I agree, the BSC/JPM deal was not made for BSC sha...

2008-03-18T11:27:00.000-04:00

I agree, the BSC/JPM deal was not made for BSC shareholders. It was done to give the market confidence that the Fed will help backstop those facing liquidity issues and that in the future investment banks will have access to capital from the Fed.

You can surely say it was too late since BSC was a casualty, but BSC shareholders are getting $2 per share in JPM stock whereas the alternative was that they get nothing. Also, half of BSC's employees might keep their jobs by staying on with JPM. Clearly it was not an ideal outcome, but it was better than an all-out bankruptcy for the parties involved (albeit not for true free market proponents).

And you are certainly right about the weak dollar, but correcting that problem will take years and a complete change in the philosophy of those who choose to constantly print dollars whenever they are wanted. I don't think the Fed alone can solve that one, even if they wanted to, unfortunately.

While the Fed has shown it's continued mission to ...

2008-03-17T21:12:00.000-04:00

While the Fed has shown it's continued mission to stave off financial collapse, I think you also need to take into account that it will not necessarily take shareholders into account. BSC going for $2 a share? How is that anything but bankruptcy? How did the Fed help shareholders here?

As a side effect, all of the current events are putting continued downward pressure on the dollar. While the Fed guaranteeing bank losses might assure bank investors it does nothing for currency investors. You may be right that banks are the better investment because even regular domestic investments have been getting killed because of the currency declines.

Comments on The Peridot Capitalist: Jamie Dimon Steals Bear Stearns

I agree, the BSC/JPM deal was not made for BSC sha...

While the Fed has shown it's continued mission to ...