Jamie Dimon Laughs About Buying Bear Stearns For $2 Bucks Per Share With Taxpayer Help (Charlie Rose Video)
Archive Video - Jamie Dimon CEO of JPMorgan with Charlie Rose - July 2008
What Dimon doesn't mention is the $29 billion subsidy provided by the Federal Reserve now called Maiden Lane I. Without the taxpayer gift, the deal doesn't happen, and Bear Stearns creditors (bank bondholders) would have been forced to take a massive and deserved haircut.
But that's where Tim Geithner, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke stepped in with a boatload of cash from taxpayers. The end result, as Alan Grayson explained last week, is that we (via the Fed) now own Red Roof Inns, just one of many commercial real-estate miracles of excess clogging the books of Maiden Lane.
- "I don't think Bear Stearns could have survived Monday in any event, for any reason at all. I'm telling you they would have been bankrupt Monday morning."
- "Buying a house and buying a house on fire are two different things."
And the audience roars in idiotic approval because they were watching Dancing with the Stars every night that month and missed the Bear Stearns implosion.
Reader Comments (14)
http://dailybail.com/home/william-buiter-says-bank-bondholders-must-be-held-accountabl.html
Discussion Of Bank Bondholders Vs. Taxpayers With Felix Salmon, Brad Delong, James Kwak (And The Daily Bail)
http://dailybail.com/home/no-need-to-bailout-seeking-alpha-discussion-of-bank-bondhold.html
The mother of all bailouts is really the mother of all uncloggings.
My argument with Brad Delong's thesis is simple. He doesn't give enough consideration to the probability that the price paid for bank assets will be too high. The entire plan is built upon non-recourse loans to the private sector. Bill Gross puts down 8% ( or is it 3% ), you and I put up the remaining 92%.
http://dailybail.com/home/the-great-unclog-of-2009-industrial-strength-drano-anyone.html
Today's interview demonstrates one of the reasons Erin Burnett is so weak at her job. She had the opportunity to discuss this construct with TG today and never went near it.
Getting TG to explain to taxpayers why GM bondholders are getting torched while bank bondholders ride the A-train should have been the main focus of her interview.
C'mon Erin. At least get the guy on record with an explanation.
The opportunities do not come often and she blew it. It's the single most important philosophical question of the entire plan and she whiffed.
http://dailybail.com/home/bank-bailout-news-complete-video-and-transcript-of-tim-geith.html
--------
Zara..read what you wrote again..it makes no sense...
JPMorgan had no support from the gov't at the time...it was the first bailout...there was nothing with which to threaten jpmorgan and dimon....the Fed support hadn't yet begun...
For someone who criticizes others so quickly...get your facts straight...
March 10th 2008…the rumors begin…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/
Once, Blankfein even called Paulson at his home. On Saturday, March 15, 2008, six months before Paulson received his waiver on September 17:
The first call I received was from Lloyd Blankfein, my successor as Goldman Sachs CEO. It was as unnerving as it was unexpected, It was the first, and only, time Lloyd called me at home while I was at Treasury. Lloyd went over the market situation with me, providing a typically analytical and extraordinarily comprehensive overview, but I could hear the fear in his voice. His conclusion was apocalyptic.
DB, I expect more from you!
Your thesis is wrong and a joke...stop bugging me...
You claimed that they threatened Dimon...they had nothing...
Just think about the insane argument you are making...
Dimon originally said NO to the Bear deal...the FED panicked and offered JPMorgan a $29 billion dollar back-stop...dimon changed his mind...the deal got done...yet your thesis is that the FED had leverage over dimon...
Are you even thinking straight...the FED had to offer $29 billion to get the deal done...they had no power over dimon...
This site is full of opinions and slanted views and speculation. Don’t get those confused with facts.
Okay, you said..."You claimed that they threatened Dimon...they had nothing..."
Yet I wrote, "This dude, Jamie Dimon, is A-Rod playing for the right team at the right time. A-Rod is often called A-Fraud by teammates and those in the know. He is just a lucky SOB (no, not short of breath)." Does that sound like I said he was threatened?
If you read some of the things you write..."the Fed panicked", you will see a lot of your own assumptions.
You said, "yet your thesis is that the FED had leverage over dimon", yet I never implied or said that he didn't gleefully accept a big chunk of change to get the deal done.
It is safe to say that you and I know ten times more than all of your other viewers combined (I won’t break down that math). My insight may upset you but it is sharp and to the point and is safely backed up with great videos and articles. I do not share you political views but I am spot on in so many ways.
I imagine that this post may get me banned/blocked but so be it, it needed to be said.
Your words were so powerfully hurtful & full of rage that I'd be surprised if Steve doesn't just burn down your house to the ground in retaliation, barn and all. Or at least do a drive-by on you. Lesser words have sparked international wars. Men have dueled over such burning literary ire.
Yawn.
We get what we allow. The Jacobins of 1793 France understood what had to be done. Obviously we do not.