Talk:Bear Stearns/Archives/2013

Ticker

Yahoo! say that Bear Stearns Companies Inc. shares are listed on NYSE, nyse.com say it's Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. shares. Which is it?--Jerryseinfeld 14:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quick check shows that NYSE has updated their label to match Yahoo!. Although I think the ultimate source on this is the SEC filings, right? That will show what their full official name is. --Thesilence 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

doesn't 80%+10%+12%=102%?? i think that info is slightly off 84.66.241.237 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

History

Can't find any history of the company, expect for the fact that it was founded in 1923. Anyone has any addional information? I think this should certanly be a part of the article.

Francisburns2 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Questionable content?

'"One of the most important people working for the firm is a man named Michael Polyakov. Mr. Polyakov is currently responsible for all the operations globally. Akin to CEO, he is head of all departments and business functions. Although he maintains the title of "Wealth Advisor" it should be noted that this title infers The World's Wealth Advisor. He commands such responsibilities from a tiny little cubicle in the wealth advisory department of the New York Branch. Although He wasnt alive while the bank's original founders created the organization, Mr. Polyakov is credited with the firm's success from the very start. Some would even argue that he is the Company's Founder. Michael tries to keep a low profile however his son who currently is in his 6th year at Lynn University has high aspirations for him and the bank. Together the Polyakov Duo will bring wealth advisory to a new high recruiting such account's as Hal and Brendon. These two accounts combined are worth more than The Republic of China's entire foreign exchange deposits."'

Sources?

Francisburns2 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

the above is vandalism and does not belong . ABANumber 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why historical information which was including in this article has been edited out. For example information on the leaders of Bear, including Ace Greenberg, were removed without explanation, as was information on the founding and expansion of the company. This article is very short on historical information and emphasis should be placed on expanding this breadth of this information rather than removing it. Jaedglass (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Article has very little history pre-2006. Dan Rayn (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sub-prime Mortgage Hedge Fund crisis

I think that perhaps the recent news [1] should be included here. What do you think? --Frunobulax 16:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the term "bail out". Bear didn't strictly "bail out" the less-leveraged fund, i.e. Bear did not offer to simply inject cash as a subordinated investor. What actually happened is that the monies "pledged" were entirely COLLATERALISED. I don't consider that to be a "bail out" since Bear's collateralised loan would have to be paid off first before investors got their capital back.

We can't find the predicate in this sentence: "Theories as to why the share price is above the purchase price that some shareholders doubt that the JP Morgan acquisition will be consummated at $2 per share." Rncooper (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Past tense

Pre-closing discussion

I don't think we should describe the company in the past tense until the deal closes. The stockholders still have to approve, and considering that they just saw a drop of over 95%, that will be an interesting scene, and the deal itself won't close until early summer even on the fastest track. The company still exists until such time as all the papers are signed. Antandrus (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And more to the point, even if the deal does go through, the firm will still exist at least for some meaningful period of time afterwards. It certainly seems likely that its operations will be folded into JPM, but, the point is that JPM hasn't said how they plan to integrate them. It would seem that the appropriate thing to do is indicate the JPM has made the offer and then update the firm's status as it becomes clearer. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but it is important to mention that JPMorgan has management authority over Bear-Stearns pending shareholder approval of the merger. Roadrunner (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-closing discussion

In light of the deal closing, I think it is appropriate to being editing this article to reflect that Bear Stearn no longer exists as a going concern. For example, statements like:

• "The main business areas, based on 2006 net revenue distributions, are..."
• "The company's business includes..."
• "Bear Stearns' World Headquarters is located at 383 Madison Avenue..."
• "The company currently employs more than 15,500 people worldwide."

should be edited out or be discussed as historic not present facts.Jaedglass (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Harold Mayer

Does anyone know why Joseph Bear's and Robert Stearns's names form the company's name while "Mayer" is excluded? There must be a reason, but it isn't to be found in the History section. Also, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/14/bcnbear214.xml mentions how much money (500k) the trio started it with, but I don't know how to configure links as they are shown in the References section. DO56 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Mayer's name was too ethnic. There was more antisemitism at that time than there is now.Lestrade (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Bad grammar

The sentence "Theories ..." is very bad grammar. The bad grammar has been removed.

Corporate culture/folklore

Is the Corporate culture/folklore section correct or even needed? TubularWorld (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

[2] Moved from article. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 18:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone else needs to clean this up, but Bear Stearns sold for 10$ a share after 29 billion in securities was bought off the top by the Fed. Originally the deal was $30 bn bought off by the fed and Bear Stearns sold at $2 a share, but that created a big stink and they renegotiated. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUAnlkw3yDDadoOnNdjg-orgp_pQD8VQE8FG2 that link will give you an AP article confirming this plus a little, but doesn't have enough info to do this issue justice. Ive got a paper due tomorrow and was really hoping the wiki would offer a decent synopsis so I could wrap my mind around this whole thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.106.36 (talk • contribs)

This is the guy who stuck that in the article, logged into my account now so you can contact me if I messed something up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew.Cason (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That link does not work.

The 10$ per share agreement was leaked to news papers and occurred before the required SEC filing. After the reporting of the initial leak there was no mention of the 10$ per share deal. The acquiring company had a 40% interest in the company when the 10$ per share agreement was leaked. There has been some speculation that this announcement was made to avoid pending lawsuits alleging failure of Bear Stearns insiders to fulfill their fiduciary duty during these negotiations.

I am removing the 10$ per share figure and maintaining the 2$/share figure until there exists some evidence that this was in fact the agreement that was made. The citation of the 10$/share figure is in direct contradiction with the 10$/share agreement. I would like to see an SEC filing. Agalmic (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Updates needed

I do not have time, but a couple of additions need to be made. Like the criticism of James Cayne (for being at a bridge tournament), testimony at congress, shareholder lawsuit, and the role (or lack thereof) of SEC in the rescue. A lot of backstory to this needs to be added -Nodekeeper (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake

Both 2 and 10 dollars are probably faked, to give the impression that Bear is not completely bust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC) We got the same deal with Meriwether and Long Term. The 99% loss at Long Term is the same as at Bear and gave the impression that Long Term was not completely bust. The 99% alleged loss is becoming traditional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) The price of the shares in Bear Stearns is remarkably stable at about $10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.211.191 (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The shares seem to be worthless now.

Subsidiaries

I have attempted to remove or edit this paragraph several times, but non-registered users have reverted any changes multiple times:

"Bear Stearns also conducts business through other wholly owned subsidiaries, including Bear Stearns Global Lending Limited, Custodial Trust Company, Bear Stearns International Limited, Bear Stearns Bank, Bear Stearns Financial Products Inc., Bear Stearns Capital Markets Inc., EMC Mortgage Corporation, Bear Stearns Mortgage Capital Corporation, Bear Wagner, Bear Stearns Credit Products Inc., Bear Energy LP, Bear Stearns Forex Inc., Bear Stearns Asset Management Inc and Rooftop Mortgages. Bear Stearns also holds an 80% interest in Bear Measurisk."

I think it is meaningless information regarding obscure subsidiaries of a now acquired company. If people have more detailed and pertinent information on these entities, including this paragraph might make sense, however, in its current form I cannot see any reason to continue including a mere listing of companies that is in no way informative to a reader. I would like to hear from others on this. Jaedglass (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see some value to the mention of the subs that didn't have "Bear Stearns" in the name. A reader might want to know that EMC Mortgage Corporation was a Bear Stearns sub. JamesMLane t c 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

References plagued with dead links

The links to the resource in the references numbered 5, 11-15, 17 on 2nd August 2008 revision of the article are dead. This could be improved upon with suggestions from Wikipedia:Dead_external_links. Specific suggestions for any of the references involved are most welcome. 220.255.7.205 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of section

I disagree with the removal of the section on notable Bear employees. (What I wished to indicate by putting WP:BRD in an edit summary was that, since we disagree, we should then discuss.) I contend this is useful and encyclopedic information, to have present in some form, because the alumni of any institution speak very directly to that institution's impact in whatever field--in this case finance. It is most appropriate to have a list of a university alumni, for example, and also its employees. The alumni and professors are as much a component and a reflection of the school, as the school is a reflection of the alums. So a large orchestra would include the important musicians, or a large newspaper the important journalists, so this should include its important constituent parts. This is a fairly fundamental function of a good encyclopedia. Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY applies not at all, though it seems to have been invoked to remove the content. Yet this is a prohibition of "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" -- which is not at all the case for people who are literally associates at a (once) major financial institution. There are few people, by definition, with whom I am more directly associated than my associates. --JayHenry (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability does apply. As long as there are reliable sources showing that these employees worked for Bear Stearns, and that their employment there is notable, then it may be included in the article in some form. Preferably this would not be in list form, but mixed in with the body of the article. If they are worth mentioning, there should be some description of how these employees contributed to Bear Stearns. If they were not significant figures at Bear Stearns, their employment there could still be mentioned in each employee's respective Wikipedia articles, with reliable sources of course.
--JKeene (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Cayman hedge funds??

Why are these not mentioned in the article? You'd think a hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands with a name like "High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund" would deserve a mention of some sort. 174.144.214.207 (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bear Stearns vs. Lehman Brothers

Why was Bear Stearns bailed out while Lehman Brothers wasn't bailed out?Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mostly timing. Bear Stearns began collapsing months before Lehman and the other banks. Most people did not anticipate the number of bank failures that would happen months later. At the time it was believed that Bear Stearns would be one of a few. Also, Bear Stearns was not really "bailed out." The government provided a bridge loan through JP Morgan Chase to aid their purchase of Bear Stearns. The Fed could not provide the funds directly to Bear Stearns because they were an investment bank, and not eligible for Fed funds. However, JP Morgan Chase is a bank holding company and could receive the funds. So in order to prevent the sudden collapse of Bear Stearns the Fed put pressure on JP Morgan Chase to purchase Bear. JP Morgan Chase could not finance the deal itself, and that's when the Fed provided the money to JP Morgan Chase to buy the company. So by providing the loan to JP Morgan the Fed was in a sense "bailing out" Bear. In reality, Bear was days from bankruptcy when JP Morgan purchased it at a fire sale price. While this was called a bail-out, it really wasn't because it didn't save Bear Stearns. It simply prevented the bank from suddenly collapsing and filing for bankruptcy. Had the Bear Stearns troubles occured in the fall when the Lehman, Merrill etc. troubles occured it likely would've been handled differently. Also Lehman wasn't bailed out as a result of timing. At the time it appeared that there weren't going to be anymore bank troubles of Lehman, Bear, and Merrill size (although this didn't turn out to be the case.) With the Lehman case it appears that the government was trying to set an example, showing that they would not be bailing everyone out, and they let Lehman go bankrupt. However in the ensuing weeks many more banks encountered troubles and it appeared necessary to have a large scale bail-out. So, in a sense, one reason for the differences in the Lehman and Bear cases was that timing was a big issue. Of course there are more complex financial issues at play, but it was in a large effect determined by the timing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.139.70 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead references

References #19 and #20 point to defunct links on Yahoo News. Links to the articles can be found as follows (I'd put them in myself, but I've never been good with the reference formatting):

• Charges At Bear Stearns Linked To Subprime Debacle (dailypress.com)
• Ex-Bear Stearns managers arrested at their homes (Los Angeles Times)

68.215.172.139 (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Bear Stearns before 2008

WP:RECENTISM

I don't know if there was agenda-driven editing in this article, but it mentions the founding of the company and fast-forwards to 2008 and dives into the details of its failure. Where did the middle go? Or was it ever there? patsw (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)