Fan in Chicago

Please PM me your information so I can PayPal some money over.

I think these rates and those for the mortgage/refinance markets don't always move in the same direction. It is perhaps because they are sorta different markets with their own supply-demand balance creating the interest rates. But what do I know ? I am in the market for a refi also and have asked a friend who is a broker to tell me when I should pull the trigger. He called me today to ask me to be reachable on Wednesday.

Does it mean the effort to recover the data is less than your effort to recreate the site design and such ? If yes, then I am all for saving you work and will pitch in as necessary.

First of all let me say I am very happy we all are having this discussion. I get to learn more. The highlighted portion is so key in this discussion as it points to severely flawed fundamentals in such companies. I have to wonder how many others out there are on such a precipice. A company that has operated for ~ 80 years goes under in a matter of days. I am happy to have my average-paying, steady, no-bonus job.

I don't have any knowledge about the 1929 crash but I would guess the Fed's role would be to set policy that allows institutions to function, for the country to grow and to set monetary policy that is forward looking. If true, I do not agree that their role is to support a failing enterprise. That is the essence of a free market economy. For lack of a better cliche - the fittest survive. If the risk is of the sector collapsing, then there are so many underlying problems with that sector that it may be worth it in the long run for it to collapse and rebuild itself with the lessons learned. And GG, I don't think Becker is entirely contradicting himself. This action will not help the economy recover quickly - it simply prevents a panic-driven collapse of the financial sector. I partially agree with you that the result of such a collapse means that the credit crunch will trickle down to smaller companies essentially bringing investment to a grinding halt thus causing or accelerating a recession. But I question this morbid fear of recession. For the long term good of the economy it may be worth having a recession if it means better lending practices, stronger focus towards fee-based financial services and less focus on lopsided leverage by investment banks.

I read that the JPM deal came with an option to buy BS's Manhattan property @ 1.1 B when its value is $1.4 billion. So even in the worst case if the $236 million came to naught, the real estate will compensate JPM. Sweet deal if I have ever seen one. Wonder what the folks at the Fed get in return for their largess. Some good reads: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/17/magazines/...sion=2008031718 http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/ Nobel prize winning economist Becker," Still it is difficult to see the merits in the Fed's efforts to help the sale of Bears Stearns to JPMorgan Chase by guaranteeing many billions of mortgage and other assets of the company."

And I don't agree with most of it. Basic problem I have is with the explanation for the Fed action citing the impending crisis that may have doomed the financial markets. What I see from the little financial knowledge that I have is that this network of credit between banks appears to not be founded on real assets. The risks associated with the lending practices appear to not have factored enough risk. Maybe the combined risk of all credit for a particular bank is too overwhelming even though individual deals are sound. Whatever the reason, I still think there are large fundamental problems in the banking system right now and propping up one major institution continues to encourage such bad behavior. If a major shake-out is to happen, it is better to get it done and over with rather than prolong and compound the problem. In the BS deal, JPM seems to be the sole winner having taken on the upside with Fed protection on the downside.

This concept of D winning games is true as long as that team has a semblance of an offense. We were pathetic last year. A lot of things have to come together for us to do better on O, than last year - Schonert's schemes have to be better than Fairchild's, Edwards progresses, our rookie WR & TE (assuming we draft both positions) have to pan out & contribute. Frankly, any of these parts go wrong and we are doomed to another mediocre season. The D can only do so much without the O scoring points (Dallas game last season). I realize that the FA pick-ups for WR and TE were slim to none (BTW, I am not convinced Bryant Johnson is no better than what we have now). But that does not take away from the high probability that we are likely to suck again on offense.

GG, what I am trying to come to grips with is the who part of it. Who are the ones in such imminent danger ? Who deserve to be saved and why ? What specifically are these ripple effects that are so frequently mentioned ? Sounds like a bogeyman concept thrown around here. If the 'who' are these esteemed financial companies and their respective employees, scre* them and their bloated lifestyles. I do not want my money spent to rescue these high and mighty. I rather save the entrepreneur who opened a cute coffee shop down the street and faces closure cos Starbucks invaded her territory.

Threat ? To who and with what consequences ? I say they should file for chapter 11 now, let the other institutions that did business with BS react or go down as the case may be. This is a prime opportunity for the financial industry to get cleaned out. For once they are on the receiving end and I don't see why any body should alleviate their pain. Aren't these the companies that paid out several millions to their top management in bonuses ? Aren't their employees the onces who flaunt their 100%+ bonuses in their friends' face ? Wear Boss suits and act holier than thou ? If they deserved their payout then, they deserve to take the fall today. Their industry is the one that ruthlessly implements the risk model in lending. I see no reason why they should reap the benefits on the upside and be protected on the downside. Dwight, my rant is not directed at you. I was incredibly ticked off with the Fed 'bail out' last week and today's developments pushed my anger over the edge. I simply cannot see why any company is too large to fail in a free market economy.

I don't see how that would occur if people have a balanced portfolios and/or invested in indexed funds. Sure in the short term their 401Ks may tank due to the sentiment. But these financial institutions tanking should not negate a fundamentally sound investment strategy. For example, if the 401K are invested in funds owning shares of Microsoft, Google, AT&T etc. how does the failure of a Bear Stearns affect my 401k value in the long run ?

I agree with what you are saying. However, I think this bail out is horse ***t. The financial institutions are masters of risk theory and if a multitude of bad decisions results in several institutions going under cos of Bear Stearns, then so be it. Let the shake-out happen. Don't interefere with the self-correcting mechanisms. These large financial companies & their employees reap handsome rewards when times are good. They should in no way be bailed out when the times are bad. Heck, do these same banks bail someone out for defaulting on their mortgages ? Why should they be the recipients of good will and that too from the government with money from you and me ?

I wish somebody can explain to me why the Fed stepping in to save a financial firm from bankruptcy is a good thing.

No matter what the consequences, I just cannot agree with the Fed stepping in to save an enterprise such as Bears Stearn. Supporting a failing enterprise is juking the free market and capitalist system which works just fine the way it is.

Apart from the fact that this is not a '2', I think the trailer was not put together well. If we are to believe that Norton's participation as an actor and also an advisor will set this movie apart from the previous attempt, then this trailer should have been vastly more effective. It just did not get me excited enough to want to plunk down $10 hoping this version will be better. I think Batman and Bond franchises have set the bar very high for re-boots and Hulk better measure up.

Is this one really under 15KB ? If yes, how did you manage to shrink the file size so much ?

Last time was early last year (I think). Do I have to do anything to keep me active ? This reminded me that I am due for another contribution anyway.

Let me refresh your memory. You are a rabid Trent edwards supporter and your constant campaigning led Dick jauron (who still coaches the Bills) to bench JP (our ex-QB) in favor of Trent. Is it all coming back to you now ?

I got an email telling me my subscription is about to expire. What is this all about ?

I am trying to upload the exact same pic as before and it won't let me.

My 29 KB avatar file is 'too big'. Apparently it is accepting only files 15KB and smaller. I am still wondering which century I landed in after yesterday's time warp.

Just remember what is said about those who forget history ...

Yep it is good now. By the way, why are there a few posts back from April 20-21, 2007 ? (sorry if it has been answered before). By the way, SDS, you rock. Keep up the good work !

I am using Firefox on XP. I can't seem to open all threads. If I click on the topic, I get a blank screen. For example the 'Losman vs Edwards' & 'Jay Rosen' threads opens up fine but 'PFT Mock draft' does not. It appears that if the thread is 1 page long it opens fine but if it is more than 1 then I cannot open it.

Tough to vote given the choices so I chose not to. We need LB, RB and CB as primary needs. However, if a very good prospect on the DL is available (not DE), a prospect better than the choices for the high need positions, then we should draft one in rounds 2 or 3