andy in nz writes:
sorry CR but 'shareholder approval' should be the last problem on the minds of the fed and JPM.

Shareholders need to STFU as $2 was a good deal IMO! They should have walked away with nothing..

This stinks, lucky for BSC they were first, bet the next to under will get more harsh treatment.
andy in nz | 03.24.08 - 1:07 am | #

IvyLeague writes:
No moral hazard, because shareholders were getting wiped out, right?
IvyLeague | 03.24.08 - 1:07 am | #

AZ_Cowboy writes:
Looks like a game of chicken between JP and the shareholders. I don't think $10/share is going to cut it.
AZ_Cowboy | 03.24.08 - 1:08 am | #

idoc writes:
ah, the cracks start to appear.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

this whole deal is illegal by the Fed and Paulson oversteppping their legal authority. read Hussman's link on this also. if this gets snowballing we could see the whole deal go bust and then we could see a real explosion in the CDS space.
idoc | 03.24.08 - 1:10 am | #

IvyLeague writes:
Bear was going to go bankruptjust a week ago => shares were going to be worth zero. So the Fed takes $30 billion of crap off of Bear's balance sheet (via JPM). Suddenly, a week later, Bear is worth $10/share. How is this *not* a bail-out of the said shareholders?

Why shouldn't this logic apply to shareholders?
IvyLeague | 03.24.08 - 1:11 am | #

stinky writes:
wall street charity on the back on a taxpayer guaranteed loan from the Fed?

how about an auction?
stinky | 03.24.08 - 1:11 am | #

Steven writes:
All the Ben's dollars and all of Ben's men
Will make Bear shareholders happy again
Steven | 03.24.08 - 1:11 am | #

tj & the bear writes:
As noted elsewhere, Hussman & Denninger both believe the Fed's "no recourse" loan was illegal.
tj & the bear | 03.24.08 - 1:12 am | #

tj & the bear writes:
Looks like idoc beat me to it.

Follow the link and sign the petition, folks!!!
tj & the bear | 03.24.08 - 1:13 am | #

andy in nz writes:
Two of my favourite lines from the article, take from them what you may.

Some employees said they talked back to their new supervisors from JPMorgan, which commandeered desks and conference rooms after being given operational control of the firm last week.

and, whooocccooouldanode!

Last week, in an impassioned speech to Bear’s employees seeking their support, Mr. Dimon said: “No one on Wall Street could have anticipated this. I feel terrible sometimes when people think we took advantage. I don’t think we could possibly know what you all are feeling, but I hope that you give JPMorgan a chance.”

sorry to all, but what a bunch of wankers!
andy in nz | 03.24.08 - 1:13 am | #

stinky writes:
if i bought a car for 10 grand why would i decide the next week to pay 50 grand? wtf!

from bill gross to the economist, everyone is pushing the bailout.

disgusting.
stinky | 03.24.08 - 1:14 am | #

idoc writes:
Ivy

this isn't about shareholders. its about preventing BSC bonds from defaulting and triggering CDS payments esp. involving JPM.
idoc | 03.24.08 - 1:14 am | #

Sniglet writes:
IvyLeague wrote: "No moral hazard, because shareholders were getting wiped out, right?"

It's not the moral hazard of financial institutions to over-extend themselves that worry me, it's the moral hazard of customers who don't care about the viability of the counter-parties they do business with because they can rest assured the government will bail them out.

Bear shareholders might take a drubbing from the JPM bail-out, but all the people doing business with Bear won't skip a beat, and don't have to worry for a second that the contracts won't be honoured, or money from their investment accounts will go missing.

As long as investors can be certain their backs are covered by the government, then why not do business with the shakiest institutions around, so long as they offer better interest rates or transaction fees?
Sniglet | 03.24.08 - 1:16 am | #

ronisrael writes:
Bear bondholders deserve to take a haircut along with the stockholders.
ronisrael | 03.24.08 - 1:19 am | #

DaveJ writes:
Use some simple game theory.

AS CR says, increasing to $10/share means very little for JPM in terms of costs. However, it means a great deal for BSC shareholders. So that should make raising the price a no-brainer.

But wait. There is the part of the Fed. The Fed gave JPM a guarantee on mortgage assets under a few conditions. First of all, JPM had to take over BSC and keep in running. Second, BSC shareholders had to be punished so that it would not appear that the Fed bailed out those speculators at BSC (especially those ones who told the Fed to screw about LTCM).

So now the Fed is balking about the $10 price. But what can they say? Are they going to drop their guarantee just because they feel BSC is not being punished enough? What if that causes an escalation in the crisis. Could they defend their actions? They are supposed to be a lender of last resort not the punishers of speculators. I don't think anyone has a strong hand to play except BSC.
DaveJ | 03.24.08 - 1:20 am | #

Sniglet writes:
Idoc wrote: "this isn't about shareholders. its about preventing BSC bonds from defaulting and triggering CDS payments esp. involving JPM."

Unfortunately, this is where the real moral hazard lies. Investors in CDSes, and other securities, feel they are invulnerable to counter-party failures since the government will bail out anyone who goes bust, ensuring that all their contracts are honoured. The only way we are going to get the financial system to properly correct is to have some outright counter-party failures, to strike the fear of God into participants, ensuring that they will think VERY hard about who they want to do business with. Maybe it doesn't make sense to only pick your business partners solely on their fees and interest rates.
Sniglet | 03.24.08 - 1:20 am | #

idoc writes:
this could be a big deal. the mere suggestion of a willingness to change the terms of the deal signals weakness to anyone who might benefit from a higher buyout price, namely shareholders. in Sun Tzu's the Art of War, never show weakness. never.
idoc | 03.24.08 - 1:21 am | #

AZ_Cowboy writes:
idoc - absolutely right. If JP is willing to go up to $10, why not hold out for $20, or $30, or...

Like I said above, it's a game of chicken. Who needs the deal the most? Bear SH's or the Fed to prevent a meltdown?
AZ_Cowboy | 03.24.08 - 1:26 am | #

idoc writes:
I don't think anyone has a strong hand to play except BSC.
DaveJ |

isn't it an upside down world when someone could view BSC this way? the most corrupt, totally bankrupt actor in the whole mess having the strongest hand?
idoc | 03.24.08 - 1:27 am | #

CalculatedRisk writes:
idoc, it does seem weird. Without the JPM deal, Bear probably would be BK.

Now - with the JPMorgan guarantee and Fed non-recourse loan - Bear shareholders are in a strong situation.

Bizarre.

Best to all.
CalculatedRisk | Homepage | 03.24.08 - 1:30 am | #

ScoProLaw writes:
I don't know what their company charter says about shareholder ratification and buyouts, and my knowledge of Corporations law is limited (see my handle), but the shareholders have every right to challenge the deal. That's not to say they will win, but they can make it annoyingly painful for all parties involved. I think the law is on their side, know way this falls under the proverbial "Business Judgment Rule". But I gots a feelin' the judge will see it a little different.
ScoProLaw | 03.24.08 - 1:30 am | #

homedad43 writes:
idoc:

In reading background dox on FRS from last thread, I believe it was
"Economist's View", the language for the original legislation forming the FRS was vague and gave latitude for future actions as they arose. In a sense, the power to mold themselves as necessary.

Sniglet:

While I want financial powerbrokers to face real consequences for their hubris, I don't think the web formed here is not without risk to the rest of us. Don't think that I - little ol' me - want to see if the consequences are truly localized to a few.
homedad43 | 03.24.08 - 1:34 am | #

stinky writes:
srry if repost, but from economist:

"Hank Calenti of RBC Capital Markets thinks that, at the Fed's urging, “shotgun weddings” for Lehman and Merrill could be in the planning stages, in case of emergency."

re: wall street bailouts, i'm still disgusted:

"Most investment bankers don't differ very much from those who abuse welfare."

and the New York Times had an article about how the Wall Street bonuses doubled from 2003 till 2008. gah!
stinky | 03.24.08 - 1:35 am | #

idoc writes:
OT

i live in Calif. Central Coast beach town, affluent area. just got back from an Easter Egg hunt at a neighbors down the road. got an update on our local mortgage mkt from my broker friend. he says his lending pool has gone from 120 institutions down to 4. thats right 4. and they're getting tighter as we speak. i asked him who they were and he said Union Bank of Calif., Wachovia, and 2 others i'd never heard of; PNH (?) and some other small outfit. essentially all lending shut down.

i asked him about increased conforming loan amts and he felt it would only help the banks. interest rates on those won't be significantly lower. he feels 30 yr fixed will be history since no one wants to tie up money that long. he was very depressed.
idoc | 03.24.08 - 1:40 am | #

Anonymous the Younger writes:
This must be big. They're working on it on a Sunday night--Easter Sunday. Why can't it wait till tonorrow?
Anonymous the Younger | 03.24.08 - 1:41 am | #

dryfly writes:
As noted elsewhere, Hussman & Denninger both believe the Fed's "no recourse" loan was illegal.

Opinions are like assholes - everybody has one including Denniger & Hussman. Maybe they want to put their money where their mouth is and file suit. They own any shares or hold an interest? If so go for it - I think it would make great theater.

As for the negotiation between JPM and the company formerly known as Bear... reminds me of a joke:

A man walks into a bar and sees a pretty young woman. He walks up to her and says... "Will you sleep with me for a million dollars?"

The woman replies "Why yes I would!"

The man follows up with... "How about twenty bucks?"

The woman angrily snaps back, "What do you take me for, a whore?"

The man replies, "Why yes - we established that with the first question - now we are just negotiating price".

I just hope we all don't get social disease from this Bear-JPM hook up.

dryfly | 03.24.08 - 1:42 am | #

idoc writes:
ok, we just established our raison d'être for tomorrows huge rally in the mkts. BSC IS WORTH WAY MORE THAN 5.96!!!
idoc | 03.24.08 - 1:46 am | #

dryfly writes:
Now - with the JPMorgan guarantee and Fed non-recourse loan - Bear shareholders are in a strong situation.

Bizarre.

CR, any evidence that JPM needs Bear? If not why not just give the money back to Paulson and say 'See ya' to Bear?
dryfly | 03.24.08 - 1:46 am | #

andy in nz writes:
Anonymous the Younger,

cause they have to work out new swear words so they can talk back to the new JPM overlords.

Bear employees own more than a third of Bear’s stock, and many longtime employees faced the prospect of losing all their savings. On Monday, some were seen crying in the hallways of the firm’s Midtown Manhattan headquarters.

One employee started a Web site to rally opposition to the deal. Some employees said they talked back to their new supervisors from JPMorgan, which commandeered desks and conference rooms after being given operational control of the firm last week.

When your going to get sacked and your employee shares are worthless thats all you got...

Can we coin a new term, Global Moral Hazard

Makes me want to go out and buy 10 houses, then when I go BK demand that the bank pays me to take back the assets thet they leant against.
andy in nz | 03.24.08 - 1:48 am | #

idoc writes:
dry

no one knows for sure but JPM needs Bear not to default on their bonds so as not to trigger CDS defaults of which JPM has a bundle. no one esp. the Fed wants to test this.
idoc | 03.24.08 - 1:49 am | #

Jim writes:
Great way to do business. If the seller screams a lot you raise the price you pay. How much screaming is worth 1 billion? 2 billion? Ten billion. The next time I go to my supermarket I won't be surprised if the manager screams at me to make me pay more for eggs, etc.
Jim | 03.24.08 - 1:49 am | #

idoc writes:
Jim

hey don't joke. maybe u should do more screaming:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/2...s/ 23haggle.html
idoc | 03.24.08 - 1:51 am | #

Sniglet writes:
homedad43 said: "While I want financial powerbrokers to face real consequences for their hubris, I don't think the web formed here is not without risk to the rest of us. Don't think that I - little ol' me - want to see if the consequences are truly localized to a few."

I am not looking forward to a major economic downturn, but I fear that unless customers themselves are somehow forced to bear responsibility for their irresponsible behaviour of choosing lousy business partners then we will never be able to get our financial system back in order. All parties need to realize that they have a resonsibility to pick good business partners, or counterparties.

Frankly, the whole deposit insurance system is terribly destabilizing in this respect, since it removes the responsibility of savers to bank with sound institutions rather than just hunting for the best yield.

With perverse customer incentives like this (i.e. where customers know they will always be made whole if the financial institutions they work with go bust), it is almost impossible for any truly prudent or sound financial business to survive. How can you expect to stay in business if you offer lower interest rates or higher fees? Even if you argue that your capital reserves, and leverage, are better than the competition, your customers simply won't care, and why should they?
Sniglet | 03.24.08 - 1:54 am | #

Bystander writes:
The devil is in the details...

JPMorgan and Bear were prompted to renegotiate after shareholders began threatening to block the deal and it emerged that several “mistakes” were included in the original, hastily written contract, according to people involved in the talks.

One sentence was “inadvertently included,” according to a person briefed on the talks, which requires JPMorgan to guarantee Bear’s trades even if shareholders voted down the deal. That provision could allow Bear’s shareholders to seek a higher bid while still forcing JPMorgan to honor its guarantee, these people said.
Bystander | 03.24.08 - 1:55 am | #

Hazard writes:
“inadvertently" ?????????????

Don't these people read what they sign? -------- ahhhh.
Hazard | 03.24.08 - 1:59 am | #

Tom writes:
This was the most amazing part of the article to me:

If the Fed were to reject the new proposal, it could set off a furor among shareholders of both firms that the government was preventing them from making a fair deal.

Waaahhh! The Fed Won't Give Me $10/Share For My $0/Share Company!
Tom | 03.24.08 - 2:00 am | #

dryfly writes:
no one knows for sure but JPM needs Bear not to default on their bonds so as not to trigger CDS defaults of which JPM has a bundle. no one esp. the Fed wants to test this.

The old 'you owe the bank a $100 thousand and you're in trouble, owe the bank a $100 million and they're in trouble.

Maybe Bear should tell JPM they want to buy them?

I mean if they are gonna be silly & play chicken go for the throat.

dryfly | 03.24.08 - 2:05 am | #

Allen C writes:
So how much is Bear worth without the Fed backstop? How many suitors stepped forward last week with a higher bid?
Allen C | 03.24.08 - 2:08 am | #

homedad43 writes:
Given what's potentially at stake here, can't the Fed quietly break some legs to move things along?
homedad43 | 03.24.08 - 2:14 am | #

Anonymous the Younger writes:
The 3-month T-bill yield has just gone from 0.05% to 0.53%, and the 6-month has gone from 0.01% to 1.18%.

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets...ates/ index.html
Anonymous the Younger | 03.24.08 - 2:21 am | #

sequoia512 writes:
Maybe we need to end the marriage and start a threesome with JPM/BSC and say C or GS. If we are going to devolve my as well make it more interesting.

Anyway time to play Judge Schmells and say you will get nothing and like it.
sequoia512 | 03.24.08 - 2:24 am | #

4runner writes:
Why is this news? The market will set the price for Bear. The market will be efficient so long as the gov't doesn't step in and...

Oh wait. Never mind...
4runner | 03.24.08 - 2:25 am | #

Ziggurat writes:
I am not surprised at $10/share. As CR noted, they booked $6 billion for transaction costs, including litigation.
They weren't specific about litigation, but I assume that some of it would be from shareholders. If they could clear the decks for $1b, it would be worth it from a business point of view.
The more interesting part of this was the possibility that JPM would take the first billion of losses on assets.

"JPMorgan was also in negotiations with the Fed on Sunday to assume the first $1 billion in losses on Bear assets before the Fed’s $30 billion cushion kicks in. However, the Fed may now be seeking to raise that number."

If you really have to take over the business, the extra $8/share is cheap if it means the deal closes quickly and significantly reduces litigation.

I think the Fed should ask for some warrants on JPM, which they should have done in the first place.
Ziggurat | 03.24.08 - 2:31 am | #

Fair Economist writes:
I think it's perfectly reasonable Bear shareholders are negotiating from a position of strength. Had the Fed opened the discount window to them a week earlier they'd probably still be here and worth more than $10.
Fair Economist | 03.24.08 - 2:43 am | #

Ziggurat writes:
>isn't it an upside down world when someone could view BSC this way? the most corrupt, totally bankrupt actor in the whole mess having the strongest hand?<

Totally.

However, $10 is $100 million for Joe Lewis who put up a billion. Getting 2% back puts him and the other shareholders in a strong position only because they had very little to lose. If they can see $10/share, then they would have 5x as much to lose and would be much less inclined to roll the dice.
Ziggurat | 03.24.08 - 2:45 am | #

tom a taxpayer writes:
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive" sayeth Sir Walter Scott. The Fed, J.P.Morgan, and Bear Stearns are now weaving ever more tangled webs. Beware, lest Ye be caught in their web.
tom a taxpayer | 03.24.08 - 2:53 am | #

retarded investor writes:
Poor JPM and bear! They both have guns at their heads and without The FBI there to help them, they both look retarded crooks!


Fed Bypasses Emergency-Loan Policy on Rate for Securities Firm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ne...gD3Q& refer=home

Not every former Fed employee was as forgiving. The Fed's haste in setting aside its own guidelines is ``troubling,'' said Vincent Reinhart, who worked at the central bank between 1983 and 2007 and is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

``The regulation is very clear as to the circumstances of the loan, and it is odd that they wouldn't apply a regulation that would seem to encompass what they want to do,'' said Reinhart, who served as head of the Division of Monetary Affairs under Bernanke and his predecessor Alan Greenspan.

Imposing Penalty

The 2002 guidelines say that non-banks may only receive emergency cash ``at a rate above the highest rate in effect for advances to depository institutions.'' That means securities firms may normally have to pay more than the current 3 percent rate reserved for banks that are less financially sound.



Northern Rock Secret Memo Shows CEO Dismissed Subprime Threat

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ne...FfDo& refer=home

``It's no accident that it was Northern Rock rather than another bank that crashed, because he was running an extreme business model,'' Lascelles says.

The former CEO briefed employees in an internal memo on July 25 about Northern Rock's first-half results. They showed the bank had increased lending by 47.3 percent compared with the same period in 2006. Northern Rock lent a record 10.7 billion pounds in the first six months of 2007.

``It is likely to take the outside world a little time to understand our developing strategy, but you can be assured the outlook for Northern Rock remains very positive,'' Applegarth wrote.

On Oct. 16, Applegarth told a different story to the Parliament's Treasury Committee, which was investigating the bank's demise. He said the bank cut back on lending in the first half of 2007. ``We started slowing lending down,'' he testified.

`Too Macho'
retarded investor | 03.24.08 - 2:56 am | #

retarded investor writes:
Re: Had the Fed opened the discount window to them a week earlier they'd probably still be here and worth more than $10.

Had The Fed been more active in doing a job to regulate the market, Bear would have never been $150, and they should have never been allowed to run up the share price in the frothy housing bubble -- for 5 years! Screw Bear and JPM!
retarded investor | 03.24.08 - 3:00 am | #

Anonymous writes:
Who's next at the trough?
Anonymous | 03.24.08 - 3:08 am | #

malabar writes:
idoc

Yes. This deal could unravel. There's a good chance that either Congress or the courts could state that the Fed $30 billion put option is illegal since it benefits specific private investors at the risk of taxpayers.

If that happens then the Fed may have to step back and JPM will have to take the risk of the deal. Then unsecured BSC bondholders will be lining up to collect on their CDS.

CR, BSC going under will mean that both shareholders and bondholders will take a cut. It does not mean customer accounts will be frozen. I think the Fed panicked and may have to backtrack which will cause even more uncertainty.
malabar | 03.24.08 - 3:11 am | #

Ziggurat writes:
As far as the CDS's and counter party risk goes, I liked GM's speculative article.

You can use CDS's as a hedge or to speculate. If they were bought as a hedge, then the buyer should be indifferent between a default payout or the debt to pay. On the other hand, if they were bought as speculation, then they buyers would be hurt. And the buyers may have had something to do with the run on the bank.

The real moral hazard is the existence of large speculative interest in default by entities that have or potentially have the ability to pull the rug out from under the debt.

When you speculate on credit default, and the government (or anyone) bails out the bonds, then I don't have any sympathy.

There was a journal article about heavy speculation on Iceland banks tanking.

http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB...0195656761.html

And another about the problem with bailing out mortgages.

"...and could hurt those who have bet the securities will decline in value. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB...2379157875.html

That last sentence surprised me. Exactly what sort of protection should people that bet against mortgage securities get? And how is it a moral hazard if these betters don't collect?
Ziggurat | 03.24.08 - 3:15 am | #

andy in nz writes:
Bernake is a eunuch:

the term usually refers to those castrated in order to perform a specific social function

He should be taking JPM and BSC out the back and giving them a slap not the other way round.

I am angry, Rich guy owns a football club gets bailed out to 5x what he thought he could get. Global Joe average gets the bill and has to leave a tip just to add insult to injury. At some point justice/karma whatever has to catch up with these guys.

Its going to take another generation befor Wall St can screw people again....
andy in nz | 03.24.08 - 3:17 am | #

Anonymous writes:
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."-- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Anonymous | 03.24.08 - 3:18 am | #

jus me writes:
Allen C writes:
So how much is Bear worth without the Fed backstop? How many suitors stepped forward last week with a higher bid?

Last week the shares traded for more than $2; there's your higher bid.
jus me | 03.24.08 - 3:31 am | #

andy in nz writes:
jus me,

I suspect they would not have traded above $2 without the fed, so moot point!

How much would you value Bear at?

I suspect you can't, like the market and the fed. Over the weekend, the value was in how much exposure and carnage they could wreck and how it could be sterilised on the cheap. Today $2 looks like a good deal, not what the building and 14,000 computers were worth..
andy in nz | 03.24.08 - 3:39 am | #

fred writes:
pesky little detail about the law is that no one has standing to enforce it.

the federal reserve act does not create a private right of action and there is nothing in the federal tort claims act that would allow private action against the fed.

presumably all that would be possible would be for a s/holder in bsc to sue the fed on some theory of interference with prospective advantage or aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty.

i kind of like the last one.

fwiw, please note that in modern delaware corporation law, while corporations owe fiduciary duties to their s/holders, they also owe duties to their creditors, it's not 100% s/holder and 0% creditors.
fred | 03.24.08 - 4:05 am | #

Anonymous writes:
"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States." -- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)
Anonymous | 03.24.08 - 4:17 am | #

Anonymous writes:
The UUSA, the markets are rigged, game over.
Anonymous | 03.24.08 - 4:18 am | #

YLSP writes:
Anyone wanna bet that Cramer is screaming about this tommorrow (today?).

"I TOLD YOU GUYS THE BEAR WAS GOING TO LIVE! AND NOW... those of you in jp morgan ... I've got some great news for you ... okay ... maybe you're a little mad that you're not getting the bear for $2/share... you don't like getting the price talked up again.. but let me tell you... the bear will rise again... you are SITTING ON A GOLDMINE (hits BUYBUYBUYBUYBUY soundbyte while showing stock price on screen) JP MORGAN WILL SURVIVE THIS MESS!"

4 months later when this House of Cards unravels...

"Uh, what I meant was that people shouldn't take their money and run from JP Morgan..."

(Fed then forces another investment bank to buy JP Morgan/Bear... rinse/wash/repeat...)

You can bet the next bank that gets forced into taking over shares of this mess will ask for a $90 billion no-recourse loan from the Fed too... how do we know that JP Morgan won't turn around and ask for a $150B loan since the share price has now quintoupled?
YLSP | 03.24.08 - 4:27 am | #

YLSP writes:
Sorry, OT: Open up Drudge Report and see news of a trucker's strike. Go to trucker blogs and see some of the comments... (The rest of this post contains trucker comments... I found a few negative people talking about Mexican truckers coming to take the jobs... but it seems like there could be something brewing...)


You cannot afford to NOT shutdown for at least three weeks. Screw the unions they never cared for anything but themselves from the get go! ex 12 yr. teamster

in parts of oh, pa, ny, wv fellow truck drivers have been saying march 24th is the big day... park it or things will happen to you to make you park it... if jimmy hoffa was still around you would see a change

I live in MO and have been getting text messages form truck drivers that I don't even know telling me that the strike is going to start March 23, 2008. And, I have also been told that if a driver doesn't strike they'll wish they had by the time other drivers get done with them and their truck

April 3 is the word in middle ga. We are shutting down. We are passing out flyers and putting up a billboard on I-16.

R.C., it is not that the company driver's don't give a darn. They can't just say "hey I want to shut down today" the companies will not allow this to happen. They can however do their part by driving slower than usual or at least running the speed limit and no faster. Also by doing their log books exactly like they are supposed to be done. You know, sitting waiting to load or unload log it on duty not driving for as long as it takes. Burn them hours up and then they will have to park.

People we are doing a great job in getting the word out.I'm getting calls from drivers all over willing to go home on April 1st. I'm aware that some cant make it that long and have already gone home thats ok to. If you have to be out there drive slow, run legal, and be careful.

Brokers-One more reason we are in the shape we're in. There should be a cap on what they can take off of the top. There should a limit or do away with the brokers. I have called on loads trying to get the rate up and they won't budge because someone will haul it cheap. They don't care about us. Never have. I have no problem throwing them under the bus.

$45,000 per year working 100 hour weeks.'bout 10 bucks an hour. If they paid us in confederate money, we would be making the big bucks.

It's crazy that they are soaking us for $0.80 more per gallon of diesel, than gas. I'd shut down for a week to get the petroleum industry, and government's, attention.
YLSP | 03.24.08 - 4:55 am | #

DannyHSDad writes:
YLSP: I notice the diesel prices since I drive a diesel pickup. I used to notice that diesel was cheaper than regular unlead but now it really is about 60 or 70 cents higher than regular (diesel is about $4.15 to $4.29 per gallon in Huntington Beach, CA vs. $3.38 to $3.59 per gallon for regular).

I'd be upset, too, if I had to eat the extra gas costs...
DannyHSDad | Homepage | 03.24.08 - 5:08 am | #

free markets rule if you let t writes:
Pull out the 30B taxpayer money from the deal and let the super rich arrange their own bailout. This is what I would expect a non-corrupted FED to do....
free markets rule if you let t | 03.24.08 - 5:20 am | #

Lupin writes:
As a Bear shareholder I also demand free hookers. The expensive ones.
Lupin | 03.24.08 - 6:03 am | #

iceman writes:
Pull out the 30B taxpayer money from the deal and let the super rich arrange their own bailout. This is what I would expect a non-corrupted FED to do....

absolutely. otherwise, its a BAILOUT.
iceman | 03.24.08 - 6:10 am | #

iceman writes:
One sentence was “inadvertently included,” according to a person briefed on the talks, which requires JPMorgan to guarantee Bear’s trades even if shareholders voted down the deal. That provision could allow Bear’s shareholders to seek a higher bid while still forcing JPMorgan to honor its guarantee, these people said.

When the error was discovered, James Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, who was described by one participant as “apoplectic,” began calling his lawyers at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz to seek a way to have the sentence modified, these people said. Finger pointing over the mistakes in the contracts began as bankers blamed the lawyers and vice versa.

Note: Dimon was universally hailed as a master ohf the universe last week.
iceman | 03.24.08 - 6:23 am | #

SC writes:
Great deal for JPM still. Wanted to buy BSC at $2 but never got there.
SC | 03.24.08 - 6:58 am | #

plschwartz writes:
Morgan is also trying to keep half the BSC staff. These own say 15% of Bear stock. For them this is sort of an enlistment bonus.
Also maybe Morgan bought BSC stock at $2,knowing they would sweeten the deal later.
plschwartz | 03.24.08 - 7:18 am | #

12th Percentile writes:
Hey look, the geniuses at Goldman might be cutting 20% of their staff.


Goldman Sachs said in January that it would reduce its global work force by 5 percent. On Friday, The New York Post reported that the cuts would rise to 20 percent, which would bring the total cut to 6,400 jobs. A spokeswoman for Goldman had no comment on the report.


And here is the reason that I bought more SKF and SRS at the lower prices.


Some New Yorkers said their neighbors seemed to be in denial.

“I was at a benefit last week, and a major well-known chief executive told me that ‘Everything will be just fine. People will start buying houses again,’ ” said David Patrick Columbia, who runs the New York Social Diary, a Web site that chronicles Manhattan social life. “Another one blamed everything on the media. He went on about how the media is creating a recession.”



The media did it! Technically the CEO is correct. People will start buying houses again, in 2011.
12th Percentile | 03.24.08 - 7:23 am | #

12th Percentile writes:
the missing link.
12th Percentile | 03.24.08 - 7:23 am | #

jim a writes:
I can't be the only one who's flashing on Blazing Saddles now. Specifically the scene where the Sheriff is pointing a gun to his own head. "Put down the guns or the shareholders get it!"
jim a | 03.24.08 - 7:51 am | #

Alan Greenspend writes:
WOW. JPM appears to be retaliating, or covering their ass(ets) and potentially taking everyone down with them.

They went mark to market at 5 cents on the dollar for subprime in court filings.

From Yves at Nekkid Capitalism (such a timely blog name) -

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2...5-cents- on.html

Things could get wild this week, I don't see this deal happening...
Alan Greenspend | Homepage | 03.24.08 - 8:04 am | #

Pondering the Mess writes:
Just more "mark to make-believe." Oh, but this will be good for another pop in the banking sector since it "clearly means that all is well if Bear Stearns is worth FIVE times as much as it was before!" Nevermind that the company is still worth far less than it was a month ago, the employees are toast, the executives have looted the place, etc. All news is good news, and just ignore reality until we can get the DOW back above 13,000. Keep the sheeple clueless...
Pondering the Mess | 03.24.08 - 8:12 am | #

Sam writes:
After reading several articles about Cheney going to Saudi Arabia to urge them to increase oil production to help lower oil prices we finally get the good news. They already did:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Monday that Saudi Arabia had kept its promise to increase oil production capacity over the past three years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ n...134819420080324

What do he go over there for if they already did?
Sam | 03.24.08 - 8:14 am | #

bZb writes:
From the NYT article on the "new deal":

If the Fed were to reject the new proposal, it could set off a furor among shareholders of both firms that the government was preventing them from making a fair deal.

Only last week the BSC shareholders were about to get wiped out. So we the Public stepped in to help them out, but now they'll be furious if they won't get more. Ungrateful sob's!
bZb | 03.24.08 - 8:16 am | #

Lisa writes:
To dryfly and any others who think that Hussman or Denninger's "opinions" are worthless:
One of the reasons we are in this mess, is because American citizens DO NOT understand the power they have! WE are the government, and it is OUR responsibility to MAKE SURE that what elected officials do IS legal. Complacency has been America's enemy and it MUST stop! It amazes me that more people do not understand the dire consequences of the actions by the Federal Reserve Board. Ticked off? I have not yet begun to fight!
Lisa | 03.24.08 - 8:22 am | #

Pondering the Mess writes:
"Only last week the BSC shareholders were about to get wiped out. So we the Public stepped in to help them out, but now they'll be furious if they won't get more. Ungrateful sob's!"

This is why, IMHO, any attempt to bail-out the large banks "for the good of the market" will fail. Why? Because the greedy pigs that run this game will not be happy until they HAVE IT ALL. All of the money. All of the energy. All of the food. ALL OF IT!

You lend them money cheap to "fix the market" and they just gamble it away to get a second weekend yacht. You encourage businesses to grow, and the business pigs just outsource all the workers and pocket the difference to buy another mansion. This is the way it works, and until people are stripped of their fortunes and sent to prison - which is the only way to get these clowns to stop looting and pillaging - nothing will change.
Pondering the Mess | 03.24.08 - 8:23 am | #

SC writes:
Good coverage of the crux of the matter here: http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.co...tee/#more- 21910

Traders know how to squeeze and it looks like Dimon is going to have his ** squeezed. This is exactly what Joe Lewis needs and while the TSY and FED will exert their suasion on any firm that chooses to bid, JPM may have to pay even more confounding efforts to prevent a bailout.
SC | 03.24.08 - 8:25 am | #

transient writes:
Isn't this just going to make any other "shotgun weddings" that much harder to arrange? All the "grooms" will be scared sh*tless that they will somehow end up getting screwed.
transient | 03.24.08 - 8:29 am | #

burnside writes:
Alternatively, BSC remains intact and is granted the same access to the discount window on the same terms as all other IBs. Strong-arming a merger mere days before opening that window to broker/dealers produces a very bad odor.

Depending on how this develops as precedent, the guvs may have a jolly time finding willing partners in future 'mergers'.
burnside | 03.24.08 - 8:33 am | #

revro writes:
"Isn't this just going to make any other "shotgun weddings" that much harder to arrange? All the "grooms" will be scared sh*tless that they will somehow end up getting screwed.
transient "
do you remember JRs shotgun wedding :) at least his bride was cute :)
revro | 03.24.08 - 8:42 am | #

burnside writes:
Dryfly,

How odd I told that joke to a friend just last night. It's said to have originated with our old friend Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain.
burnside | 03.24.08 - 8:44 am | #

Simian writes:
BSC shareholder's appear to have power. This must mean that JPM does not have the votes locked up.

Since BSC was reasonably rated by the rating agencies as was their securities, how could they possibly have been close to BK?
To answer that question would damn the other IBs.
I think BSC is worth about $50 per share compared to the other IBs. I am voting NO unless I get a premium from JPM above $50 per share
Simian | 03.24.08 - 8:45 am | #

Sniglet writes:
Ziggurat writes: "The real moral hazard is the existence of large speculative interest in default by entities that have or potentially have the ability to pull the rug out from under the debt.

When you speculate on credit default, and the government (or anyone) bails out the bonds, then I don't have any sympathy."

Unfortunately, it's hard to seperate out those who are purely "speculating" from the legitimate hedges. Just one issue is that in many cases the speculators are the counterparties to the hedgers. Why should it be ok to hurt the speculator party to a contract but not the hedger?

Actually, even the "hedgers" are speculators if you conisder that they are "speculating" that the value of some sort of security or investment is going to go up.

But this is all beside the point. I would be happy to see all the counterparties (hedgers and speculators) get hurt when an investment bank goes bust. The core problem right now is that no one in the CDS, or derivatives market in general, takes any responsibility in choosing to do business with economically sound investment banks. The assumption is that no major investment bank will be allowed to go bust, and default on all it's counter-party obligations. Investment banking cusotmers need to feel a real fear that they could lose everything if the investment bank they deal with goes under. Only by forcing investment banking customers to be more responsible will we be able to start cleaning up our financial industry.
Sniglet | 03.24.08 - 8:46 am | #

gm writes:
what the heck?

PennyMac has rolled into town...
gm | 03.24.08 - 8:49 am | #

jim a writes:
Sniglet: Yes. Why are we treating IBs like GSEs? Since when did they get implicit governemtn backing? The whole POINT of separating them from the retail banks was to NOT give the the backing of the FDIC. It's one thing to allow the big money players to have a casino. It's another thing altogether to guarantee they go home with their stake.
jim a | 03.24.08 - 8:52 am | #

Shylock writes:
What is the book value of BSC? That is, the value with everything on the books? What's that, they're in the red? Well, either the BSC shareholders cough up the money or it's off the BK court and the auction block. If they are "too big to fail" then perhaps they shouldn't have been allowed to get so big. The butchers can handle even the biggest pig in the pen.
Shylock | 03.24.08 - 8:57 am | #

Wiseman writes:
Solution is simple. The FED can step aside from their backing of any raise in buyout price.
Wiseman | 03.24.08 - 8:57 am | #

k harris writes:
fyi,

FHLBs have been granted permission to purchase over $100 bln in agency MBS on existing capital for the next 2 years. Meanwhile, Blackrock and Highfield have joined to create a new firm (Pennymac) to buy distressed mortgage paper. Kurland to run the join.
k harris | 03.24.08 - 8:58 am | #

Sniglet writes:
jim a writes: "It's one thing to allow the big money players to have a casino. It's another thing altogether to guarantee they go home with their stake."

I love this analogy. It's wrong to say that there is no moral hazard being created when bailing out a casino just because the casino owners lose their shirts. If all the players get to walk away with their winnings then there is moral hazard aplenty, and the punters have no need to consider whether they should be taking their business to financially sound casinos in the future. In fact, the casino bail-out will only re-inforce the belief that it is always best to choose the casino with the best odds, EVEN if it is in lousy financial shape.

Casino bail-outs of this nature would make it virtually impossible for "honest" gambling enterprises to exist since the cusotmers would ALWAYS favour the imprudent ones (with better odds, but lousy reserves).
Sniglet | 03.24.08 - 9:02 am | #

Bill Melater writes:
How is it that in all this speculation about BSC, JPM, et al., that nary a mention of antitrust laws is made?

Are they irrelevant? Leaving moral hazard aside for a moment, if BSC is already "too big to fail", and (presumably) JPM is also "too big to fail", what happens when (if) they consolidate? And then another merger? And another?

Are we soon going to arrive at a time when consolidations give birth to "The Bank" with power enough to dictate regulation?


Bill Melater | 03.24.08 - 9:07 am | #

Yearning to learn writes:
Are we soon going to arrive at a time when consolidations give birth to "The Bank" with power enough to dictate regulation?

I think we're already there.
called "The Federal Reserve Bank"
Yearning to learn | 03.24.08 - 9:16 am | #

Marcus Aurelius writes:
Amen to Lisa.
Marcus Aurelius | 03.24.08 - 9:17 am | #

Kp writes:
Sounds to me like the Bear Sterns shareholders need to be reminded that it is $2/share or NOTHING AT ALL.

The f**king nerve of some people is absolutely incredible.
Kp | 03.24.08 - 9:21 am | #

Sam writes:
Chicago Fed index indicates recession has probably begun

The February reading for the National Activity Index (NAI) fell to -1.04 from -0.68 in January, with all four broad categories in the index negative.

Worse still, downward revisions to previous data, especially employment, cut the previous two months below the -0.70 threshold as well, to -0.73 in January and -0.78 in December, making three consecutive months of recessionary indicators.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/ fe...afx4805853.html

Joseph Stiglitz:

The system of compensation almost surely contributed in an important way to the crisis. It was designed to encourage risk taking – but it encouraged excessive risk taking. In effect, it paid them to gamble. When things turned out well, they walked away with huge bonuses. When things turn out badly – as now – they do not share in the losses. Even if they lose their jobs, they walk away with large sums.

http://www.independent.co.uk/new...ons- 799885.html
Sam | 03.24.08 - 9:29 am | #

Maven writes:
You gotta love free markets.

March 24 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Home Loan Banks were freed to increase their purchase of mortgage bonds by a least $100 billion as part of an effort to bolster demand for the securities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ne...pQko& refer=home
Maven | 03.24.08 - 9:32 am | #

Anonymous writes:
Clinton proposes Greenspan lead foreclosure group

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economic experts should determine whether the U.S. government needs to buy up homes to stem the country's housing crisis, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will propose on Monday.

Clinton, a presidential candidate and senator from New York, said the Federal Housing Administration should "stand ready" to buy, restructure and resell failed mortgages to strengthen the ailing U.S. economy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ b...431703620080324

They both need to be b*tch slapped.
Anonymous | 03.24.08 - 9:33 am | #

larryk writes:
Hasn't the Fed itself completely destabilized the market by pushing through a deal it apparently has no authority to enforce?
larryk | 03.24.08 - 9:34 am | #

Anonymous writes:
You gotta love free markets.

We don't have free markets we have rigged markets where government intervention will only increase welcome to the USSA,
Anonymous | 03.24.08 - 9:35 am | #

blackhat writes:
Anon @ 9:35am,

how about USAAA?
blackhat | Homepage | 03.24.08 - 9:36 am | #

Bill Melater writes:
I share your sentiment Yearning. Maybe what I'm becoming concerned about is that I remember when million$ were spoken of in commonplace language and billion$ were astronomical.

Now billion$ are commonplace; trillion$ are also rapidly becoming so. Quadrillion$ are starting to appear in print.

I'm not sure what my point is other than bewilderment at pushing debt back and forth and its somehow achieving increased value at every step.
Bill Melater | 03.24.08 - 9:38 am | #

Walker writes:
Clinton proposes Greenspan lead foreclosure group

Sweet Jesus. First you have McCain with Phil Graham as his economic advisor. Now you have Clinton pimping Greenspan. All we need is Obama to get David Lereah as his economic advisor and we are well and truly screwed.
Walker | 03.24.08 - 9:40 am | #

ac writes:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economic experts should determine whether the U.S. government needs to buy up homes to stem the country's housing crisis, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will propose on Monday.

I hope they mean mortgages and not homes.

If I'm a businesses operating in the US and the government is seriously looking at using public dollars to buy homes outright, then I'm seriously looking to no longer operate in the US -- just being rational about the situation, I'm not going to want to see a large portion of my earnings redirected by the government to purchase unneeded homes.

Maybe the damage was done years ago by business itself, but however and whenever, this does not sound like a country that has a viable business climate.

Maybe time to find one that does.

ac | 03.24.08 - 9:42 am | #

awgee writes:
\
Why isn't anybody asking why JP Morgan is willing to pay $10 per share for a stock that is worth less than $0. Why is JPM willing to take on Bear Stearns' liabilities greater than $29B? And isn't the MSM asking why? I want to know. Don't you?.\
awgee | 03.24.08 - 9:43 am | #

ac writes:

Sweet Jesus. First you have McCain with Phil Graham as his economic advisor. Now you have Clinton pimping Greenspan. All we need is Obama to get David Lereah as his economic advisor and we are well and truly screwed.

Looks like all those Whitehouse sleepovers really paid off for Greenspan.

ac | 03.24.08 - 9:44 am | #

Matt writes:
What type of blowback could we see if the bondholders don't get their way and this triggers some hits in the CDS market??

It seems to me (in my limited knowledge) that the last thing ANYONE wants is to get troubles from CDS right now.

Is it possible that JPM has had time to sit down, sort through the bullshit, realize they can cover what is out there and the Fed is saying "use up the non-recourse loans to boost the share price" and in turn keep any CDS activity to a minimum???

The counterparty risk here is astronomical. Who has it?? Finding out is going to be the fun part!
Matt | 03.24.08 - 9:44 am | #

Walker writes:
Why isn't anybody asking why JP Morgan is willing to pay $10 per share for a stock that is worth less than $0.

I suspect it has something to do with a $30 billion non-recourse loan. That allows JPM to default on all the really bad stuff.
Walker | 03.24.08 - 9:46 am | #

safe_as_apartments writes:
Rule number one of politics: Never believe anything said during campaigns. I doubt Clinton--or any other candidate for that matter--will be able to do anything to prop up housing prices in the long run.

Clinton's Greenspan name-dropping reminds me of the Russian politicians who invoke Lenin or Stalin. "Things were so much better then..."
safe_as_apartments | 03.24.08 - 9:46 am | #

Bill Melater writes:
Are there a slew of Greenspans? Or is this "ARMs are the greatest thing since sliced bread" Greenspan?

Semi-OT: I was bugged on the phone the other day by "Janine", who asked me who I would be voting for. Naturally, I asked "Janine on behalf of who?" "Oh. HRC," she told me.

"I won't be voting for her," I told her.

Normally, I'd refrain from discussing politics here but the dike was already breached this morning. Truth is, I'm sick of dynastic politics.
Bill Melater | 03.24.08 - 9:53 am | #

Maven writes:
"we have rigged markets where government intervention will only increase"

Update from Bloomberg; first reported $100 billion:

March 24 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Home Loan Banks were freed to increase their purchase of mortgage-backed bonds by about $150 billion as part of a government effort to pump money back into a market that slumped as the housing crisis deepened.
...
The approval for Federal Home Loan Banks to increase their purchases comes a week after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-chartered mortgage-finance companies, were cleared to buy at least $200 billion of mortgage securities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ne...slUE& refer=home
Maven | 03.24.08 - 9:55 am | #

revro writes:
Sweet Jesus. First you have McCain with Phil Graham as his economic advisor. Now you have Clinton pimping Greenspan. All we need is Obama to get David Lereah as his economic advisor and we are well and truly screwed.
Walker
and i thought Obama has Mr.Volcker behind him. You know that mean old men who set interest rates to 20ties xD
revro | 03.24.08 - 10:04 am | #

bobr writes:
I have a loan with Bear Stearns. I am willing and able to fund now. I will pay $85,000. Loan is current no late payments. Where and to whom should I direct my offer?

Property located in Longview, Washington
3/2 2124 sq ft blt 1993
6/4/06 Loan; Alt-A No Doc No Job
LTV; 65% $175,000
Fix 30 years
PI; 6.75%
bobr | 03.24.08 - 10:12 am | #

sk writes:
Our man of the people, James Cramer says on CNBC:

"The American Public doesn't know jack!"

Well, he should open his show with that comment - lets see his ratings then.

-K
sk | 03.24.08 - 10:13 am | #

idoc writes:
i believe that history will state that Ben Bernanke was an arrogant, little academic pawn of a man who caused the worst financial catastrophe the world has ever known.
idoc | 03.24.08 - 10:13 am | #

energyecon writes:
Hey anyone catch the existing homes number that is supposed to be out?
energyecon | 03.24.08 - 10:15 am | #

vader writes:
"We've already established what you are, ma'am. Now we're just haggling over the price."

George Bernard Shaw via Winston Churchill

Various stories. The one I like most is that Shaw hating the British Nobility is supposed to have ask a Countess if she would sleep with him for a million pounds and she said 'yes' then he asked her about 20 quid.....

http://www.elise.com/quotes/quot.../ shawquotes.htm

In any case it started British and quid and changed to US and $$.

With the fall in the dollar, the British one is the best.
vader | 03.24.08 - 10:17 am | #

Clyde writes:
I don't think the Fed has thought this through. We could have another run on Bear AND doom future broker bailouts with the current decision to let the $2 price go by the boards. Looks like the Fed has gotten a case of the fleas...
Clyde | Homepage | 03.24.08 - 10:18 am | #

Simian writes:
This was a screwed up takeover.
Without declaring bankruptcy, it is hard to takeover a public company where the shareholders don't want to be taken over.
So the smart move today was to dilute the stock and give the new shares to JPM so that they could vote the shares their way.
Of course, this is going to cause the big stockholders to sue for all of this probably illegal manipulation.
Simian | 03.24.08 - 10:23 am | #

bluestatedon writes:
"ok, we just established our raison d'être for tomorrows huge rally in the mkts."

You called it correctly... looks like the rally's got a good start already.

Amazing what several tons of bondo, spackling, and contact paper can do to hide the fact that the house is rotting from within.
bluestatedon | 03.24.08 - 10:23 am | #

bZb writes:
We still keep talking about "moral hazard" when there is clearly no morality in this business. It's just business -- for everyone involved, from IB's to the Fed.
bZb | 03.24.08 - 10:25 am | #

idoc writes:
several ppl here have asked what it will take to end this nonsense.

i say make me head of a SWF of a country that historically has been abused by the US. lets say China. i would then go to a few of my buddy SWF's, like Russia, and say "lets get together and short the US stock mkt. its one of the most overvalued rigged ponzi schemes in existence today". all we have to do is get momentum going in the RIGHT direction which is down.

so we start shorting and driving down prices. pretty soon all the pigmen, who really do know the game is rigged and that the US is in a deep recession with the worst to come, all start piling on to drive the mkts down to fair value.

it would be a no brainer.
idoc | 03.24.08 - 10:38 am | #

Rob Dawg writes:
Can't they use some of the money left over in the Super SIV fund to get the deal done?
Rob Dawg | Homepage | 03.24.08 - 10:42 am | #

Interesting Times writes:
Why doesn't everyone just buy long and hold? It's obviously the only effective strategy.

Rising tides raising all ships et al...
Interesting Times | 03.24.08 - 10:43 am | #

pd130 writes:

Are there a slew of Greenspans? Or is this "ARMs are the greatest thing since sliced bread" Greenspan?

las writes:
This all reminds of a picture that was in the news much about a year ago -- a big snake (python?) that had died while trying to swallow an alligator.
las | 03.24.08 - 11:11 am | #

bpsqwerty writes:
"Clinton, a presidential candidate and senator from New York, said the Federal Housing Administration should "stand ready" to buy, restructure and resell failed mortgages to strengthen the ailing U.S. economy."

what's next, is she going to demand the Gub'ment fix them all up with new roofs and paint too? these people are insane...
bpsqwerty | 03.24.08 - 1:27 pm | #

Worried writes:
Idoc

>>i say make me head of a SWF of a country that historically has been abused by the US. lets say China.

In WW2 China got massive support from the US to help them against Japan

Under Nixon China was given 'most favoured trading nation' status and i cannot recall that being changed since then.

With US help China has risen to world power status.

Think about it and join the dots please......
Worried | Homepage | 03.24.08 - 1:56 pm | #