Reply With Quote
not to hear them tell it. immune is probably too strong a word.
finance sector is immune to regulation and any restraints.
not to hear them tell it. immune is probably too strong a word.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-banks/257050/An analysis by researchers at Syracuse University found that under the Obama administration federal financial-fraud prosecutions have dropped to 20-year lows, Peter Boyer and James Schweizer wrote in The Daily Beast last week. Prosecutions are down 39 percent from 2003, when executives at Enron and WorldCom were convicted in high-profile cases.
Today, the number of financial-fraud cases is at one-third the level it was during the Clinton administration. (Obama administration officials argue that the number would be higher if new categories of crimes were counted.)
"Casting Romney as a plutocrat will be easy enough," Boyer and Schweizer wrote. "But the president's claim as avenging populist may prove trickier, given his own deeply complicated, even conflicted, relationship with Big Finance."
so are they gettin sued or what?
I'm not current on the lawsuits, if that's what you're asking. I've no idea what's happening on that front.
they're liars
in spite of their continuining, uninterrputed, unlimited power to up the planet, they about being victimized and bullied if any regs are put on them. the entire financial sector to
Not really sure what grounds there would be for any lawsuits against JPM over this. Unless there's more to the story that we haven't heard yet, specifically JPM having done something illegal, this is just a case of JPM losing money on some bad business decisions. If that's all there is to this story, then things pretty much end with a "sucks to be you, JPM".
That being said, there's never a shortage of lawyers interested in filing lawsuits against deep pockets, so we can't rule out the possibility of there being some kind of shareholder lawsuit. Not sure there would be much merit behind their case though.
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 05-15-2012 at 12:49 PM.
I get how raising rates helps Wall Street but I get how it hurts everyone else. Why volunteer to pay more as a country and as individuals when we should just actually deal with the problem of being TBTF?
I'm not even sure it would work. Sure, it might present safer and better options, but since when are capitalistic enterprises satisfied with a modest return when they can get higher returns? Did we really learn nothing from the systematic behavior during the sub prime mortgage debacle? They weren't merely trying to get back to what bonds would give them.
"a lack of confidence seems to be holding things back."
ah, the old confidence fairy. Still believe in it? at your age?
Next, tell us high taxes on corps and the very wealthy, on small businesses, plus regulations are killing the economy. If only the 1% were much more wealthy, we'd all be loving the trickle down largesse.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-16-2012 at 05:36 AM.
Don't Look Now -- Banks Are Still Ruining America: 6 Harsh Lessons from the JP Morgan Fiasco
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/155431
http://volokh.com/2012/05/15/is-jp-m...or-a-molehill/Yale Law School’s Jonathan Macey places JP Morgan’s $2 billion loss in perspective. His article begins:
Regulators, politicians and news reporters are hysterical at the news of J.P. Morgan’s recent $2 billion trading loss. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating to see whether laws were broken.The $2 billion loss also resulted from trades designed to hedge against the threat of even bigger losses. Macey also explains why JP Morgan’s loss is not a justification for additional government regulation.
We appear to be on the verge of making it a crime for a business to lose money. The truth is that nobody should care about J.P. Morgan’s loss—nobody except J.P. Morgan stockholders and a few top executives and traders who will lose their bonuses or their jobs in the wake of this teapot tempest. The three executives with the closest ties to the losses are already out the door.
After the $2 billion in losses, J.P. Morgan still had $127 billion in equity. This means that J.P. Morgan could lose another $100 billion and creditors would still have an equity cushion that could absorb 10 times the losses that the bank suffered on this trade. The trading loss wasn’t close to apocalyptic even for shareholders. J.P. Morgan’s shares dropped 9.28% in the wake of the loss. A shareholder with a $100,000 investment in J.P. Morgan would see the value of his investment reduced to $90,720, hardly a financial Chernobyl.
The real lesson of what J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon has called the bank’s “egregious failure” in risk management is that hedging is far more difficult to do in real life than it appears to be in theory—because the real world is a complicated place. The trades that J.P. Morgan made were extremely complex, and it certainly appears that they did not work the way that they were supposed to. But the reason that markets work better than central planning is because market participants learn from experience, and they learn fast and thoroughly because they suffer significant losses when their investments, whether they be hedges or not, turn out badly.
Thus, far from serving as a pretext to justify still more regulation of providers of capital, J.P. Morgan’s losses should be treated as further proof that markets work. J.P. Morgan and its compe ors will learn from this experience and do a better job of hedging the next time. They will learn because they have to: In the long run their survival depends on it. And in the short run their jobs and bonuses depend on it.
Well, the confidence fairy has his/her/it's own economic tracking index, so apparantely I'm not the only one who thinks confidence, or lack thereof, can affect things. If you'd like to try and make a case about how the economy is unaffected by perceptions, feel free.
You're the one who believes in corporate welfare, not me.Next, tell us high taxes on corps and the very wealthy, on small businesses, plus regulations are killing the economy. If only the 1% were much more wealthy, we'd all be loving the trickle down largesse.
Can't you just see the money trickling down before your very eyes!
JPMorgan Chase Chief Investment Office Played By Different Rules
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...comm_ref=false
as long as that office's big risky bets were paying off, Jamie Daemon loved pocketing the winnings.
bailing out the GM/Chrysler wasn't trickle down. Even Gecko lies that he was for it now that it has been a huge success.
the confidence fairy is a huge player in the herd-driven stock market, not so with inventory professionals, small/medium business managers, and households with debts and stagnant/declining incomes
that somebody tries to quantify the confidence fairy is nothing but a con game. Thanks for playing.
It's trickle down. You just don't want to call it that because it's listed as a bad word in your team's playbook.
Do inventory professionals, small/medium business managers and households adjust their spending based on their perceptions of the economy as a whole?the confidence fairy is a huge player in the herd-driven stock market, not so with inventory professionals, small/medium business managers, and households with debts and stagnant/declining incomes
that somebody tries to quantify the confidence fairy is nothing but a con game. Thanks for playing.
to try to bring some light to your benighted perspective, trickle down is strategy that says enriching the super wealthy 1% with tax cuts, tax evasion/avoicance will allow their wealth to trickle down to/float the boats of the 99%. Never worked.
govt bailing out GM/Chrysler is totally different, and it worked.
"spending based on their perceptions of the economy as a whole"
they base their perceptions of on the micro-economics of their sales and sales forecasts, their cash flow, their debt positions, not some "financial fairy tale" spewed by "economists" and stock-market pumpers.
Good things happen when you give taxpayer money to rich people and corporations. Just ask boutons.
Irony alert.
what a difference a day makes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84F0OC20120516JPMorgan Chase & Co was the target of two separate lawsuits by shareholders on Wednesday, accusing the bank and its management of excessive risk that led to trading losses of at least $2 billion.
Does the pro-business/anti-citizen SCOTUS' prevention of class action suits (nearly 100 suits thrown out so far) apply to shareholders suing companies?
you don't ever tire of insisting on absolutes, do you?
It's easier than thinking.
I always wondered what people were talking about when they said: "if you keep making that face, someday it'll freeze like that."
Shareholder class action suits do occasionally go somewhere. I've had a few settlement bucks come my way for being part of a class. , Enron alone had me party to at least a half dozen class actions.
The guy is right about the relative size of the loss to the bank overall.
What I find a bit less credible is his blanket acceptence of JP's charactorization that this was "hedging" activity.
You don't lose billions "hedging".
You spend a small amount of money buying insurance against really big losses.
Such transactions are supposed to be designed to spread existing risk, not create new risks.
What the author also downplays, is that this activity happened at all.
The CEO couldn't, or wouldn't explain it when asked for days, other than vague generalities.
That is an enormous red flag. It is a warning sign that things are going on that are not fully understood by those at the top.
It isn't JUST the $2(probably 3) billion dollars.
It is what that says about the "tone at the top" and general environment at the company.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
