Bear Stearns Companies Inc. (BSC)

Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:

All Comments on BSC

  • commenter
    Jessica08
    Jul 22 01:00 PM
    My Website
    ETF Industry Data Summary: 1H'08 [view article]
    I think it is great that more investors are investing in ETFs. I just shows that the market players are becoming increasingly aware of the benefits of ETFs over Mutual Funds and individual stocks. I hope to see the numbers grow over the next few years. Reply
  • commenter
    mangy cat
    Jul 22 09:01 AM
    ETF Industry Data Summary: 1H'08 [view article]
    quick onceover suggests investors are getting more savvy
    in both diversification, including leveraged funds, bonds, etc
    and intolerance to excessive costs (vanguard flies vs bgi, ssga, holdrs; or at fund level: e.g. vwo vs eem)

    p.s. freudian slip?
    "total ETF asses"?
    (paragraph 2)     Reply
  • commenter
    bill d
    Jul 17 04:34 PM
    Is the SEC 'Rumorgate' Push a Waste of Time? [view article]
    Pretty simple - FOLLOW THE MONEY !!! Reply
  • commenter
    User 207611
    Jul 17 03:08 PM
    My Website
    Setting the Record Straight: Taxpayers Not Funding JP Morgan's Bear Buyout [view article]
    Gentlement what you are all forgetting is that the Fed is not OBLIGATED to remit a single dollar to the Treasury. Just because they happen to have done so in the past does not mean that - for whatever reason - they must, or should continue to do so. Reply
  • commenter
    Kinabalu
    Jul 16 04:14 PM
    Is the SEC 'Rumorgate' Push a Waste of Time? [view article]
    "I can’t imagine how the SEC will be able to prove that an individual knowingly spread a false rumor"

    Your imagination capability needs some work. As pointed out by 219640, your second example would in fact be quite easy to prove. The problems arise because of the difference between "fact statements" and "value statements". Someone trying to start a rumor will normally use fact statements because they carry more weight. For example, "I heard the CEO of Company X and the CEO of Company Y talking in a coffee shop about merging" carries more weight than "I think Company X and Company Y might merge". A fact statement is, by definition, provable.

    The SEC will probably confine its investigation in the beginning to the major investment banks and hedge funds but if they expand it to cover internet sites they can find plenty of violations. Right here on Seeking Alpha there are contributors that regularly make false statements of fact to encourage short positions in stocks.

    You didn't mention it in your article but the SEC's investigations will also look at naked shorts. this will also be easy to prove. In fact there was an article on Seeking Alpha quite recently where the author, in the eighth comment after the article, bragged about having naked shorts.

    seekingalpha.com/artic...     Reply
  • commenter
    ponchovilla
    Jul 16 01:30 PM
    Is the SEC 'Rumorgate' Push a Waste of Time? [view article]
    SEC TO HIRE LUCENT RETIREES FOR RUMOR POLICE

    I heard a vicious rumor that the SEC is planning to significantly increase the size of their organization by hiring Lucent retirees as rumor police. No Nortel folks can apply as they are Canadian (US citizen who works for a Canadian Co is per se illegal) and are considered illegal aliens. “A person said “ (anonymous source) that a budget of $50.0 B per year (off balance sheet) is being proposed. Funding for the organization will be on balance sheet by charging a $10.00 fee to each blogger who posts a “rumor” without substantiated facts. Google will receive $1.00 for each blog deemed a “rumor” that is forwarded to the SEC. The FTC will study whether or not a single source contract with Google violates any anti trust laws. An opinion is expected by 2050 as this is a complex issue and requires “scientific data “ to prove or disprove any allegations of potential violations of the law. Of course the President can issue an executive order providing blanket immunity. Google does not have to substantiate the blog as a rumor too much as their legal department will define rumor based on a Henry Paulson explanation (what did he say?) Estimated revenues are more than $500 B per year. However Congress has already lined up to spend this new source of revenue on “bookmarks” as earmarks are out of favor and not politically correct.

    In another news flash the SEC is alleged to be cracking down on naked shorts but only as they relate to Fannie and Freddie. After all who wants to piss off the Politically connected Wall Street friends as the fee structure for naked short transactions are a high profit “financial instrument”.

    I hope all of this is true as our Government will demonstrate substantial creative thinking: THINK OUT OF THE BOX

    Also it is claimed that a web site will be established where a blogger can pre pay $10.00 for each rumor. No disclosure would be required except a notation PPR ( PrePaid Rumor)

     Reply
  • commenter
    User 219640
    Jul 16 01:24 PM
    Is the SEC 'Rumorgate' Push a Waste of Time? [view article]
    As the story at pelican's link shows, IM messages are in fact logged. The example message in the story begins "I just got off the phone with my guy at SAC. ". If the was no such phone call, I guess we're talking about fraud. Reply
  • commenter
    wardco
    Jul 16 12:07 PM
    Is the SEC 'Rumorgate' Push a Waste of Time? [view article]
    Thanks for bringing up the ineffective tactics of the toothless SEC. The foxes (huge banker/brokers) have been guarding the hen house for a long time. Now that they are out of hens and attacking each other, they want protected. The SEC is riding to the rescue. Save the banks !! What about all the companies naked shorted to death? A non taxable event. Unless all the fraud stops very soon...game over. No one will continue to play a game that has a certain outcome. Reply
  • commenter
    kevintx
    Jul 16 09:33 AM
    Is the SEC 'Rumorgate' Push a Waste of Time? [view article]
    Good points. Knowingly spreading false information for profit is wrong and should be penalized and the SEC bureaucracy should do that as possible, e.g. in the small fraction of cases with high dollar amounts and co-conspirators tattling. In other cases it could have a chilling effect on free speech and impede information flow. Rumors have power only insofar as they may be true. People are always going to have to weed out the BS.
    I agree about the uptick rule, not sure why it was discontinued given avalanche shorting tactics. Selling short does not have the consent of the shareholder whose shares are borrowed so should be considered and regulated separately.     Reply
  • commenter
    pelican
    Jul 16 09:08 AM
    Is the SEC 'Rumorgate' Push a Waste of Time? [view article]
    You sound like an apologist for people who knowingly spread false rumors. Indeed, you almost seem to applaud the whole idea of rumors..."currenc... of mankind for thousands of years..." and don't seem too concerned about whether the law is being broken. This is not about spreading a rumor you may have heard so please don't try to obfuscate the issue. This is about going after those people who knowingly spread false rumors for the purpose of financial gain. Surely, you must agree that people do that sometimes, right? If you answer is yes, then surely you must agree they should be held accountable.

    You wrote: "For the life of me, I can’t imagine how the SEC will be able to prove that an individual knowingly spread a false rumor unless an email trail is discovered where Trader X told Institutional Salesman Y last week...I can't imagine how the SEC can get a conviction." Well, guess what. It's not always about getting a conviction, although that happens from time to time. Like going after insider traders, its often about penalizing the perpetrators financially, often heavily. I just spent maybe 12 seconds doing a quick google search after typing in a few keywords and the first story that came up was this.

    dealbook.blogs.nytimes.../

    I get the impression you are mocking the SEC but they are doing the right thing by pursuing this. Its too bad you don't agree.     Reply
  • commenter
    BxCapricorn
    Jul 14 09:06 PM
    Dick Bove: Buy Banks, Avoid Brokers [view article]
    Richard Bove was wrong, but today 7/14/08, he did help number crunching investors with this insight by CNBC...

    "In a report, he looks at all the FDIC-backed institutions, comparing each bank’s bad loans to its overall assets through two ratios. First, he divides the “non-performing assets” of an institution--bad loans, late loans, foreclosed assets--by all of its outstanding loans. “A ratio above 5 percent suggests danger.” The overall industry ratio is below 2 percent. That’s good news. But it’s not so good for individual names like Downey Financial (DSL), with a 13.86 percent ratio (on Sunday, Downey Financial reported its non-performing assets were over 14 percent, up from 1 percent a year ago). Other names in the “danger zone” are Corus Bankshares (CORS) at 13.18 percent, Doral Financial (DRL) at 12.82 percent, FirstFed Financial (FED) at 6.73 percent, Oriental Financial, BFG at 6.12 percent, and BankUnited Financial (BKUNA) at 5.36 percent.

    Then Bove ran a second set of numbers dividing a bank’s non-performing assets by its reserves plus common equity. “A ratio about 40 percent is the danger zone.” This is where it gets interesting. You have all the same names as listed before, plus Washington Mutual (WM) which comes in with a ratio at 40.6 percent. Bove calls this being “on the edge” of danger but not quite there yet."

    That could be something an above investor could use. For those that are simply worried about their banks, see your bank's rating at

    bauerfinancial.com     Reply
  • commenter
    terrapin
    Jul 13 03:00 PM
    Investing in a Resource-Constrained World (Part IV) [view article]
    On a purely technical level, healthy bull markets do not develop parabolically. POT undoubtedly is. Also, making comparisons with Nortel and Cisco during the dot com bubble is absolutely apt. Bubbles don't just depend on supply/demand relations, but involve positive feedback loops, herd psychology and the grater fool theory--all of which can be applied regardless off the underlying issue.

    Look at the charts, they tell the whole story.     Reply
  • commenter
    BrunoT
    Jul 12 02:59 PM
    Setting the Record Straight: Taxpayers Not Funding JP Morgan's Bear Buyout [view article]
    Ok. I have some baseball cards that won't sell on Ebay. But I SAY they're worth $10B. So how about giving me that much for them and if down the line the Fed can get $10B for them, then that wasn't a bailout, was it? Reply
  • commenter
    The Whole
    Picture
    Jul 12 10:32 AM
    Setting the Record Straight: Taxpayers Not Funding JP Morgan's Bear Buyout [view article]
    Actually, you could argue that the "bailout" actually improved government revenues. The fed may never be required to provide a single dollar to fund the guarantee of Bear Stearns. However, the stability it created likely reduced the amount of losses investors would have incurred -- not just for Bear Stearns investors, but for many investors in the financial sectors. Reducing losses means reduced tax deductions. The result is more money for the federal government, not less. So, in some ways, this "bailout" reduced the potential taxpayer burden.
    Of course, this does not address the costs of "easy money," which has it's own problems. By flooding the economy with easy money, the Fed certainly contributed to the housing crisis / finanicial collapse in the first place. That is where the taxpayers really were hit.     Reply
  • commenter
    User 164588
    Jul 12 08:55 AM
    Setting the Record Straight: Taxpayers Not Funding JP Morgan's Bear Buyout [view article]
    The academic question is if the government is not bailing out the money center banks or Fanny Mae, or Freddy Mac, who is bailing them out and where does the money come from? Could be the money comes from the same machine that is funding the politicians.....Mafia money laundering. Reply

Trading Center