Every one got scared today because it came out that Bear Stearns was in danger of going under. But the fed rode to the rescue. Felix Salmon tries to justify the bail out….

While I have a certain amount of sympathy for this tough-love approach to the banking system, in the end I’m quite glad that Ben Bernanke and Tim Geither, softies that they are, went down the route that they did. Not because I think Bear’s shareholders deserve their $30 per share or whatever they’re going to end up receiving, but rather because of the sheer amount of wealth that could have been wiped off the stock and bond markets as a result.

It turns out, you see, that every mom-and-pop stock-market investor is actually, and rather unwittingly, taking investment-bank default risk, then. Which is why it’s nice to have a Fed on the lookout for them. So far, retail stock-market investors haven’t panicked; let’s try and keep it that way, shall we?

But for my money, I think the Naked Capitalism has the right take….

Bear is a large prime broker, which means it lends to hedge funds. It is also a significant counterparty in enough different credit markets that its collapse would have at a minimum caused panic as to who might have been hurt. You’d have a further scramble for liquidity and reluctance to lend, which is precisely the condition the Fed has been trying to alleviate.

In particular, according to Bloomberg, Bear was the second largest underwriter of mortgage bonds, The lead manager (I’m assuming Bear was also a significant lead manager) is the only one who knows where the bonds went and is thus in the best position to trade them. So Bear’s role as an important market-maker may have played into the calculus.

But the answer to the question of whether Bear should have been allowed to tank depends on how long it would take the crisis to pass. Swap spreads were elevated a full year after the LTCM rescue, but here the relevant metric would be how long the acute phase might take. If it was two weeks or a month, and no one save maybe some middling sized hedge funds (or a lot of teeny ones) would fail, that would have been acceptable. But the Fed couldn’t assess this in a 24 hour period. (However, some parties believe that the Fed’s $200 million TLSF was in part to assist Bear; if so, they’ve had at least a week to evaluate this risk. But in that case, I’m not certain they asked the right questions).

I still think Bear should have been permitted to fail. Now every the same size or larger knows the Fed will ride into the rescue. This is a terrible precedent. It also increases the odds of the Fed running out of firepower long before the crisis is over.

Even with the rescue, markets still dropped today.

Supposedly we had some good inflation data recently. Raise your hand if it reflects your personal experience.

Also read this from Naked Capitalism….

What did the Boskin Commission think was out of line? According to Wikipedia:

The report highlighted four sources of possible bias:

Substitution bias occurs because a fixed market basket fails to reflect the fact that consumers substitute relatively less for more expensive goods when relative prices change.

Outlet substitution bias occurs when shifts to lower price outlets are not properly handled.

Quality change bias occurs when improvements in the quality of products, such as greater energy efficiency or less need for repair, are measured inaccurately or not at all.

New product bias occurs when new products are not introduced in the market basket, or included only with a long lag.

So the Boskin report would have us believe that if I switch from steak to hamburger because beef prices are up, we should only capture the change in how I consume (ie, inflation is new hamburger/old steak price, not new steak/old steak). That is patently bogus. Similarly, the outlet substitution seems rife for abuse (“Ooh, the number is going to be really bad this month! Can we find anywhere selling X cheaper so we can put that in the model instead?”).

From USA Today….

Consider Tamara Campbell, who raided her 401(k) after her husband was laid off from his job as an occupational technician, and they fell behind on their mortgage for several months. “If I hadn’t done that, we would have been foreclosed on last year,” says Campbell, who lives in a Denver suburb.

Such hardship withdrawals began rising last year and, by January this year, had exceeded January 2007 levels. During the first month of the year, as the economic slowdown tightened pressure on mortgage holders, hardship withdrawals rose 23% at plans that Merrill Lynch (MER) administers, compared with the same period in 2007, says Kevin Crain, managing director of the Merrill Lynch Retirement Group.

The 401(k) withdrawals are rising mainly because people such as Campbell and her husband want to save their homes. Merrill Lynch found that the primary reason for the rise in hardship withdrawals was to prevent foreclosure or eviction, based on its sampling of applications filed in January.

Likewise, in the first month of the year, compared with January 2007, Great-West Retirement Services saw a 20% increase in hardship withdrawals to save a home. And Principal Financial (PFG) reports that in January it received 245 calls from participants who inquired about 401(k) withdrawals to prevent a foreclosure or eviction, up dramatically from 45 similar calls it received in January 2007.

For workers, the consequences can be severe. About 85% of employers bar employees from making 401(k) contributions for six months after taking a hardship withdrawal, says Pamela Hess, director of retirement research at Hewitt Associates. (HEW) Worse, employees who pull money out of tax-deferred 401(k) plans before age 591/2 generally must pay a 10% penalty on top of the taxes owed.

We were trying to avoid selecting another Sippican Cottage blog post for rant of week. We did not want to make it seem like every rant of the week was going to come from him. But this one was just too good to pass up.

For those that don’t already know it, we should point out that Sippican Cottage lives in the great state Massachusetts. Recently, that state passed a law requiring people to purchase health insurances. That means that if the state deems that you can pay for it, you have to pay for it. Otherwise you have to pay a large fine.

To say that Sippican Cottage was unhappy about this new law would be an understatement. When it was first past he just about blew his top. Now that it has been in place for a while, his rant is not as explosively angry as his first one was. But his rant still has the air a barely suppressed rage as he warns America what to expect from universal health care.