Beckham vs. Bear Stearns: Who's worth more?
A quickie: an e-mailer points out the fire-sale price for Bear Stearns -- just $236 million on Sunday night -- wouldn't even be enough to buy out soccer star David Beckham, whose five-year contract with the Los Angeles Galaxy, plus endorsement opportunities, has been valued at $250 million.
Click here for other "value judgments" -- Bear Stearns vs. the Dodgers, Bear Stearns vs. the most expensive high school ever built in Los Angeles, and Bear Stearns vs. Howard Stern.
Nor would the Bear bounty be enough to pay Yankee slugger Alex Rodriguez, whose most recent contract is reportedly worth $275 million.
Of course, the last time I checked, neither Beckham nor Rodriguez had exposure to billions of dollars worth of toxic mortgage-backed securities.
Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com.
Photo: Getty Images

and unfortunately, this is just the beginning.
We'll see more losses in the next few months and another leg down for the housing market in SoCal
http://tinyurl.com/yo9gxt
Posted by: NationalBubble.com | March 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
The first question is : Are they worth it ?
Math question :After they pay their agents, managers, lawyers, handlers, stylists,assistants, and drug dealers and ex wives how much have they got left ?
Posted by: CD | March 17, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I'd pay more for Beckham, although you might get more work out of Bear Stearns.
Posted by: brownonthebeach | March 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Stupid post Pete. It's safe to assume no one here gives a s**t about self-indulgent athletes and their ho*ker wives.
Posted by: 0.01% | March 17, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Note to Peter Viles-
Bear Stearns has a newer state-of-the art HQ building in midtown Manhattan. I heard a rumor that the building alone is worth $8 per share. It would seem to me that $2 per share for the whole company is a huge bargain. Any truth to this?
Posted by: William Jones | March 17, 2008 at 01:10 PM
"Stupid post Pete. It's safe to assume no one here gives a s**t about self-indulgent athletes and their ho*ker wives."
Wow, apparently a little humor doesn't go over well with the crowd here Pete.
Posted by: Andrew Z | March 17, 2008 at 01:14 PM
I disagree 0.01%, I believe this post shows 2 things.
First it is shocking that the 5th largest bank in America, which was valued at 57B on Thursday, was sold for 236M on Sunday.
Second, that we pay athletes that much money.
We live in a crazy world.
Posted by: Mark in the 818 | March 17, 2008 at 01:26 PM
i wonder if Becks bought an overpriced stucko box in LA or if he was smart enough to rent?
Posted by: IToldu2CashOut | March 17, 2008 at 01:33 PM
While clever, agree it would be nice to have a posting instead on how Bear Stearns demise will impact the mortgage market in LA. Don't know if you saw PMI is badly wounded.
Some find it incredulous we may return to our parents lending pattern of 20% down on a house. It would seem we will be lucky if that is the worst that happens.
Mike S
Posted by: Mike S | March 17, 2008 at 01:40 PM
If Caligula could make a horse consul of Rome, Bear can certainly be sold for $2./shr.
Humans are probably the least intelligent species in the whole universe.
Posted by: MyLessThanPrimeBeef | March 17, 2008 at 02:21 PM
VILES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: mike | March 17, 2008 at 02:22 PM
I GUESS I NEED TO WRITE THE BLOG
i have a house for rent in sherman oaks on the hill and i am getting several responses to rent it for $4500.00 per month.
i called a r/e agent who said that the market for rentals is steaming in desirable areas right now(i called under the guise of a prospective tenant) and that i would need to act quickly to rent a place espically since i have 2 large dogs.
of course he told me that now was the time to buy because a fixer in that area could be purchased for $750.000-$900.000 and the conforming limits are up blah..blah...blah.
he says peopl;e are scared thats right SCARED to buy right now and thus rental demand is skyrocketing.
THOUGHTS/COMMENTS.....
Posted by: mike | March 17, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Re Mike and his house for rent in Sherman Oaks.
$ 4500.00 is about right. There are quite a few houses for rent here in the Encino Hills area and no one is taking the bait yet.They all want 7000.00 or 13000.00 for those mega mansions they cannot sale. The RE agents seem to want to put the same kind of pressure on renters. -Now is time to rent, don't miss out....-There is nothing to miss here....there is no rush either....Hope you find a good tenant . Who in their right mind would buy now ???
Posted by: CD | March 17, 2008 at 03:44 PM
1st, Beckham is much better to watch...
You guys need to understand that the $2 per share or $236M is just symbolic number, it has no meaning. It is the same as you sell a 10 year old car on the street for cash, and report to DMV that you sold it for $100, so that the buyer will pay peanuts for registration tax...
Bear is worth NEGATIVE value, something that the FED guaranteed to cover for Morgan Chase...
Their loans are extremely full of second mortgages and lines of credit that are worth less than ZERO. why? because servicing them is overhead, and upon foreclosure the junior leans are clean to zero. Bear was insolvent for a long time (ever since the value have dropped 20% or more), the thing is that everybody became aware of it on Friday....
mike, if you can rent your place for $4500...good for you. However, if you can sell it today for more than $700,000, sell and run with the money! Coz before you know it, there will be very few who can pay north of $3000 for a house.
Posted by: Laker | March 17, 2008 at 04:27 PM
My only "thought/comment", Mike, is that you're yet another realtor(R) Troll.
Go do your pathetic boosting somewhere else.
Posted by: eprobert | March 17, 2008 at 04:47 PM
Hmmm, Mike i wonder what the mortgage payments, taxes, etc, are on the 700-900k house? more than rent perhaps? Maybe people are willing to rent it for 4,500 because their smart enough to realize its going down in value so why buy when they can save tons of cash and risk by renting.
Posted by: IToldu2CashOut | March 17, 2008 at 05:17 PM
The first question is : Are they worth it ?
Math question :After they pay their agents, managers, lawyers, handlers, stylists,assistants, and drug dealers and ex wives how much have they got left ?
CD. I presume you're talking about the Bear Stearns people here. They'll have enough left for some two buck Chuck. (might even be renamed in their honor)Makes a change from Krug?
Posted by: Skinker | March 17, 2008 at 05:27 PM
do you have anything better to talk about????the bank gets $5500.00 per month from me. i would hardly call a $1000.00 loss per month boosting(i would assume you mean boasting but can't spell) and that doesn't include the property tax!!!!!!
Posted by: mike | March 17, 2008 at 05:54 PM
“The Fed can do no good at all if they effectively print money and give it to the banks, and the banks dig a hole in the ground and put it in there,” said Donald Brownstein, president of Structured Portfolio Management, a hedge fund in Stamford, Conn., that specializes in mortgage securities.
NY Times 3/17/08
Maybe some of those Wall Street holiday bonus checks went to buy mattresses, too. Gives a whole new meaning to "stocking stuffer."
Posted by: mbob | March 17, 2008 at 06:58 PM
hey people, last i heard the beckhams have a house in beverly hills! and you know they chose metro L.A., the best in the world!! buy now, get a great price and have a sangria!
Posted by: lefty | March 17, 2008 at 08:07 PM
I bet in 2005 I coulda bought a house in the Valley for what Bear Stearns sold for today.
Posted by: xtine | March 17, 2008 at 08:54 PM
xtine,
In 2005, Bear Stearns stock was worth $180-200....This weekend when to $2...
They simply removed two zeros...not a big deal.
So will the valley sellers asking $1,000,000. Remove two zeros....well maybe not that much, but a reduction of 40-50% is very real.
Posted by: Laker | March 18, 2008 at 08:06 AM