Esquire Interview on Bear Stearns
>
So George Clooney and I are having a few beers, and we start talking Wall Street, Bear Stearns and all the rest . . . The next thing I know, I'm faced, he whips out a tape recorder, and being pretty soused, I just go off for 45 minutes. You can read most of it in this month's mag right online.
Good stuff (be forewarned of the R-rated language). Clooney always gets me saying stuff that's a bit embarrassing.
Oh, well, such is life. What's a few F-bombs between friends?
>
Source:
Don't Fear the Bear
Barry Ritholtz
Esquire, March 20, 2008, 7:45 AM
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/dont-fear-bear-stearns
Thursday, March 20, 2008 | 02:15 PM | Permalink
| Comments (44)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e55151ea4d8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Esquire Interview on Bear Stearns:
Comments
OK, not George Clooney. And not drunk. But all the rest is true.
Posted by: Barry Ritholtz | Mar 20, 2008 2:28:46 PM
good on ya BR!!
To bad it's in a mag that no one reads any more......LOL
Ciao
MS
Posted by: michael schumacher | Mar 20, 2008 2:30:19 PM
Awesome, Barry, totally awesome.
Posted by: MitchN | Mar 20, 2008 2:30:58 PM
Nice article, Barry. But would it kill you to smile?
~~~
BR: Old photo -- but the only one in the office.
Posted by: Mr. Obvious | Mar 20, 2008 2:31:23 PM
BTW I get your humor......wait for the people to come here and say "Wow BR and Clooney are drinkin' buds".....
Ciao
MS
Posted by: michael schumacher | Mar 20, 2008 2:34:15 PM
"I’m not negative, I'm just realistic. God forbid you’re diagnosed with cancer, you can’t walk around and say, eh, it’s a flesh wound. The first step in fixing anything is identifying it realistically. The second step is understanding that all of these economic problems are cyclical."
You sound downright reasonable. I wish I made that much sense when I'm drunk.
Posted by: Empire | Mar 20, 2008 2:35:36 PM
and that you get your H from......
Ciao
MS
Posted by: michael schumacher | Mar 20, 2008 2:35:58 PM
Shoulda refreshed the comments. I knew not George Clooney, on account of I can read a byline. But drunk seemed credible enough.
Posted by: Empire | Mar 20, 2008 2:38:07 PM
Well damn dude! That story rocked without the correction. But at least you kept the f-bombs, which language is very much called for in any description of our present situation. Now I must seek out this magazine for to read of it!
Posted by: tulsatime | Mar 20, 2008 2:38:16 PM
Wow - great summary and killer writing!
Posted by: Kurt Miln | Mar 20, 2008 2:42:14 PM
This is the best article/rant on the mortgage crisis, bar none. Just awesome
Posted by: sw | Mar 20, 2008 2:53:11 PM
Yeah, but on the other hand, you have to admire all the creative ways people can steal. God, people are smart when self interest and easy money come together. And it look like most of them not only get away with it, they can publicly tell the world to screw itself.
Maybe Fox could put a sitcom on TV something like The Office, but the characters are all avaricious wall street types who think of ways to pump and dump, borrow and inflate, lie, cheat, and steal, and all sorts of hijinks ... JUST LIKE REAL LIFE! And only the suckers get in real trouble.
It's only illegal if there's a law against it. And you don't belong in a good office on Wall Street, in fact you could justifiably be called a giant pussy, if you can't think of news ways to steal faster than Congress can create laws against it.
Posted by: cinefoz | Mar 20, 2008 2:57:41 PM
Im done with our market. The gov't is rigging it or something.
Jobs lost, profits down and it doesn't go down because they have to protect baby boomers retirement.
My opinion is our US market is not a free running market right now.
Posted by: John Borchers | Mar 20, 2008 3:04:03 PM
Sooo... BR -
How come your photo is above the headline on the side "To the Women in Our Audience: We Need Your Help"
Dude, not a good juxtaposition. Or then again maybe it is. ;-)
Good article btw.
Posted by: Gary | Mar 20, 2008 3:08:40 PM
Who is wall streets bitch
http://www.ny.frb.org/newsevents/news/markets/2008/rp080320.html
they can change the rules even before the ink dries on the rule they just pulled out of their $ss.
Taxpayers and anyone not connected are screwed again.
John B., you are not alone.
Posted by: MarkTX | Mar 20, 2008 3:12:56 PM
Thanks guys enjoyed reading your responses to Barry's article. It sure does seem like if your not an insider you might as well say fuck it!
Posted by: JustinTheSkeptic | Mar 20, 2008 3:20:56 PM
MarkTX
I think also Doug Kass recognizes this from what he said the other night.
You can't short our market the gov't is locking it up. But you can't tell where because some days they just let it fall.
I'm 90% sure it's being rigged.
Posted by: John Borchers | Mar 20, 2008 3:24:47 PM
I know I'm diving into waters over my head, but I can't help making this simple observation.
I love the whole shape of the piece. Super direct, no BS, and, as far as my ignit ass can tell, spot-freaking-on.
But when you ask the rhetorical question "Who's running the place?" the literal answer is: nobody. And that's the set up.
This is "government is the problem" come full circle.
The freedom of "free markets" depends on rules, and those rules need to be enforced. Is anybody advocating a free market in armed services? Nuclear materials?
The least rules necessary to ensure a level field, sure. But more than none.
So I find this talk from big finance incredibly refreshing. I actually heard Kudlow use the term "collectivism" instead of "socialism" when uber-commie Bernie Sanders was on his show.
Wait, did I just make this a left-right thing?
Incredible piece. Thank you.
Posted by: Frymaster | Mar 20, 2008 3:28:23 PM
They knew real estate prices would come eventually come down, and they knew a lot of people would get hurt. They just thought it would be other people that got hurt and not them. Too effin' bad for them.
Posted by: Bob A | Mar 20, 2008 3:32:53 PM
Man, you tapped my vibe.
Posted by: odograph | Mar 20, 2008 4:10:49 PM
Well Said Sir! I don't think I could have said it better myself ... in fact, you took the words right out of my mouth!
Posted by: Donny | Mar 20, 2008 4:26:27 PM
Don't fear the bear? Someone should make up a spoof song using that Blue Oyster Cult classic "(don't fear) The Reaper". lol
Posted by: twistytop | Mar 20, 2008 4:27:30 PM
"And now this current generation is pretty much fucked."
I hope you're right, but (as a post-Boomer) I'm more worried that I'm the one who's [radio edit]. The Boomers are gonna cry hard and try to accelerate the intergenerational transfer. They're going to hang around in their jobs longer with legislated protections for the aging. They're going to be cutting property taxes, which will only short-change the schools and universities their grandchildren might attend. (Don't forget all the targeted tax exemptions for retirees they'll soon be demanding.) They're going to throw the borders wide open to shave 5% of the prices at Wal-mart. "Let the poor, third world young people do all the work these lazy American young people won't do!"
I think we're in for serious intergenerational conflict down the road.
Posted by: Chris D. | Mar 20, 2008 4:48:55 PM
Senor Barry,
As the Brits would commend: "Spot On"
Your writing is as forthright as it is intensely & brutally honest, tinged with your immense integrity!
Clearly focused, Concise, and Collectively Cohesive in logic.
Thank You, Thank You, THANK YOU!
Posted by: SR | Mar 20, 2008 4:50:11 PM
From Investopedia on Glass-Steagall "The limitations of the GSA on the banking sector sparked a debate over how much restriction is healthy for the industry. Many argued that allowing banks to diversify in moderation offers the banking industry the potential to reduce risk, so the restrictions of the GSA could have actually had an adverse effect, making the banking industry riskier rather than safer. Furthermore, big banks of the post-Enron market are likely to be more transparent, thus lessening the possibility of assuming too much risk or masking unsound investment decisions. As such, reputation has come to mean everything in today's market, and that could be enough to motivate banks to regulate themselves."
First how hilarious is that last sentence at this point?
I wonder: after 65 years of trying to get The GSA repealed, was doing so repayment to the banks involved in the LTCM bailout? If so it fits that Bear Stearns would be the bank to blow up first.
Posted by: Peter_BK | Mar 20, 2008 4:59:20 PM
