<![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> A Super Grande Latte Mocha Frappuccino at Starbucks costs more than Bear Sterns, if you get a biscotti with it.

famousauthor

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> I don't know if one of you has Lexis Nexis or not, but I would love to find that article again.

Trying to look back, I remembered that the author mentioned new fancy buildings. Of course, when a company grows, it needs new space. The author found some correlation between the extravagance/fanciness of a place and the general downward trend of their stock following moving into the building.

Fidel on the Roof

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> @jimmycaynesbluntashes: We're not talking about the higher-ups here are we? They'll land on their feet. It's the grunts who put their retirement into company stock that is the problem. Those are the people who got wiped out but I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. Scary they don't understand what diversification means.

dalejo

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> What about Nick Denton?

sample032

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> @dalejo: The way most investment banks work is that the higher-ups are paid in restricted stock options...meaning their 'big bonus' is actually just company stock that they can't touch for 3 years. Even if they were smart and sold it the instant the restrictions were lifted (3 years later) they still have the last three bonus cycles that are worth pretty much nothing. Almost all firms do this as a retention policy but there is talk of some changes seeing these disatrous effects.

jimmycaynesbluntashes

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> $236 million isn't the total price. The liablities must be included. They are huge, and worse, nobody knows how huge.

I'm not saying JP Morgan Chase didn't get a steal of a deal, but the cash price is just part of the total price.

old-and-in-the-way

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> I had it at $65 4 years ago, glad I sold.

YourGoldKeith

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> I so, so wish David Beckham had bought Bear Stearns.

Koreanish

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> @Drunken_Philosopher: And you would have thought they learned from Enron about where to put their savings.

dalejo

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> @Drunken_Philosopher: Oh, nm. Just read your link. Double ouch.

Furious George

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> @Drunken_Philosopher: Who said anything about people's life savings being depleted? JPM assumes all of Bear's obligations and liabilities now, which means clients' and employees' money under management is secure. Unless you're talking about stock in Bear Stearns itself. In which case, yeah, ummm...ouch.

Furious George

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> It would have been awesome though if those trailer park powerball winners were the ones that actually bought Bear Stearns.

Buzz Killington

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> jesus christ;
worth 14B last week, now just 236M

This should be made into a movie

Lawrence

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> Schadenfreude, eh? It IS fun to revel in the downfall of a financial giant, but it's not as much fun when you consider that Bear wasn't just owned by Billionaire investors: most of the employees also had their life savings tied up in the company, and there really isn't anything funny about a large group of upper-middle class people having their life savings depleted, right before most of them get fired.

Drunken_Philosopher

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> @Fidel on the Roof: Just to be clear, Bear completed their Madison Ave building in 2001, so following that logic, you would have also missed the stock's run up to $170.

No wasteful spending here. Bear spent $500 million on the building and half of that was technology and interiors (per todays WSJ). So net of the "synthetic lease" the firm had on the building (approx $570 million) Bear had between $500-$900 million in equity.

Notwithstanding the firm's risk management issues, the building was an unequivocal success.

Wdeal

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> @Fidel on the Roof: Makes sense, kind of. On the surface, a shiny new building might seem like a bold indicator of success, or at least confidence. But more often than not, it signals wasteful spending (and attendant bad management). There's really no reason for most companies not undergoing exponential growth to move into newer, fancier digs. So in many cases, a management team that wastes its time and resources acquiring a new and wholly unneeded office building is probably screwing the pooch on other matters as well.

Furious George

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> I read somewhere that when a company builds a new building that it is time to run. I wish I remembered where I read that. I kind of see the correlation.

Fidel on the Roof

]]> <![CDATA[12 things that cost more than Bear Stearns]]> You forgot one.
13. Bear Stearns' brand-new headquarters building: about $1.5 billion.

Hythloday

]]>