Sector performance (from DJ). Note that the indices that capture this information also capture all preferred shares as well.
Market data from WSJ. Click on image to go the the WSJ market data page--one of the singular BEST places to get consolidated market information.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
This whole BSC/JPM deal smells...
I need an Airwick...
They offer $2, then $10
It's not a bailout - but it is.
George Orwell is alive and well!
Now the latest out tonight says a lawyer made a mistake in drawing up the orignal contract and forced JPM to rush to "up" the bid this morning.. (see story below)
It's obvious to anyone of DSM III intelligence that this whole charade was planned - perhaps even right down to not putting in the correct clause on purpose to set a set of events in motion the gamesters wanted.
What is even more perturbing is that I read a story on the weekend where the government is now trying to meddle in to break some of the contracts, where those that bet against the likes of Bear et al won't be able to recoup their winnings - because the counterparty may not be on the hook for the claim.
"Moral Hazard?" Will become yet another term which will be stripped of meaning.
The world is becoming emersed in doublespeak, double entendres - where lies are truths, and fact is fiction... and TV reality And today the millions cry We eat and drink while tomorrow they die. The real battle yet begun...
oh sorry I guess that's U2
But you get my point...
Here's the story...
'nice
"Bear Stearns Companies Inc: A mistake by JPM's lawyers have forced a five-fold increase of the BSC bid - Alan Kohler at BusinessSpectator.
That the current CEO of Morgan, Jamie Dimon, has suddenly raised the offer for Bear Stearns from $2 a share to $10 a share against a vast absence of alternatives is a sign that moral hazard is alive and well and that these days the lawyers are in charge. The fact that JP Morgan’s lawyers made a mistake, according the New York Times, didn’t help either."
The Times says Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz “inadvertently” included a sentence in the original contract that would have given Bear Stearns shareholders the ability to block the sale and seek a higher offer while still forcing JP Morgan to guarantee Bear’s trades. Dimon was said to be “apoplectic” and looking for ways out of it, but by Friday was back seeing Alan Schwartz, the Bear CEO, to renegotiate the deal."
Well, I'll say this from having put together some pretty complex contracts, what you write, read and understand today is not what you read and understand tomorrow at times. Think about the complexity (Rubic cube) of a deal this must have been. Frankly, it's not the lawyers who deserve the kick, but rather the lead negotiator. He/she should have assured that these basis were covered by the lawyers.
ONe thing that I'm quite sure about is that human DNA has not changed in a long period of time. Shenanigans will always be a part of life as we now it--but the complexity of the shyst seems to get more sophisticated.
John Mauldin has a letter from Peter Bernstein in his "Outside the Box". Worth reading and speaks to the depth of the current issues.
They are just trying to get to a deal that "sticks". The first one would not have. They need to remove the Fed put on this transaction, or else I think that this is still in trouble. The "lawyer mistake" story is just a smokescreen for the final negotiations.
Market data from WSJ. Click on image to go the the WSJ market data page--one of the singular BEST places to get consolidated market information.
3 comments:
This whole BSC/JPM deal smells...
I need an Airwick...
They offer $2, then $10
It's not a bailout - but it is.
George Orwell is alive and well!
Now the latest out tonight says a lawyer made a mistake in drawing up the orignal contract and forced JPM to rush to "up" the bid this morning.. (see story below)
It's obvious to anyone of DSM III intelligence that this whole charade was planned - perhaps even right down to not putting in the correct clause on purpose to set a set of events in motion the gamesters wanted.
What is even more perturbing is that I read a story on the weekend where the government is now trying to meddle in to break some of the contracts, where those that bet against the likes of Bear et al won't be able to recoup their winnings - because the counterparty may not be on the hook for the claim.
"Moral Hazard?"
Will become yet another term which will be stripped of meaning.
The world is becoming emersed in doublespeak, double entendres - where lies are truths, and fact is fiction... and TV reality And today the millions cry We eat and drink while tomorrow they die. The real battle yet begun...
oh sorry I guess that's U2
But you get my point...
Here's the story...
'nice
"Bear Stearns Companies Inc:
A mistake by JPM's lawyers have forced a five-fold increase of the BSC bid - Alan Kohler at BusinessSpectator.
That the current CEO of Morgan, Jamie Dimon, has suddenly raised the offer for Bear Stearns from $2 a share to $10 a share against a vast absence of alternatives is a sign that moral hazard is alive and well and that these days the lawyers are in charge. The fact that JP Morgan’s lawyers made a mistake, according the New York Times, didn’t help either."
The Times says Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz “inadvertently” included a sentence in the original contract that would have given Bear Stearns shareholders the ability to block the sale and seek a higher offer while still forcing JP Morgan to guarantee Bear’s trades. Dimon was said to be “apoplectic” and looking for ways out of it, but by Friday was back seeing Alan Schwartz, the Bear CEO, to renegotiate the deal."
Well, I'll say this from having put together some pretty complex contracts, what you write, read and understand today is not what you read and understand tomorrow at times. Think about the complexity (Rubic cube) of a deal this must have been. Frankly, it's not the lawyers who deserve the kick, but rather the lead negotiator. He/she should have assured that these basis were covered by the lawyers.
ONe thing that I'm quite sure about is that human DNA has not changed in a long period of time. Shenanigans will always be a part of life as we now it--but the complexity of the shyst seems to get more sophisticated.
John Mauldin has a letter from Peter Bernstein in his "Outside the Box". Worth reading and speaks to the depth of the current issues.
They are just trying to get to a deal that "sticks". The first one would not have. They need to remove the Fed put on this transaction, or else I think that this is still in trouble. The "lawyer mistake" story is just a smokescreen for the final negotiations.
Cat
Post a Comment