How exposed to non-performing 100% loans is JPM Chase?

I asked earlier whether this "bail out" or Bears Stearns was really a bailout of Chase. A few people said Chase has almost no exposure to risky loans. I said B of A had the least exposure. I stand by that. Chase was doing 100% stated income loans just 9 months ago, Chase sub-prime was still doing 100% stated income loans 9 months ago.

Bank of America had no sub-prime division and only did minimal Alt-A. Chase was a huge player in Alt-A.

I guess the real question is - Is the $30 billion socialist tax payer funded FED guarantee to JPM Chase ONLY for non-performing existing Bears Stearns paper? OR can that $30 billion guarantee be used for JPM Chase held non-Bears paper? If it's the latter - this is a bail out of Chase.

http://ml-implode.com/ailing/lender_Chas...

There is a tiny bit on Chase's problems.

It would be absolutely false to say that JPM Chase (JPM) has "no" or even "little exposure" to risky loans.

I would also have to question whether B of A (BAC) had low or no exposure to risk loans especially with the proposed acquisition of Countrywide (CFC), which by the way is still trading well below the takeover price on a percentage basis. I understand that BAC has no subprime risk (heard on CNBC). I don鈥檛 know this for fact.

Note. The problem is not just subprime it is also with Alt-A and Prime loans which Countrywide admitted in an earnings report in mid 2007 abouts.

Last Wednesday (03-12-2008) the head of Bear Stearns (BSC) said that their capital levels were fine, their earrings were fine and basically everything was fine at Bear Sterns (CNBC TV, 03-12-2008). Two days later plus a weekend and whack! BSC was taken out back behind the woodshed and beaten with the ugly stick. I expect JPM stock to fall on this BSC $2.00 take under deal. (A Take Under Deal, at is called because it was bought for less than Friday鈥檚 market price of about $30.00). So is BAC ok, we鈥檒l prob better than BSC, but all financials are being hit for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The $30B loans from the FED are secured by BSC and or JPM. If the loans default, tax payers make up the difference. The FED however under their program forces the bank of responsibility to take a 鈥渉aircut鈥?on the bonds. SO if the bonds had a market value of say $40 Billion, the FED might say we鈥檒l give you $30 Billion and the bonds are collateral. So the FED can take a whack of $10 Billion (in this example) before they actually take loan losses 鈥?i.e. the tax payer starts paying for the bail out.

The FED made the deal more affordable for JPM by lower Fed Funds Rate by 录 point on a Sunday 鈥?I鈥檝e never seen a rate cut happen on a weekend - ever.

Is this a JPM bailout? I don鈥檛 think so. I think it helps JPM make the BSC deal more affordable. I think JPM is getting a great deal, and BSC would rather take $2.00 versus take ZERO in bankruptcy. My understanding is that BSC would have $6 Billion in negative shareholder equity in a bankruptcy proceeding, meaning stockholders would have received zilch if BSC filed for BK (Chapter 7 or 11).