It says much about how shakey this financial mess is....

I wonder if all the Republicans will fit in the jails after it is all
over....

TMT

Report: JPMorgan could up Bear offer

JPMorgan Chase & Co. was discussing a deal that would increase
fivefold its offer for Bear Stearns Cos. to $10 a share, The New York
Times reported Monday.

The talks Sunday were an attempt to satisfy Bear Stearns stockholders
upset over JPMorgan's offer of $2 a share for the struggling
investment bank, the newspaper said on its Web site, citing people
involved in the negotiations.

The original price for Bear Stearns was part of a deal struck last
week at the urging of the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department.

The Fed, which would need to approve any change in the agreement, was
balking at the new price, the Times said. Such opposition could
postpone the new agreement or derail it entirely.

In an attempt to speed majority shareholder approval, Bears board was
trying to authorize the sale of 39.5 percent of the firm to JPMorgan,
the Times said. State law in Delaware, where the companies are
incorporated, allows a company to sell up to 40 percent without
shareholder approval.

A spokeswoman for JPMorgan declined to comment Sunday night, the Times
said. A Bear Stearns representative could not be reached.

A spokesman for the Federal Reserve would not comment on the central
banks involvement in the negotiations, but denied it had directed the
original sale price, the newspaper said.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

In an attempt to speed majority shareholder approval, Bears board was
trying to authorize the sale of 39.5 percent of the firm to JPMorgan,
the Times said. State law in Delaware, where the companies are
incorporated, allows a company to sell up to 40 percent without
shareholder approval.

I was wondering how a sale like this could happen without shareholder
approval. So the deed isn't done at the moment.

Your header shows your hatred of all things Republican. What is your point?
Sounds to me like the Bear Stearns board is trying to get as much out of the
deal for stockholders as possible (duty to stock holders) while getting the
deal done. I guess going into bankruptcy is still an option. Pick your
poison. Btw, I haven't heard the Democrat leadership screaming about the
bail out. What does that tell you?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Mar 24, 6:13*am, Wes wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
In an attempt to speed majority shareholder approval, Bears board was
trying to authorize the sale of 39.5 percent of the firm to JPMorgan,
the Times said. State law in Delaware, where the companies are
incorporated, allows a company to sell up to 40 percent without
shareholder approval.

I was wondering how a sale like this could happen without shareholder
approval. *So the deed isn't done at the moment.

Your header shows your hatred of all things Republican. *What is your point?
Sounds to me like the Bear Stearns board is trying to get as much out of the
deal for stockholders as possible (duty to stock holders) while getting the
deal done. *I guess going into bankruptcy is still an option. Pick your
poison. *Btw, I haven't heard the Democrat leadership screaming about the
bail out. *What does that tell you?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." *Dick Anthony Heller

My "hatred" is the angry of an American taxpayer getting screwed.

If you pay taxes, you are the hook for this deal....whether it is at
$2 or $10 or $1000 a share.

What we are seeing now is a bankrupt company trying to get a 500%
better deal...backed by the American taxpayer.

This company is worth practically NOTHING...and is BANKRUPT....and the
American taxpayer is being asked to bail them out.

I guess if I could make 500% more on a deal with no risk I would try
too...if I had the ethics of a Republican.

So Wes...how many more Bear Stearns can you as a taxpayer pay for?

There ARE more coming.

TMT

On Mar 24, 12:11 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Mar 24, 6:13 am, Wes wrote:





Too_Many_Tools wrote:
In an attempt to speed majority shareholder approval, Bears board was
trying to authorize the sale of 39.5 percent of the firm to JPMorgan,
the Times said. State law in Delaware, where the companies are
incorporated, allows a company to sell up to 40 percent without
shareholder approval.

I was wondering how a sale like this could happen without shareholder
approval. So the deed isn't done at the moment.

Your header shows your hatred of all things Republican. What is your point?
Sounds to me like the Bear Stearns board is trying to get as much out of the
deal for stockholders as possible (duty to stock holders) while getting the
deal done. I guess going into bankruptcy is still an option. Pick your
poison. Btw, I haven't heard the Democrat leadership screaming about the
bail out. What does that tell you?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

My "hatred" is the angry of an American taxpayer getting screwed.

If you pay taxes, you are the hook for this deal....whether it is at
$2 or $10 or $1000 a share.

What we are seeing now is a bankrupt company trying to get a 500%
better deal...backed by the American taxpayer.

This company is worth practically NOTHING...and is BANKRUPT....and the
American taxpayer is being asked to bail them out.

I guess if I could make 500% more on a deal with no risk I would try
too...if I had the ethics of a Republican.

So Wes...how many more Bear Stearns can you as a taxpayer pay for?

There ARE more coming.

TMT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh gee...who would have guessed?

And the American taxpayer is guaranteeing this.

If you pay taxes, that means you.

How do you feel about this use of your money by this Republican
Administration?

I don't like it.

TMT



JPMorgan raises Bear purchase price By JOE BEL BRUNO and STEPHEN
BERNARD, AP Business Writers
Mon Mar 24, 12:58 PM ET



JPMorgan Chase & Co. increased its offer Monday for Bear Stearns Cos.
to $10 per share from a bargain-basement price of $2 per share, hoping
to assuage shareholders of the ailing investment bank.

Bear Stearns shares, which had already been trading higher than the
initial offer price, surged above the new bid level.

The move was clearly aimed at diffusing a backlash among Bear Stearns
shareholders who felt the original deal undervalued the 85-year-old
institution. JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon spent most of
the week trying to woo Bear Stearns employees, who collectively own
about a third of the company.

"We believe the amended terms are fair to all sides and reflect the
value and risks of the Bear Stearns franchise," Dimon said in a
statement, "and bring more certainty for our respective shareholders,
clients, and the marketplace."

The new deal values Bear Stearns at about $1.19 billion -- still a
fraction of what the company was worth before its sudden near-collapse
earlier this month. It also includes a provision for JPMorgan to buy
95 million new Bear Stearns shares immediately, which gives it a 39.5
percent stake in the company before shareholders have even voted.

The amended offer was Dimon's attempt to ward off any competition, and
quickly move on with the acquisition. The two sides also changed
certain guarantees JPMorgan made related to Bear Stearns' positions.

Alan Schwartz, Bear Stearns' embattled president and chief executive,
has been vilified within the company for the past week for selling out
too low. The company's 14,000 employees -- most of whom depended on
Bear Stearns' stock as part of their retirement plans -- are facing
significant job cuts if the deal goes through.

He said the substantial share issuance to JPMorgan "was a necessary
condition" to maintaining Bear Stearns' financial stability.

"Our board of directors believes that the amended terms provide both
significantly greater value to our shareholders, many of whom are Bear
Stearns employees, and enhanced coverage and certainty for our
customers, counterparties, and lenders," he said in a statement.

However, the new price still pales in comparison to the $150 per share
Bear Stearns was trading at just a year ago and the near-$80 the
shares fetched at the beginning of this month.

"It's a recognition that there is outrage," said David Hinkel, a
senior consultant at Towers Perrin who focuses on mergers and
acquisitions. But, he added, "I'm not sure upping the offer from $2 to
$10 will make people happy who thought the value was $90. ... There's
tremendous value and wealth being lost."

The revised deal is still the target of shareholder lawsuits.

Marian Rosner, a senior partner at Wolf Popper LLP, whose firm was one
of many that filed class action lawsuits against Bear Stearns on
behalf of employees, said "selling for $2 or $10 doesn't really make a
difference."

The housing collapse and credit crunch spurred record-high home
foreclosures and led financial companies to rack up multibillion
losses in complex mortgage investments that turned sour. As credit
problems spread, financial institutions became increasingly wary of
lending. The situation has caused businesses and consumers to hunker
down.

The new agreement also calls for the Federal Reserve -- which helped
broker the emergency deal to save Bear Stearns from failure -- to
provide a $30 billion term loan with portfolio assets put up as
collateral. Those assets will be held by a newly created company
managed by BlackRock Inc.

If any part of the portfolio defaults, JPMorgan will be on the hook to
cover the first $1 billion in losses. As the assets are paid off, the
Fed will receive principal plus any gains.

The Fed said the action is being taken with the support of the
Treasury Department to "bolster market liquidity and promote orderly
market functioning."

Bear shares had been much higher than its deal price last week in
anticipation of a new buyout agreement. The stock surged on Monday,
rising $7.23 to $13.24 after the new agreement was unveiled. JPMorgan
shares also rose, adding $1.18, or 2.6 percent, to $47.15.

___

AP Business Writer Madlen Read contributed to this report.

What's your thoughts on the Government giving our tax money to Planned
Parenthood (the country's largest abortion provider) and then Planned
Parenthood suing the government because they don't support partial birth
abortion, where the babies body is held while scissors are jammed in the
babies head, the brains are sucked out, the head collapsed and then the
child is disposed of ?

Sign the petition to defund Planned Parenthood!
http://www.aclj.org/


"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
It says much about how shakey this financial mess is....

On Mar 24, 7:05*pm, "Roger_N" wrote:
What's your thoughts on the Government giving our tax money to Planned
Parenthood (the country's largest abortion provider) and then Planned
Parenthood suing the government because they don't support partial birth
abortion, where the babies body is held while scissors are jammed in the
babies head, the brains are sucked out, the head collapsed and then the
child is disposed of ?

Sign the petition to defund Planned Parenthood!http://www.aclj.org/

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...



It says much about how shakey this financial mess is....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's your thoughts about allowing women to have babies they don't
want or provide for while society allows them to starve to death?

The last time I looked Planned Parenthood handed out free birth
control and accompanying advice.

I think they need more funding...not less like the Bushbots do.

Maybe we should give Planned Parenthood $230 billion dollars like Bear
Stearns?

TMT

So you think our Government should give our tax money to organizations that
Sue them? Abortions are already legal, they are sueing over partial birth
abortions. Pregnancy doesn't normaly get to that stage without the
expecting mother knowing about it. Last I heard it was extremely difficult
for couples wanting to adopt to get an infant. Should we also kill retirees
if they no longer are a benefit to society? I guess it would help the
Social Security situation but I don't consider it an option.

Hey Gunner, is Cliff a retiree??? :-) Just kidding!


"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
snip
I think they need more funding...not less like the Bushbots do.

Maybe we should give Planned Parenthood $230 billion dollars like Bear
Stearns?

TMT