Talk:Bear Stearns/Archives/2015

JPMorgan Takeover
I question why people are editing the Bear Stearn's page as if Bear has any future viability as an independent entity. Old information regarding Bear's business and personnel have no relevance given the fact that the firm's business has collapsed and must be sold or liquidated. Jaedglass (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely disagree that the firm's history has no relevance. No matter what the future holds historic information on what the company did will be as encyclopedic as it is now, if nothing else to serve as the background to why the collapse happened in the first place.  Once the deal has been completed the page should be retained (obviously changing references to past tense) and the Infobox updated for a defunct company. Richc80 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Richc80's disagreement. Standard Oil and White Star Line both have articles detailing their operations from back when those companies were independent entities. Why should this article not be treated in the same manner? DO56 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My criticism was completely misunderstood by Richc80 and DO56. Historic information on the rise of a venerable Wall Street company is important as business history. However, how one approaches writing such an encyclopedia entry differs from the tact one uses when writing about a business that is a going concern. Moreover, while we all agree that historical information is important, what little historical information on the founding and growth of Bear Stear that was included in this article was removed on March 18. Much was what is left regarding Bear prior to the mortgage crisis is merely a listing of obscure subsidiaries, which may or may not exist subsequent to the merger, and a discussion on business lines that will be absorbed into JPMorgan businesses, but are discussed as if they will have continued existed as separate businesses within JPMorgan.Jaedglass (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and Challenging the Takeover Terms
Regarding the takeover, shouldn't there be some attention paid to the controversy? JP Morgan Chase basically got paid $29 billion to takeover another company (a non-recourse loan by the Fed). This whole plan was engineered by the Fed. Jamie Dimon is Chairman of the NY Fed, and Chairman of JP Morgan. The shareholders even filed a lawsuit against this whole scheme. Clearly there is a massive conflict of interest here which is barely touched on in the article. This is crucial to understanding the nature of the systemic failures of this second recession (or 2nd Great Depression, as it will no doubt be named in the future), and why charges of mass corruption on Wall Street are so prevalent.

At the very least, Jamie Dimon should be mentioned, since he was Chairman of both the NY Federal Reserve Board, and JP Morgan Chase, the two principal players in this action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.38.126 (talk • contribs • WHOIS ) 21:33, 14 March 2009


 * Go for it. Assuming somebody has written about this conflict of interest (e.g. in the press) then take the information, put it in the article, and cite the source. --VinceBowdren (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Status of the The Fed's Non-Recourse Loan?
Is there any news out there about the status of the non-recourse loan made by the Fed as part of the JPMorgan acquisition? Is it paid back? Likely to be paid back? Written down? AshtonBenson (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that it was all paid back. Per http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/ "On June 26, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) extended a loan to Maiden Lane LLC (ML) under the authority of section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. ML was formed to acquire certain assets of Bear Stearns. On June 14, 2012, the remaining outstanding balance of the senior loan from FRBNY to ML was repaid in full, with interest. On November 15, 2012, the remaining outstanding balance of the subordinated loan from JPMorgan Chase & Co. to ML was repaid in full, with interest. FRBNY was the primary beneficiary of ML because it received any residual returns and could have absorbed any residual losses should they have occurred. Consistent with generally accepted accounting principles, the assets and liabilities of ML were consolidated with the assets and liabilities of FRBNY in the preparation of the statements of condition shown on this release. As a consequence of the consolidation, the extension of credit from FRBNY to ML was eliminated, the net assets of ML appeared as assets on the previous page (and in table 1 and table 5), and the liabilities of ML to entities other than FRBNY, including those with recourse only to the ML portfolio holdings, were included in other liabilities in this table (and table 1 and table 5)."--agr (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)