rates -- which the Fed is expected to do again today, by between a half percentage point and a full point -- hasn't yet done much to loosen capital markets gummed up by piles of bad debt.

Even though the transaction ultimately could leave taxpayers on the hook for losses, the political response so far has been fairly positive. "When you're looking into the abyss, you don't quibble over details," said New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.

Tuesday, March 11

From the earliest days of the financial crisis that began last year, the Federal Reserve had been working on contingency plans to lend to investment banks. Such firms regularly asked for government help to finance their large inventories of securities such as mortgage-backed bonds. They hoped to get the same favorable terms the Fed also gave to banks that borrow from its "discount window." But the Fed is barred from making such loans to firms that aren't banks, except by invoking a special clause which it hadn't used to lend money since the Great Depression. Officials worried that the drama surrounding a decision to do something for the first time since the 1930s could be damaging to confidence.

On Tuesday, officials unveiled what they thought came close: a promise to lend up to $200 billion in Treasury bonds to investment banks for 28 days. In return, the Treasury would get securities backed by home mortgages, whose uncertain values helped spark the current crisis, and other hard-to-trade collateral. The first swap was scheduled for March 27. At first, the firms were elated.

That same day, the market began turning on Bear Stearns. Phones were ringing off the hook at rival firms such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse Group. Clients of those firms were growing worried about trades they had entered into with Bear Stearns -- about whether Bear Stearns would be able to make good on its obligations. The clients asked the other investment banks whether they would be willing to take the clients' places in the trades. But credit officers at Goldman, Morgan Stanley and others -- worried themselves about Bear Stearns's condition -- began to say no.


At Bear Stearns, Chief Financial Officer Samuel Molinaro, along with company lawyers and Treasurer Robert Upton, were trying to make sense of the situation. They felt comfortable with their capital base of roughly $17 billion and were looking forward to reporting Bear Stearns's first-quarter earnings, which had been respectable amid the market carnage.

One theory began developing internally: Hedge funds with short positions on Bear -- bets that the company's stock would fall -- were trying to speed the decline by spreading negative rumors.

For the first part of the week, Chief Executive Officer Alan Schwartz was out of pocket. Although Bear Stearns had been struggling with mortgage-related losses and problems in its wealth-management unit, Mr. Schwartz was hosting a Bear Stearns media conference in Palm Beach, Fla. On Wednesday morning, he left the conference briefly to do an interview with CNBC in an effort to deflect rumors about liquidity issues at the firm.

Thursday

On Thursday evening, after customers had continued to pull their money out of Bear Stearns, the bank reached out to J. P. Morgan, looking to discuss ways the Wall Street giant could help ease Bear's cash crunch.

By then, Bear Stearns's cash position had dwindled to just $2 billion. In a conference call at 7:30 p.m., officials at Bear Stearns and the Securities and Exchange Commission told Fed and Treasury officials that the firm saw little option other than to file for bankruptcy protection the next morning.

Bear Stearns's hope was that the Fed would make a loan from its discount window to provide several weeks of breathing room. That, the firm hoped, would perhaps halt a run on the bank by allowing it to swap bonds for the cash necessary to return to customers.

The Fed's standard preference in dealing with a troubled institution is to first seek a private-sector solution, such as a sale or financing agreement. But the possibility of a bankruptcy filing Friday morning created a hard deadline.

A trigger point was looming for Bear Stearns in the so-called repo market, where banks and securities firms extend and receive short-term loans, typically made overnight and backed by securities. At 7:30 a.m., Bear Stearns would have to begin paying back some of its billions of dollars in repo borrowings. If the firm didn't repay the money on time, its creditors could start selling the collateral Bear had pledged to them. The implications went well beyond Bear Stearns: If other investors questioned the safety of loans they made in the repo market, they could start to withhold funds from other investment banks and companies.

The $4.5 trillion repo market isn't a newfangled innovation like subprime-backed collateralized debt obligations. It is a decades-old, plain-vanilla market critical to the smooth functioning of capital markets. A default by a major counterparty would have been unprecedented, and could have had unpredictable consequences for the entire market.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Timothy Geithner worked into the night, grabbing just two hours of sleep near the bank's downtown Manhattan headquarters. His staff spent the night going over Bear's books and talking to potential suitors including J. P. Morgan. The hard reality was that even interested buyers said they needed more time to go over the company.

The pace and complexity of events left Bear's board of directors groping for answers. "It was a traumatic experience," says one person who participated. Sleep deprivation set in, with some of the hundreds of attorneys and bankers sleeping only a few hours during a 72-hour sprint. Dress was casual, with neckties quickly shorn.

Friday

At 5 a.m. Friday, Mr. Geithner, Mr. Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, calling in from home, joined a conference call to debate whether Bear should be allowed to fail or whether the Fed should lend it enough money to get through the weekend. At 7 a.m. they settled on the lifeline option. Mr. Bernanke assembled the Fed's other three available governors to vote for the loan, the first time since the Depression the Fed would use its extraordinary authority to lend to nonbanks.

The Fed announced that it would lend Bear money, through J.P. Morgan, for up to 28 days to get the venerable investment bank through its cash crunch. At 9 a.m., Mr. Geithner, Mr. Paulson and aides addressed a conference call of bond dealers and bankers. Mr. Paulson took the lead, saying the dealer community had "a stake" in the overall deal working out.

But the markets didn't take well to the news that a major investment bank was on the brink of failure. Stocks sank. Other investment banks were seeing lenders turn cautious. Fed officials led by Bill Dudley, head of open-market operations, began planning a more direct response: opening the discount window to all investment banks, a request the Fed had resisted for months.

J.P. Morgan's effort to buy Bear kicked into high gear on Friday afternoon, just hours after the big bank and the Fed had provided Bear with the 28-day lifeline. Steve Black, co-head of J.P. Morgan's investment bank, returned early from vacation in the Caribbean, spearheading the bank's efforts with his J.P. Morgan counterpart in London, Bill Winters.

Mr. Black's role was pivotal. He was a longtime associate of J.P. Morgan Chief Executive James Dimon. And Mr. Black had a long relationship with Bear's CEO, Mr. Schwartz, dating back to the 1970s, when the two were fraternity brothers at Duke University.

J.P. Morgan bankers were broken into some 16 teams -- all with specific due-diligence assignments. Some focused on Bear's prime-brokerage business, which was attractive to J.P. Morgan. Others concentrated on technical operations, commodities, and the like.

As some Fed staffers worked from a conference room on Bear's 12th floor, Federal Reserve officials insisted that the firm complete a deal that weekend. Officials made it clear the loan was only for the short term to ensure a deal got done as quickly as possible. Their priority was that Bear's counterparties -- the parties that stood on the other side of its trades -- would be able to arrive at work Monday knowing their contracts were good, minimizing the risk of a generalized flight from the markets.

Treasury Secretary Paulson knew that the day's work wouldn't be enough to keep Bear afloat over the long term. Still, Mr. Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs chief executive and the administration's point man for financial markets, thought Bear Stearns would survive through the weekend.

Saturday

That illusion was shattered Saturday morning, when Mr. Paulson was deluged by calls to his home from bank chief executives. They told him they worried the run on Bear would spread to other financial institutions. After several such calls, Mr. Paulson realized the Fed and Treasury had to get the J.P. Morgan deal done before the markets in Asia opened on late Sunday, New York time.

"It was just clear that this franchise was going to unravel if the deal wasn't done by the end of the weekend," Mr. Paulson said in an interview yesterday.

A year ago, Mr. Paulson wouldn't have considered Bear Stearns big enough that its collapse would present a threat to the U.S. financial system. But confidence in the economy and financial sector are so shaky now that he had no doubt that the Fed and government had to act to prevent its bankruptcy, according to a senior Treasury official.

At 8 a.m. Saturday, the J.P. Morgan bankers assembled to receive instructions in the bank's executive offices, located on the 8th floor of its Park Avenue headquarters. One hour later, they headed down the street to Bear Stearns's headquarters to pore over Bear's books. Due diligence had begun.

Back at J.P. Morgan's headquarters, top executives set up war rooms on the executive floor, commandeering offices of colleagues who weren't directly involved in the negotiations. Bankers darted in and out of offices searching for the top brass, who were also moving from room to room. Mr. Dimon, wearing slacks and a dark sweater, urged the bankers to stay calm and focused. "Everyone take a deep breath," he said at one point.

By 7:30 p.m., hunger pangs had taken hold. Someone ordered Chinese food. A security guard lay out a buffet spread.

That evening, Mr. Black got on the phone to Mr. Schwartz, Bear Stearns's CEO. J.P. Morgan would be willing to buy Bear Stearns, subject to the conclusion of due diligence, he told Mr. Schwartz. The J.P. Morgan executives didn't set a specific price, instead providing a dollars-per-share range, according to people familiar with the matter. At the high end was a figure in the low double digits, these people say.

By 1 a.m., the bankers headed home for a few hours of sleep.

Sunday

Early the next morning, Messrs. Dimon and Black and other top executives sat around a conference-room table to discuss the situation. One by one, they began expressing concern about the speed at which the situation was progressing. They weren't comfortable with the level of due diligence being conducted. Were there more problems hidden deep in Bear's balance sheet that they hadn't found yet? Would market turmoil result in more problems? Was J.P. Morgan really willing to take such a risk without full information?

"Things didn't firm up -- they got more shaky," according to one person familiar with the meeting.

Finally, they came to a conclusion. J.P. Morgan wouldn't buy Bear Stearns on its own. The bank needed help before it would do the deal.

Mr. Paulson was frequently on the phone with Bear and J. P. Morgan executives, negotiating the details of the deal, the senior Treasury official said. Initially, Morgan wanted to pick off select parts of Bear, but Mr. Paulson insisted that it take the entire Bear portfolio, the official said.


This was no normal negotiation, says one person involved in the matter. Instead of two parties, there were three, this person explains, the third being the government. It is unclear what explicit requests were made by the Fed or Treasury. But the deal now in place has a number of features that are highly unusual, according to people who worked on the transaction.

In addition to its option to purchase Bear's headquarters building, J.P. Morgan has the option to purchase just under 20% of Bear Stearns's shares at a price of $2 each. That feature gives J.P. Morgan an ability to largely block a rival offer, says a person with knowledge of the contract.

The deal also is highly "locked up," meaning that J.P. Morgan cannot walk, even if there is a heavy deterioration in Bear's business or future prospects. Bear Stearns holders can, of course, vote the deal down. But the effect that would have on J.P. Morgan's ongoing managerial oversight and the Fed's guarantees is largely unknown.

"We're in hyperspace," says one person who worked on the deal. All these matters are very likely to be litigated in court eventually, this person adds.

The Fed spent the weekend putting together a plan to be announced Sunday evening, regardless of the outcome of Bear's negotiations, that would enable all Wall Street banks to borrow from the central bank. Mr. Bernanke called the Fed's five governors together for a vote Sunday afternoon. All five voted in favor, using for the second time since Friday the Fed's authority to lend to nonbanks.

The steps were announced at the same time the Fed agreed to lend $30 billion to J.P. Morgan to complete its acquisition of Bear Stearns. The loans will be secured solely by difficult-to-value assets inherited from Bear Stearns. If the assets decline in value, the Fed -- and therefore the U.S. taxpayer -- will bear the cost.

Aware of the potential political backlash, Fed and Treasury officials briefed Democrats throughout the weekend. Events moved so fast that there was little time for much substantive outreach. Mr. Bernanke spoke with Massachusetts Democrat and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank on Friday. Fed staffers emailed updates to Mr. Frank's office on Sunday.

"I believe this is the right action that was taken over the weekend," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a Democrat, who spoke with Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson on Sunday during deliberations. "To allow this to go into bankruptcy, I think, would have [created] some systemic problems that would have been massive."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120580966534444395.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 

Mike

Well-known member
"I believe this is the right action that was taken over the weekend," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a Democrat, who spoke with Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson on Sunday during deliberations. "To allow this to go into bankruptcy, I think, would have [created] some systemic problems that would have been massive."

:roll: :roll: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Obviously, a lot of greedy and unscrupulous lenders made a lot of money off of shady practices. Just for the purpose of comparison, I wonder if you could break out how much was made by greedy Republicans and how much was made by caring Democrats?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
fff
Let's hear no more about people on welfare.



and when can we expect repayment of the "loan" given to the generations of welfare recipients?

This administration hasn't seemed to worry about repayment of any "loans" to anyone for the past 7 years- instead promoting the buyout of America by foreign multinational investors and foreign governments.... :shock: :( :mad:
So much for worrying about attack from foreign invaders- instead GW and the neocons are now selling the country and our sovereignty to them at bargain bases prices...

And both McCain and Hitlery believe in the same continued policy...!!!!
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
fff
Let's hear no more about people on welfare.



and when can we expect repayment of the "loan" given to the generations of welfare recipients?

This administration hasn't seemed to worry about repayment of any "loans" to anyone for the past 7 years- instead promoting the buyout of America by foreign multinational investors and foreign governments.... :shock: :( :mad:
So much for worrying about attack from foreign invaders- instead GW and the neocons are now selling the country and our sovereignty to them at bargain bases prices...

And both McCain and Hitlery believe in the same continued policy...!!!!
This deal was on the democratic congresses watch OT. What was all that hot air from you about the buck stops......never mind. I knew you didn't mean it when you said it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
fff



and when can we expect repayment of the "loan" given to the generations of welfare recipients?

This administration hasn't seemed to worry about repayment of any "loans" to anyone for the past 7 years- instead promoting the buyout of America by foreign multinational investors and foreign governments.... :shock: :( :mad:
So much for worrying about attack from foreign invaders- instead GW and the neocons are now selling the country and our sovereignty to them at bargain bases prices...

And both McCain and Hitlery believe in the same continued policy...!!!!
This deal was on the democratic congresses watch OT. What was all that hot air from you about the buck stops......never mind. I knew you didn't mean it when you said it.

Remember Reverend Right- that 5 of those 7 years the "Repubilicans" had free run- over both the Congress and White House, which is probably what caused no reason for any oversight...In the Congressional hearings on the economy the other day- none of the participants (Repubs and Dems)- when questioned outright- could even suggest any of the blame for the current economy and loan fiascal can go back to the Democrats or Clinton administration...This is all stuff that took place in the last 5-7 years...

Kind of hard to stop or change anything now when the Repubs use the 60 vote "filibuster" rule to keep anything from being voted on- BUT from what I understand this bailout of the corporate entity was done on a BUSH APPOINTEE Fed Chairmans and Feds executive actions- and with no Congressional action involved....
But since the Dems took power- they are beginning to do oversight- and much is beginning to appear (which GW seemed to think was not necessary with anything- corporates or taxpayers dollars :shock: :( )- and will much more after GW wields his "administrative perogitive" powers....Then after 08 and the Dems gain that much more control of both houses--look out what will be disclosed....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
fff
Let's hear no more about people on welfare.



and when can we expect repayment of the "loan" given to the generations of welfare recipients?

This administration hasn't seemed to worry about repayment of any "loans" to anyone for the past 7 years-

I was little more concerned about the unpaid in default loans from the last 43 years of welfare.. that fff didn't want to hear about again... :roll: :roll: :wink: at least with the BS deal we have a chance on recovering some of the cash... :roll: :roll:

"In 1965 when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, ...Between 1965 and 2000 welfare spending cost taxpayers $8.29 trillion", ........., "together federal and state welfare spending would rise from around $438 billion in 2000 to $626 billion in 2006"... to over.. $670 billion in 07..
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test080101.cfm
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
fff



and when can we expect repayment of the "loan" given to the generations of welfare recipients?

This administration hasn't seemed to worry about repayment of any "loans" to anyone for the past 7 years-

I was little more concerned about the unpaid in default loans from the last 43 years of welfare.. that fff didn't want to hear about again... :roll: :roll: :wink: at least with the BS deal we have a chance on recovering some of the cash... :roll: :roll:

"In 1965 when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, ...Between 1965 and 2000 welfare spending cost taxpayers $8.29 trillion", ........., "together federal and state welfare spending would rise from around $438 billion in 2000 to $626 billion in 2006"... to over.. $670 billion in 07..
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test080101.cfm

Problem is Steve- GW and the Repubs had 6 years of GW regime with a Repub control- and they did nothing about the welfare spending either- instead just increasing the drunken sailor spending with more "Bridges to nowhere" type pork- and an unprovoked war that has almost bankrupt us and will be being paid for by our Grandkids.... :( :( :mad:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
This administration hasn't seemed to worry about repayment of any "loans" to anyone for the past 7 years-

I was little more concerned about the unpaid in default loans from the last 43 years of welfare.. that fff didn't want to hear about again... :roll: :roll: :wink: at least with the BS deal we have a chance on recovering some of the cash... :roll: :roll:

"In 1965 when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, ...Between 1965 and 2000 welfare spending cost taxpayers $8.29 trillion", ........., "together federal and state welfare spending would rise from around $438 billion in 2000 to $626 billion in 2006"... to over.. $670 billion in 07..
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test080101.cfm

Problem is Steve- GW and the Repubs had 6 years of GW regime with a Repub control- and they did nothing about the welfare spending either- instead just increasing the drunken sailor spending with more "Bridges to nowhere" type pork- and an unprovoked war that has almost bankrupt us and will be being paid for by our Grandkids.... :( :( :mad:

so your saying now that the Dems have control again we ain't getting paid back. :roll: :roll: :cry: :roll: :cry:

I think the real problem is that requiring no responsibility creates a generation that takes no responsibility.. followed by a generation that accepts no responsibility,.. be it in welfare recipients, corporations or politicians.. :cry:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
I was little more concerned about the unpaid in default loans from the last 43 years of welfare.. that fff didn't want to hear about again... :roll: :roll: :wink: at least with the BS deal we have a chance on recovering some of the cash... :roll: :roll:

"In 1965 when Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, ...Between 1965 and 2000 welfare spending cost taxpayers $8.29 trillion", ........., "together federal and state welfare spending would rise from around $438 billion in 2000 to $626 billion in 2006"... to over.. $670 billion in 07..
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test080101.cfm

Problem is Steve- GW and the Repubs had 6 years of GW regime with a Repub control- and they did nothing about the welfare spending either- instead just increasing the drunken sailor spending with more "Bridges to nowhere" type pork- and an unprovoked war that has almost bankrupt us and will be being paid for by our Grandkids.... :( :( :mad:

so your saying now that the Dems have control again we ain't getting paid back. :roll: :roll: :cry: :roll: :cry:

I think the real problem is that requiring no responsibility creates a generation that takes no responsibility.. followed by a generation that accepts no responsibility,.. be it in welfare recipients, corporations or politicians.. :cry:

I will agree there--but GW shot the best chance we may ever have to have changed it....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Breaking News from MoneyNews.com

Economists: Bank Losses to Exceed $1 Trillion

Economists are now worried that the escalating losses in the U.S. financial sector may soon exceed $1 trillion — double the level of losses from the savings and loan calamity of the mid-1980s.

Layoffs on Wall Street are surging.
Broker-dealer Lehman Brothers last week disclosed yet another round of firings, accounting for 5 percent of its work force. Earlier, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch also furloughed financiers.

The crisis has gone global. Societe Generale’s London traders who sell bank debt are reported to have few to no customers, and not much to do.

Then came this weekend’s news that JPMorgan Chase, with help from the U.S. government, was buying up the remains of tattered rival Bear Stearns. The once-formidable bank lost nearly all of its equity value in just over a month.

"The Fed-assisted fire sale of Bear Stearns over the weekend is probably not the last effort to stop a cascade of financial losses due to the collapse of the market for mortgage-backed securities,”
says William Niskanen, a White House economic advisor for former President Reagan, now chairman of the libertarian think tank The Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

"Although I have been critical of such bailouts in the past, this one was probably appropriate,” he said.

To put this all in perspective, the total losses if realized would be equal to 7 percent of the total annual economic output of the U.S. economy.

But the psychological impact is far, far greater, and signs of melancholy are everywhere in finance. Just last week, banks’ cost of borrowing reached the highest level this year.

Specialized markets that enable financial institutions to securitize mortgage loans are frozen solid.

Government-funded bailouts of once-venerable Wall Street firms are not the final solution to the financial problem, however.

"With the subprime mortgage crisis still spinning out of control, there are numerous factors within the real estate industry that need to be addressed to prevent further downslide,” says Thomas Inserra, former national chief appraiser of the FDIC and now CEO of a real estate technology firm Zaio.

"This especially includes more effort to prevent mortgage fraud,” he said.

Reform will address the "remaining structural issues” that are hobbling the financial industry, bank analyst Buddy Howard of Equity Research Services tells MoneyNews.

Chief among those changes will be a return to banks taking responsibility for the loans they write.

"Mortgage brokers have very little incentive to evaluate the risk of mortgages they make because they sell most of them in the form of mortgage-backed securities,” says Niskanen. New federal lending rules could restrain the practice.

Meanwhile, however, the Federal Reserve Bank’s easing of interest rates — which have generated so much publicity in the financial media — will have only a slight effect on the industry.

"This crisis is not something that can be unilaterally fixed through monetary policy,” says Howard.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Well, they are starting to have congressional hearings on the Fed - Bear Sterns bailout............. if you haven't written your congressional leaders telling them NO to a bailout then shame on you!...

Also I read that by them waiting until this past weekend to bail them out that all of the executives got to keep their bonuses.... if they had done this a couple weeks ago they would have had to refund them.............. bonuses at the taxpayers expense.....
 
Top