Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

    Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

    Bank robbed by insiders, loss covered by taxpayers

    by John Olagues - April 16, 2008


    Editor's Note: John Olagues is the owner and principal consultant for Truth IN Options and a recognized authority on listed and employee stock options. After graduating from Tulane University in 1974 John applied his B.A. in mathematics and his competitive spirit to the real world of stock options. In 1976, John became a member of the Pacific Stock Exchange in San Francisco trading and managing options positions in scores of different stocks. John with a partner created Options Research, the first service to provide theoretical options values to market-makers and to the general public. In 1980, he became a member of the CBOE, where he personally traded more options in more diverse situations than any other trader.

    In this article John makes the case that the Bear Stearns collapse was artificially created so that insiders could take large short positions in Bear Stearns stock prior and so that J.P. Morgan would in effect be paid $55 Billion of US tax payer money to shore up themselves and to buy Bear Stearns.

    Massive buying of puts and shorting stock in Bear Stearns

    On March 10, 2008, the closing price of Bear Stearns was 70. The stock had traded at 70 eight weeks prior. On or prior to March 10, 2008 requests were made to the Options Exchanges to open new April series of puts with exercise prices of 20, and 22.5, and a new March series with an exercise price of 25.

    Their requests were accommodated and new series were opened March 11, 2008.

    Since there was very little subsequent trading in the call series with exercise prices of 20, 22.5 or 25, it is certain that the requests were made with the intention of buying substantial amounts of the puts. There was, in fact, massive volumes of puts purchased in those series which opened on March 11, 2008.

    For example, between March 11-14 inclusive, there was 20,000 contracts traded in the April 20s, 3700 contracts traded in the April 22.5s, and 8000 contracts traded in the April 25s. In the March 25s there were 79,000 contracts traded between March 11-14, 2008.

    Question: Why did the options exchanges not open the far out of the money puts for trading the first time that BSC hit 70, when the Aprils and Marchs had far more time to expiration. Certainly if the requesters were legitimate hedgers or speculators, buying the March and April with two and three months to expiration was more appealing.

    Answer: The insiders were not ready to collapse the stock and did not request the exchanges to open the new series then.

    Second Request and Accommodation

    On or prior to March 13, 2008, an additional request was made of the Options Exchanges to open more March and April put series with very low exercise prices even if that meant those March put options would have just five days of trading to expiration. The exchanges accommodated their requests, knowing that the intentions of the requesters was to buy puts. They indeed bought massive amounts of puts. For example the March 20 puts traded nearly 50,000 contracts (i.e. contracts to sell 5 million shares at 20). The March 15s traded 9600, the March 10s traded 13,000 and the March 5s traded 6300 all on March 14 (the first day of trading of the new March series).

    The introduction of those far-out-of-the-money put series in the April and March months immediately before the crash, provided a vehicle whereby extreme leverage was available to the insiders. In other words if you had $100,000 and you knew that Morgan would buy Bear Stearns at two dollars, you could make five to 10 times more on the $100,000 by using the $100,000 to buy the newly introduced March puts. This is so because the soon to expire far out-of-the-money puts were far cheaper than the July or October out of the money puts. And that is why the inside traders requested the exchanges to introduce the far out of the moneys just days before the crash.

    But this scenario has enormous implications. It means that the deal was already arranged on March 10 or before. That contradicts the scenario that is promoted by SEC Chairman Cox, Fed Chairman Bernanke, Bear CEO Schwartz, Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan (who sits on the Board of directors for the New York Federal Reserve Bank) and others that false rumors undermined the confidence in Bear Stearns making the company crash, notwithstanding their adequate liquidity days before. I would say that the deal was arranged months before but the final terms and times were not determined until maybe March 7 or 8, 2008.

    On March 14, the April 17.5s, the 15s, the 12.5s and the 10s traded 15,000 contracts combined. Each put gives the right to sell 100 shares. So for example, these 15,000 April puts gave the purchaser(s) the right to sell 1.5 million shares at prices between 10 and 17.5. Those purchasers expected to make profits on 1.5 million shares because they knew the deal was coming at $2.00.

    That is the only plausible explanation for anyone in his right mind to buy puts with five days of life remaining with strike prices far below the market price. So there were requests, during the period of March 10 to 13, to the exchanges to open the March and April series for buying massive amounts of extremely out-of-the-money puts, which were accommodated by the Options Exchanges. Did the Exchanges aid and abet the insider trading scheme? We are not able to have a clear opinion on that.

    Media Statements of adequate liquidity

    Reuters, however, on March 10, 2008 was citing Bear Stearns sources that there was no liquidity crisis and that there was no truth to the speculation of liquidity problems. And none other than the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2008 was stating that "we have a good deal of comfort with the capital cushion that these firms have."

    We even had the "mad" Jim Cramer proclaiming on March 11, 2008 that all is well with Bear Stearns and that the viewers should hold on to their Bear Stearns.

    And on March 12, 2008, Alan Schwartz CEO of Bear Stearns was telling David Faber of CNBC that there was no problem with liquidity and that "We don't see any pressure on our liquidity, let alone a liquidity crisis."

    The fact that the requests were made on March 10 or earlier that those new series be opened and those requests were accommodated together with the subsequent massive open positions in those newly opened series is conclusive proof that there were some who knew about the collapse in advance, while Reuters, Cox, Schwartz and Cramer were telling the public that there was no liquidity problem.

    This was no case of a sudden development on the 13 or 14th, where things changed dramatically making it such that they needed a bail-out immediately. The collapse was anticipated and prepared for, even while the CEO of Bear Stearns and the SEC Chairman of the SEC were making claims of stability.

    What was the reason that Cramer, Cox and Schwartz were all promoting Bear Stearns immediately before its collapse. That will be speculated upon for years to come.

    Cramer has admitted that "truth" was not his friend and that he manipulated stocks to influence investors behavior. Was this one of his acts? But no apologies from Cramer as he claims now that he was referring to keeping money in Bear Stearns Bank not in Bear Stearn's stock.

    Compelling Evidence of Insider Trading


    To prove the case of illegal insider trading, all the Feds have to do is ask a few questions of the persons who bought puts on Bear Stearns or shorted stock during the week before March 17, 2008 and before. All the records are easily available.

    If they bought puts or shorted stock, just ask them why. What information did they have access to which the CEO and the SEC did not have? Where did they get the info? Why are Cramer, Cox, Paulson, Faber, and Schwartz not subject to a bit of prosecutorial pressure to get to the bottom of this?

    Maybe the buyers of puts and short sellers of stock just didn't believe Reuters, Cox, Schwartz, Cramer, and Faber and went massively short anyway buying puts that required a 70% drop in a week. Maybe they had better information than Schwartz or Cox. If they did then that's a felony, with the profits made subject to forfeiture.

    April 4, 2008 Congressional Hearings on the Bear Stearns Bail-out. I watched both sessions and drew the following conclusions.

    In the first session there were the following witnesses. Bernanke of the Federal Reserve Board, Cox from the SEC, Geithner representing the New York Reserve Bank and an incidental player Mr. Steel from the Treasury. The only Senators that seem to be willing to attack these bankers were Bunning, Tester, Menedez and Reed. All the rest were useless and very respectful.

    Absurdities

    All witnesses did their best to keep their stories consistent but they did slip up a bit. They all agree that the bail-out was necessary without any proof that it was.

    They all agreed that what caused the cash liquidity to dry up within one day was the rumor mongers. Apparently it is claimed that some people have the ability to start false rumors about Bear Stearns' and other banks liquidity, which then starts a "run on the bank." These rumor mongers allegedly were able to influence companies like Goldman Sachs to terminate doing business with Bear Stearns, notwithstanding that Goldman et al. believed that Bear Stearns balance sheet was in good shape. (Goldman between March 11-14 warned their average customers that Bear Stearns stock was "hard to borrow" for shorting due to the fact that other customers had used up all of the stock available for borrowing for short sales) .

    That idea that rumors caused a "run on the bank" at Bear Stearns is 100% ridiculous. Perhaps that's the reason why every witness were so guarded and hesitant and looked so mighty strained in answering questions.

    Loans to J.P. Morgan total $55 Billion from the Fed


    The Private New York Fed lent $25 Billion to Bear Stearns and another $30 billion to J.P. Morgan. So the bail out cost was $55 billion not the $30 billion that is promoted. This was revealed at second session of the Senate hearings in a James Dimon response to a question from Senator Reed.

    Who gets the $55 billion? J.P. Morgan got the money on a loan pledging Bear Stearns assets valued at $55 billion; $29 Billion is non-recourse to Morgan.

    Effectively the Fed got collateral appraised by Bear Stearns at $55 Billion for a loan to J.P. Morgan of $55 Billion.

    If the value of the secondary facility of $30 Billion ($29 Billion of which is non-recourse) is worth only $15 Billion when all is said and done, then J.P. Morgan has to pay back only $1 Billion of the $30 Billion and keeps the $14 Billion the the Fed loses. If the $25 Billion primary facility is worth only $15 Billion when all is said and done, J.P. Morgan has to pay $10 Billion of the $25 Billion received. If J.P Morgan can not pay, then the Fed loses the $10 Billion.

    If after all is said and done the $25 Billion primary assets are sold for more that $25 Billion, the difference goes to J.P. Morgan regardless of the outcome on the secondary facility of $30 Billion. No matter how you cut it, J.P. Morgan wins. If the $55 Billion assets turn out to be worth only $20 billion when all is said and done, J.P. Morgan owes $1 Billion on the $30 Billion and the difference between $25 Billion and the value received on the primary facility.

    The Fed would have been far better to just buy the assets at Bear's and J.P.Morgan's valuation. Now best the Fed can do is get their money back with interest and the worse they can do is lose about $25 -$40 billion.

    John Olagues - Truth IN Options

    See also:
    Debt Deflation, American Style: Yamaichi Securities Company 1997 vs Bear Stearns 2008
    Twenty One Flavors of Mortgage Fraud - Howard Lax
    Captive bidding at the auction: How bond vigilantism was swamped - Dave Lewis

    Why this story is not in the mainstream business press





    iTulip Select: The Investment Thesis for the Next Cycle™
    __________________________________________________

    To receive the iTulip Newsletter or iTulip Alerts, Join our FREE Email Mailing List


    Copyright iTulip, Inc. 1998 - 2007 All Rights Reserved (
    Contact Us)

    All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice.
    Nothing appearing on this website should be considered a recommendation to buy or to sell any security or related financial instrument. iTulip, Inc. is not liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. Full Disclaimer
    Last edited by FRED; 04-23-08, 10:27 PM.
    Ed.

  • #2
    Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

    Nice video guys--good work, FRED's.

    What I know about puts and calls would not tax a gnat's brain, so I have to assume Mr. Olaques knows well of what he writes.

    Recently I perused some article about a corrupt Wal-Mart official who over 65 as I recall and is super obese, very sick and due to go to prison for some thievery, but a judge said his punishment should not be a "death sentence" which probably his lawyers argue it would be if he had to serve his sentence. So the fat, sick SOB probably will get to die at home without ever experiencing any punishment that he did not bring upon himself.

    Listening to BBC while going to sleep, Amnesty International was bitching about the high number of death sentences meted out by China, some for non-capital offenses--drug shit, fraud, and said China needs to bring itself into alignment with the "civilized" (my word) world.

    Bullshit!. What bigtime financial criminals need in the US is punishment every bit as serious as it is in China--whatever is the most severe in the world, it should be exceeded here.

    NONE of this shit is going to be stopped until there is something more severe than anyone wishes to consider possible that wipes out the current system and forces changes. When and if it starts, who knows, but it will take a long time for the disruptive force to have effect and then for the system to re-evolve.

    I won't live to see it, perhaps some of your grandchildren will.
    Last edited by Jim Nickerson; 04-16-08, 03:28 PM.
    Jim 69 y/o

    "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

    Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

    Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

      Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
      Nice video guys--good work, FRED's.

      What I know about puts and calls would not tax a gnat's brain, so I have to assume Mr. Olaques knows well of what he writes.

      Recently I perused some article about a corrupt Wal-Mart official who over 65 as I recall and is super obese, very sick and due to go to prison for some thievery, but a judge said his punishment should not be a "death sentence" which probably his lawyers argue it would be if he had to serve his sentence. So the fat, sick SOB probably will get to die at home without ever experiencing any punishment that he did not bring upon himself.

      Listening to BBC while going to sleep, Amnesty International was bitching about the high number of death sentences meted out by China, some for non-capital offenses--drug shit, fraud, and said China needs to bring itself into alignment with the "civilized" (my word) world.

      Bullshit!. What bigtime financial criminals need in the US is punishment every bit as serious as it is in China--whatever is the most severe in the world, it should be exceeded here.

      NONE of this shit is going to be stopped until there is something more severe than anyone wishes to consider possible that wipes out the current system and forces changes. When and if it starts, who knows, but it will take a long time for the disruptive force to have effect and then for the system to re-evolve.

      I won't live to see it, perhaps some of your grandchildren will.
      at last a topic you and i agree on. a gov't or corp. official making life or death decisions needs to face life or death punishments IF it can be proved that the decisions were made for personal gain or gross negligence. that goes for the official that lets monsanto poison kids with pussy milk that results in death, the official that lets millions of kids get poisoned with chemicals in plastic bottles...

      no shit. the chinese have the right idea. you fuck up out of greed or total incompetence that results in deaths, you die.

      now... should the fat guy die because he stole money from walmart? that does not strike me as proportionate. that said, if the usa economy goes into the shitter because a bunch of wall street greeds ran a racket, then bring them all up on racketeering charges... bernanke, paulson, the whole lot of them... and make the most severe punishment capital if... again... criminal intent or gross negligence can be demonstrated.

      that'll make the next guys think twice about doing it again.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

        One of Catherine Austin Fitts' favorite expression is "Crime that pays is crime that stays".

        She says we'll only see honest government and an honest Wall Street when we hold them accountable and MAKE THEM PAY THE MONEY BACK.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

          I agree 100%. None of this crap is going to stop until these crooks start doing some hard time. None of this fine and probation stuff.


          I seriously doubt it will never happen. But it would make a good movie.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

            Wow. This is huge.

            Cox, Bernanke, Paulsen, Schwartz, Dimon, Reuters, Cramer and Faber succeeded in orchestrated a phony crisis . . . coordinating their efforts with the putters and shorters.

            No doubt this served to create the fallacy of a financial and systemic global crisis about to explode - just what the Fed needed provide an excuse to hold an emergency phone call to lower interest rates, the discount rate, and institute one of those new fancy vehicles to swap toxic crap for US taxpayer money.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

              Originally posted by donalds View Post
              Wow. This is huge.

              Cox, Bernanke, Paulsen, Schwartz, Dimon, Reuters, Cramer and Faber succeeded in orchestrated a phony crisis . . . coordinating their efforts with the putters and shorters.

              No doubt this served to create the fallacy of a financial and systemic global crisis about to explode - just what the Fed needed provide an excuse to hold an emergency phone call to lower interest rates, the discount rate, and institute one of those new fancy vehicles to swap toxic crap for US taxpayer money.
              The great thing is, these guys are now very predictable. We should profit from this.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

                The smartest person I know explained to me that the elimination of the plus tick rule in short selling allowed this to happen in addition to the fact that trading was not stopped on Bear stock.

                With enough leverage, and the promulgation of rumors this was made possible. The SEC announced during the joint Congressional session on this issue that the insider trading rumors were being investigated and from the best of my knowledge I believe subpoenas were recently served to determine who profited.

                Will the SEC find anything and more importantly can can we expect changes? I would answer, ask Senator Chuck Schumer he knows what happened.

                Single points of failure like this need to be eliminated from the Finance industry to rebuild trust which is sorely missing right now. I would propose perhaps by keeping Investment Banks private, and counter party risk via derivatives also needs further examination to make sure any kind of single point of failure can be mitigated before it can occur, without a taxpayer bailout.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

                  Originally posted by Nervous Drake
                  As it becomes more and more apparent every day that they are willing to mislead so horribly, I am considering doing my part and informing people of the truth of things, just as some members here have suggested to me recently. I didn't think it was a good idea, but as it becomes more obvious that the system is so corrupt, I'm starting to feel it is necessary for those few that know what is really going on to inform others.

                  Who cares about profit when it's the whole idea of a country founded on freedom at stake?
                  Don't spoil the surprise when we can buy sodas with $1000 bills...

                  seriously... i'm fleeing if it gets that bad. the oligarchs here will use violence to intimidate people into behaving. i hope to have the bulk of my wealth out of this country by 2010.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

                    Originally posted by Nervous Drake
                    As it becomes more and more apparent every day that they are willing to mislead so horribly, I am considering doing my part and informing people of the truth of things, just as some members here have suggested to me recently. I didn't think it was a good idea, but as it becomes more obvious that the system is so corrupt, I'm starting to feel it is necessary for those few that know what is really going on to inform others.

                    Who cares about profit when it's the whole idea of a country founded on freedom at stake?
                    congrats. now you got it. this site ain't about how to make a buck trading xyz stock or shorting this or that. it's about how to think about all this shit going on around you while the msm incompetents and liars feed you misinfo.

                    a couple years into this... who will remember or care about jim cramer? or kudlow or all those assholes.

                    those days are soon over. is anyone making $$$ on stocks? crashes and rallies. flat in sum. nominally flat... down in real money. get used to it.

                    the whole fx trading craze is almost over. what then?

                    soon it'll all be about... what. the. fuck. happened?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

                      Originally posted by metalman View Post
                      at last a topic you and i agree on. a gov't or corp. official making life or death decisions needs to face life or death punishments IF it can be proved that the decisions were made for personal gain or gross negligence. that goes for the official that lets monsanto poison kids with pussy milk that results in death, the official that lets millions of kids get poisoned with chemicals in plastic bottles...

                      no shit. the chinese have the right idea. you fuck up out of greed or total incompetence that results in deaths, you die.

                      now... should the fat guy die because he stole money from walmart? that does not strike me as proportionate. that said, if the usa economy goes into the shitter because a bunch of wall street greeds ran a racket, then bring them all up on racketeering charges... bernanke, paulson, the whole lot of them... and make the most severe punishment capital if... again... criminal intent or gross negligence can be demonstrated.

                      that'll make the next guys think twice about doing it again.
                      metalman, most of the people with whom I had great disagreements when I practiced was for only about 3% of the knowledge we each probably had, thus we agreed about most everything except at the margins. Probably if you and I lived next door to each other there would be many things about which we would agree and stay pissed off at each other about the rest.

                      The fat guy stole a lot--sorry I forgot the details--he sure as shit deserves to be in prison and if his fate is for his health issues to kill him, then he additionally should be paying his own freaking medical expense even while in the jail house, but he deserves to die in the goddammed jail house.

                      You know whatever we write here isn't going to change diddly squat, nor is anything to do with politics for the time being. Shit, were I younger I would really reject such cynicism, because to think in such terms offers no to little hope for things getting better, but I seriously suggest there ain't no hope in politics at present.

                      Edit: Whadaya know? I used noogle and found the reference. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a1wKQpsFcZ9U

                      Here is a little story about a big man who embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from his employer, cheated the U.S. Treasury and will serve not a day in jail for it.
                      If Thomas Coughlin, Wal-Mart's former No. 2 executive, has learned anything from his encounter with the law, it is how to manipulate the justice system.
                      For one thing, because of poor health he gets to stay home and avoid even the most accommodating of white-collar prison camps, as those un-jails are dubbed.
                      Last edited by Jim Nickerson; 04-17-08, 02:09 AM.
                      Jim 69 y/o

                      "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

                      Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

                      Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

                        Here is a serious, as opposed to a satirical post I placed above, that gives a different interpretation to the BSC/JPM scenario.

                        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/...-leverage.html

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

                          Originally posted by Nervous Drake
                          As it becomes more and more apparent every day that they are willing to mislead so horribly, I am considering doing my part and informing people of the truth of things, just as some members here have suggested to me recently. I didn't think it was a good idea, but as it becomes more obvious that the system is so corrupt, I'm starting to feel it is necessary for those few that know what is really going on to inform others.

                          Who cares about profit when it's the whole idea of a country founded on freedom at stake?

                          Please expand on what you said here. I'm very interested to hear what you have to say on this subject......
                          RanMan :cool:

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

                            Originally posted by Nervous Drake
                            I would put it in the simplest terms. What makes this site great is that EJ is an excellent thinker and so I would basically use his description of how money is created as a starting point:

                            " ...The way money is created is as follows.

                            Borrower: "Lend me $1,000."

                            Lender: "OK, I've added $1,000 in the assets to my balance sheet and debited my reserve account by $50 in accordance with the 5% reserve requirement for that type of account. Here's $1,000."

                            Borrower: "Thanks! I'll put $1,000 my cash account and add a $1,000 liability to my balance sheet."

                            That's it. The mind is repelled at the simplicity, as Galbraith said.

                            What keeps a bank from added new $1,000 entries on behalf of borrowers? Rules. Change the rules, such as by lowering reserve requirements and loosening lending standards, and new $1000 loans are made.

                            Banking without constraint of a gold standard is like playing basketball on a court that can be changed as follows if you are losing: ball shrunk by half, foul line moved five feet closer to the hoop, hoop doubled in diameter and lowered to waist height." -EJ

                            Although to put it even more simply, 5% of EVERYONE's deposits is essentially all that is there in the bank. Everything else is loaned out circulating around in the economy.

                            After reaching an understanding there, it is simply bridging that understanding with what is happening with the credit crisis. I would explain that the implications of people leaving their homes and claiming bankruptcy in mass basically means that YOUR money is being lost in THEIR bankruptcy.

                            I would then explain that the banks are working with the Federal Reserve to escape this problem by "changing the rules" and taking the loans that are or are becoming bankrupt and giving the banks money in exchange. I would explain that the implications of this happening in great numbers essentially means that the Federal Reserve has just become a centralized bank that will supply AS MUCH money as needed to keep the banks from going under.
                            This is not Capitalism anymore, as anyone with a loan that goes into bankruptcy has just been given a get of jail free card, at the expense of everyone else that placed their deposits in the bank. Think about it, if everyone is sharing in the losses, even if it wasn't their choice, too bad. That has communist undertones and they can go fuck themselves if they think they are going to get away with it.

                            Also, I would explain that society is set up in such a way that you would never be given such a straight description of the problem. The banks have so much power that they own or are owned by media conglomerates whose favorite thing to do is distract and misinform.

                            Of course, this has been going on for a long time now. But we are at a turning point. The stock market is way too high due to this same credit thing, and a lot of very powerful people have their wealth in the stock market. If the Federal Reserve is able to keep the stock market from crashing, the implications are astounding.
                            This is a very good description. We're editing a new Hudson piece where he makes an interesting point about explaining these problems to your average over-worked, tax and debt paying American. "It's like talking to alcoholics. They don't want to hear it. It just makes them angry."
                            Ed.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Bear Stearns Buy-Out... 100% Fraud

                              @ Nervous Drake...

                              Thanks for the explanation. I think you're right. The FED is trying to do everything they can to keep the market from crashing. I am very surprised that the market has not gone down further than it has. However, we aren't finished with this song yet. Remember, the fundamentals in the economy have not changed and the economy is just getting worse and worse. We'll see if Benny can keep pumping $$ into everything to the crash at bay. Any more thoughts????
                              RanMan :cool:

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X