Talk:Bear Stearns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] JPMorgan Takeover

I question why people are editing the Bear Stearn's page as if Bear has any future viability as an independent entity. Old information regarding Bear's business and personnel have no relevance given the fact that the firm's business has collapsed and must be sold or liquidated. Jaedglass (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely disagree that the firm's history has no relevance. No matter what the future holds historic information on what the company did will be as encyclopedic as it is now, if nothing else to serve as the background to why the collapse happened in the first place. Once the deal has been completed the page should be retained (obviously changing references to past tense) and the Infobox updated for a defunct company. Richc80 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Richc80's disagreement. Standard Oil and White Star Line both have articles detailing their operations from back when those companies were independent entities. Why should this article not be treated in the same manner? DO56 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My criticism was completely misunderstood by Richc80 and DO56. Historic information on the rise of a venerable Wall Street company is important as business history. However, how one approaches writing such an encyclopedia entry differs from the tact one uses when writing about a business that is a going concern. Moreover, while we all agree that historical information is important, what little historical information on the founding and growth of Bear Stear that was included in this article was removed on March 18. Much was what is left regarding Bear prior to the mortgage crisis is merely a listing of obscure subsidiaries, which may or may not exist subsequent to the merger, and a discussion on business lines that will be absorbed into JPMorgan businesses, but are discussed as if they will have continued existed as separate businesses within JPMorgan.Jaedglass (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ticker

Yahoo! say that Bear Stearns Companies Inc. shares are listed on NYSE, nyse.com say it's Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. shares. Which is it?--Jerryseinfeld 14:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quick check shows that NYSE has updated their label to match Yahoo!. Although I think the ultimate source on this is the SEC filings, right? That will show what their full official name is. --Thesilence 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

doesn't 80%+10%+12%=102%?? i think that info is slightly off 84.66.241.237 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

Can't find any history of the company, expect for the fact that it was founded in 1923. Anyone has any addional information? I think this should certanly be a part of the article.

Francisburns2 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Questionable content?

'"One of the most important people working for the firm is a man named Michael Polyakov. Mr. Polyakov is currently responsible for all the operations globally. Akin to CEO, he is head of all departments and business functions. Although he maintains the title of "Wealth Advisor" it should be noted that this title infers The World's Wealth Advisor. He commands such responsibilities from a tiny little cubicle in the wealth advisory department of the New York Branch. Although He wasnt alive while the bank's original founders created the organization, Mr. Polyakov is credited with the firm's success from the very start. Some would even argue that he is the Company's Founder. Michael tries to keep a low profile however his son who currently is in his 6th year at Lynn University has high aspirations for him and the bank. Together the Polyakov Duo will bring wealth advisory to a new high recruiting such account's as Hal and Brendon. These two accounts combined are worth more than The Republic of China's entire foreign exchange deposits."'

Sources?

Francisburns2 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

the above is vandalism and does not belong . ABANumber 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why historical information which was including in this article has been edited out. For example information on the leaders of Bear, including Ace Greenberg, were removed without explanation, as was information on the founding and expansion of the company. This article is very short on historical information and emphasis should be placed on expanding this breadth of this information rather than removing it. Jaedglass (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-prime Mortgage Hedge Fund crisis

I think that perhaps the recent news [1] should be included here. What do you think? --Frunobulax 16:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the term "bail out". Bear didn't strictly "bail out" the less-leveraged fund, i.e. Bear did not offer to simply inject cash as a subordinated investor. What actually happened is that the monies "pledged" were entirely COLLATERALISED. I don't consider that to be a "bail out" since Bear's collateralised loan would have to be paid off first before investors got their capital back.

We can't find the predicate in this sentence: "Theories as to why the share price is above the purchase price that some shareholders doubt that the JP Morgan acquisition will be consummated at $2 per share." Rncooper (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Past tense

[edit] Pre-closing discussion

I don't think we should describe the company in the past tense until the deal closes. The stockholders still have to approve, and considering that they just saw a drop of over 95%, that will be an interesting scene, and the deal itself won't close until early summer even on the fastest track. The company still exists until such time as all the papers are signed. Antandrus (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And more to the point, even if the deal does go through, the firm will still exist at least for some meaningful period of time afterwards. It certainly seems likely that its operations will be folded into JPM, but, the point is that JPM hasn't said how they plan to integrate them. It would seem that the appropriate thing to do is indicate the JPM has made the offer and then update the firm's status as it becomes clearer. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but it is important to mention that JPMorgan has management authority over Bear-Stearns pending shareholder approval of the merger. Roadrunner (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post-closing discussion

In light of the deal closing, I think it is appropriate to being editing this article to reflect that Bear Stearn no longer exists as a going concern. For example, statements like:

  • "The main business areas, based on 2006 net revenue distributions, are..."
  • "The company's business includes..."
  • "Bear Stearns' World Headquarters is located at 383 Madison Avenue..."
  • "The company currently employs more than 15,500 people worldwide."

should be edited out or be discussed as historic not present facts.Jaedglass (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Mayer

Does anyone know why Joseph Bear's and Robert Stearns's names form the company's name while "Mayer" is excluded? There must be a reason, but it isn't to be found in the History section. Also, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/14/bcnbear214.xml mentions how much money (500k) the trio started it with, but I don't know how to configure links as they are shown in the References section. DO56 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Mayer's name was too ethnic. There was more antisemitism at that time than there is now.Lestrade (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Bad grammar

The sentence "Theories ..." is very bad grammar. The bad grammar has been removed.

[edit] Corporate culture/folklore

Is the Corporate culture/folklore section correct or even needed? TubularWorld (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

[2] Moved from article. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 18:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone else needs to clean this up, but Bear Stearns sold for 10$ a share after 29 billion in securities was bought off the top by the Fed. Originally the deal was $30 bn bought off by the fed and Bear Stearns sold at $2 a share, but that created a big stink and they renegotiated. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUAnlkw3yDDadoOnNdjg-orgp_pQD8VQE8FG2 that link will give you an AP article confirming this plus a little, but doesn't have enough info to do this issue justice. Ive got a paper due tomorrow and was really hoping the wiki would offer a decent synopsis so I could wrap my mind around this whole thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.106.36 (talk • contribs)

This is the guy who stuck that in the article, logged into my account now so you can contact me if I messed something up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew.Cason (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updates needed

I do not have time, but a couple of additions need to be made. Like the criticism of James Cayne (for being at a bridge tournament), testimony at congress, shareholder lawsuit, and the role (or lack thereof) of SEC in the rescue. A lot of backstory to this needs to be added -Nodekeeper (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake

Both 2 and 10 dollars are probably faked, to give the impression that Bear is not completely bust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC) We got the same deal with Meriwether and Long Term. The 99% loss at Long Term is the same as at Bear and gave the impression that Long Term was not completely bust. The 99% alleged loss is becoming traditional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) The price of the shares in Bear Stearns is remarkably stable at about $10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.211.191 (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Subsidiaries

I have attempted to remove or edit this paragraph several times, but non-registered users have reverted any changes multiple times:

"Bear Stearns also conducts business through other wholly owned subsidiaries, including Bear Stearns Global Lending Limited, Custodial Trust Company, Bear Stearns International Limited, Bear Stearns Bank, Bear Stearns Financial Products Inc., Bear Stearns Capital Markets Inc., EMC Mortgage Corporation, Bear Stearns Mortgage Capital Corporation, Bear Wagner, Bear Stearns Credit Products Inc., Bear Energy LP, Bear Stearns Forex Inc., Bear Stearns Asset Management Inc and Rooftop Mortgages. Bear Stearns also holds an 80% interest in Bear Measurisk."

I think it is meaningless information regarding obscure subsidiaries of a now acquired company. If people have more detailed and pertinent information on these entities, including this paragraph might make sense, however, in its current form I cannot see any reason to continue including a mere listing of companies that is in no way informative to a reader. I would like to hear from others on this. Jaedglass (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see some value to the mention of the subs that didn't have "Bear Stearns" in the name. A reader might want to know that EMC Mortgage Corporation was a Bear Stearns sub. JamesMLane t c 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)