JP Morgan to Sweeten Bear Honeypot
So the Fed wanted to keep this from happening, and I can understand that. But Bear Stearns is a publicly-traded company, and the public that trades the company was pretty upset about the price being only $2 a share when it had gone for as much as $30 on Friday - and that was a loss of two-thirds of its value. According to a New York Times story, shareholders were ready to head to court.
On one hand, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the shareholders. They wanted the high return and were happy to overlook the questionable nature of the business that the bank was doing. Hey, it's capitalism, and there's risk. Why is it that so often so many people who have money to invest suddenly want welfare for the rich? But the intriguing issue is which governmental (quasi or not) agency has precedence when it comes to the conflict of interests? Can the Fed encourage a fire sale, or does the SEC have to come in on the side of investors, who want as much money per share as they can get?
The new offer must be approved by the Fed, which had initially balked at the new price.If the Fed balks, does the deal come apart? This seems like a deal that is so important to the economy that the Fed is effectively powerless to say no, which means it has little leverage in a negotiation.
A new deal could raise even more questions about the Fed’s involvement in the negotiations. As part of the original deal, the Fed guaranteed to take on $30 billion of Bear’s most toxic assets. The central bank had also directed JPMorgan to pay no more than $2 a share for Bear to assure that it would not appear that the Bear shareholders were being rescued, people involved in the negotiations said Sunday night.Might not the SEC say, "Sorry, folks, but the directors can't legally agree to such a deal?" I don't know that different branches of business regulation have ever clashed in such a way.
Labels: banks, Fed, investment banks, regulation, SEC, sub-prime

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home