Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: J.P. Morgan's shocking $2 billion loss: Proof we need stronger financial reform?

Posted 2 years ago on May 11, 2012, 1:13 p.m. EST by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Four years after the financial crisis, another major bank gets caught making huge, risky bets that went sour. Critics say it's time for a serious crackdown!

On Thursday, J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon revealed that the banking giant lost a whopping $2 billion due to a massive trade that went sour, and that the losses could climb by another $1 billion in the coming days. Dimon attributed the loss to "errors, sloppiness, and bad judgment," and asserted that "we will fix it and move on." But critics of the financial industry say the loss is more than a mere error, and that J.P. Morgan is engaging in precisely the type of risky behavior that brought the financial system crashing down in the fall of 2008. Specifically, the loss stemmed from a complex deal involving credit default swaps — insurance-like contracts that essentially allow firms to bet on whether a given asset will rise or fall.

They have been described as "weapons of financial mass destruction," and in 2010, Congress passed the so-called Volcker rule, part of the Dodd-Frank Act, to prevent companies from using their own money to make such bets. However, the Volcker rule has yet to be implemented, and banks continue to lobby against it. Will J.P. Morgan's loss rejuvenate the push for financial reform?

http://theweek.com/article/index/227896/jp-morgans-shocking-2-billion-loss-proof-we-need-stronger-financial-reform

101 Comments

101 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by elf3 (2380) 2 years ago

Someone needs to expose Geitner - either Obama is trusting the wrong people or he is in lock step or he is flat out unintelligent and unable to decipher good leadership from a whole in the ground - Geitner is working on behalf of the banks and I don't even think he can believe how easily Obama is going along with it all.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (27725) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Elizabeth Warren presses for more financial reform, Scott Brown doesn't want to talk about it

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/15/1091863/-Elizabeth-Warren-presses-for-more-financial-reform-Scott-Brown-doesn-t-want-to-talk-about-it-

[-] -3 points by MoveOnNothingToSee (-22) 2 years ago

Elizabeth Warren doesn't want to talk about the corrupt culture of greivance she so cynically played with her Cherokee bullshit story.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (27725) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Wow - touchy much about Lizzy?

Hmmmm - considering your contributions to the forum so far?

I take that as a ringing endorsement.

[-] -3 points by MoveOnNothingToSee (-22) 2 years ago

Was she weeping as she said it? She always has this look like she's going to burst out balling.

The Chreokee thing is hilarious.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (27725) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What like Boehner? He is almost always on the verge of tears. I believe it is because he can't believe some of the shit he spews or supports. I think he is at war with himself - he knows he's damned but he can not stop himself.

Come to think of it McConnel too looks to be dyspeptic. Off hand I would say Cantor is about the only one who looks comfortable and actually his look seems greasy smug.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I've gotta a bit of native myself

hell, they were here when my other ancestors got here

[-] -3 points by MoveOnNothingToSee (-22) 2 years ago

Maybe Harvard will hire you too so that it can tout you in meeting a quota, just like Elizabeth Warren. It's the corrupt culture of greivance pushed by liberals. We're all just victims and liberal polticians set up the scams for reparations.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27725) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Anyone looking for silver linings in last week's announcement from JPMorgan that it had lost $2 billion with synthetic credit default swaps this quarter could be excused for thinking that now, finally, maybe there will be a real push to get banks regulated beyond a milquetoast way. Hope springs eternal. With the news from JPMorgan's supremely confident, profoundly anti-regulatory CEO Jamie Dimon that the bank could perhaps lose another $1 billion, some people might be tempted to imagine that maybe even the diehards would now move away from Dimon's history of attacking bank regulation as "infantile" and "non-factual":

While JPMorgan has long been regarded as one of the nation’s strongest banks, the circumstances surrounding its $2 billion trading loss look depressingly familiar. Once again, a bank with large trading operations allowed a mixture of incompetence, risk-taking, hubris and complexity lead to an embarrassing and costly blowup.

“This underscores the fallacy of thinking the best-managed banks are somehow infallible,” said Sheila C. Bair, the former chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a bank regulator.

Even Dimon himself said Sunday that JPMorgan's losses would provide ammunition to those who want more regulations. But that hardly means he now believes there actually should be more regulations.

You see, the buck doesn't stop with some underlings in the JPMorgan second tier, one of whom has already lost her post, nor with Dimon himself, who is still running the $2.3 trillion bank as of today. From the mind-set of right-wing politicians, this mess is all the government's fault. On Meet the Press Sunday, David Gregory asked Republican National Committee chief Reince Preibus, "In light of the losses on Wall Street this week, you think we need less financial regulation rather than more?" Preibus didn't skip a beat: "I think we need less." New rules added by Democrats in the wake of the financial crisis that took down several big banks and brought about a gigantic taxpayer bailout of other banks have "made things worse," he said.

A stunning assessment considering just how gutted the implementation of the law imposing new regulations actually is. Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone provided a 7000-word look at that just a day before JPMorgan announced its giant losses:

Two years later, Dodd-Frank is groaning on its deathbed. The giant reform bill turned out to be like the fish reeled in by Hemingway's Old Man—no sooner caught than set upon by sharks that strip it to nothing long before it ever reaches the shore. [...]

The fate of Dodd-Frank over the past two years is an object lesson in the government's inability to institute even the simplest and most obvious reforms, especially if those reforms happen to clash with powerful financial interests. From the moment it was signed into law, lobbyists and lawyers have fought regulators over every line in the rule-making process. Congressmen and presidents may be able to get a law passed once in a while—but they can no longer make sure it stays passed. You win the modern financial-regulation game by filing the most motions, attending the most hearings, giving the most money to the most politicians and, above all, by keeping at it, day after day, year after fiscal year, until stealing is legal again. "It's like a scorched-earth policy," says Michael Greenberger, a former regulator who was heavily involved with the drafting of Dodd-Frank. "It requires constant combat. And it never, ever ends."

As usual Taibbi does not let Democrats off the hook in the matter. The White House and powerful Democrats in Congress helped make Dodd-Frank what it isn't, he writes.

No kidding.

But there would have been no Dodd-Frank at all had Republicans been in control. And certainly no Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the best thing to come out of the financial crisis. Elizabeth Warren, the person whose idea that was, and who guided it through its crucial first months, and is now a Democratic candidate for Senate in Massachusetts, called Sunday for Dimon to step down from his position on the New York Federal Reserve. As part of its oversight role, the Fed is right now making decisions, among other things, about how exactly the new financial regulations will be implemented. It will advise who will get rescued if when there is another meltdown. No way should Dimon—who opposes regulations and is in charge of a too-big-to-fail bank still obviously engaging in risky behavior—be on the board.

However, this isn't about just one person or a handful of them. It's a system. To add just a smidgen of sanity into that system, just sensible not even slightly radical, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Reps. Brad Miller (D-NC) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) have introduced the The Safe, Accountable, Fair & Efficient (SAFE) Banking Act of 2012. The bill was first introduced by Brown and Miller in 2010. It would impose limits on the size of bank deposits so that none could hold more than 10 percent of the total deposits of all insured banks in the United States. It would also impose an absolute size for a bank holding company of no more than $1.3 trillion. No non-bank financial company could exceed $436 billion.

Getting Dimon off the Fed and imposing size limits on financial institutions aren't all that needs to be done by a long shot. But they are moves in the right direction.

•••

Join us in calling for JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon to resign from the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=146

•••

There's more discussion in bobswern's diary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/14/1091484/-Elizabeth-Warren-Calls-For-Jamie-Dimon-To-Resign-From-NY-Fed-Board

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

We had that proof back in 2008 and way before too

[-] 2 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Proof? 2008 was proof. This should be expected by know.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

First of all, Chase has over $2 trillion in assets so this is 1/10 of one percent of their assets. They average $5 billion a quarter so while they lost $2 billion on these trades they made $3 billion elsewhere.

During the crisis in 2008, Chase CEO Jamie Dimon drew wide praise for keeping his bank healthy, including from President Barack Obama and billionaire investor Warren Buffett. One biographical book that was released soon after the financial crisis was titled "Last Man Standing."

There is nothing illegal about taking risks. It should however be illegal to bail them out if their risks do not pan out. They will not need a bail out in this case.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2834) 2 years ago

JoeTheFarmer, you really need to be careful with this "$2 trillion in assets" for J.P. Morgan Chase. For banks, the more they have loaned out, the higher their asset value (because they count the IOUs as "assets") so we should read their "assets" as the amounts that they OWE to depositors. It sounds very different if "Chase owes over $2 trillion."

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

It's all about the accounting, isn't it? If you count a liability as an asset, it sure makes the books look better.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

And therein lies some of the problem (IMO). I heard a story recently about a fledgling company that had trouble finding backers because its books were in the red. They had an accountant look things over. He pointed out some figures dealing with their some start-up costs and told the owners to "capitalize these costs." I admit I don't know much about accounting (so forgive me if I sound like I'm clueless) but I found it strange that you can go from being 'in the red' to being 'in the black' just by moving figures to a different column.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

It's all about moving the money from one column to the other and rationalizing the move ...... i.e. LIE. When people classify their home as an asset, they're wrong; it always costs you money, even after it's paid for. It's a liability until the time that you sell it. There are also different types of accounting (I think). Mark to market and mark to mark, or something like that. I think in your example, it might be called "creative accounting".

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Good point about the home. A lot of formula that are used to determine a person's net worth include the home in the equation. Someone on this forum pointed out that it was a mistake, using what you say plus, among other things, the fact that it's not a liquid asset. It makes sense to me.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2834) 2 years ago

In the financial world, accounting can act as the Philosopher's Stone that turns a cesspool into a fountain of youth (and rejuvenation) when the unrealized or unrealizable merge beautifully and seductively into the shadow of the realized.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Or it can be used to project that illusion. Enron and Arthur Andersen comes to mind.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27725) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes ponzi and accomplice.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2834) 2 years ago

It is the reason that we are still mired by this Great Recession because those who know just do not believe in the self-support of this public/private chimera and have no CONfidence.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

There is nothing illegal about taking risks? What in the world could have caused the crash and the bail outs in the first place? Wait, could it have been the deregulation of rules that made this kind of activity legal. If the Volcker rule was in place, would this uber risky activity still be legal Joe?

Even "Dimon" himself who you are defending called this activity stupid and reckless. I know you are anti-anything government interference, but really, have you learned nothing from what happened.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

No there is nothing illegal about taking risks and hedging your bets. That is what they were doing. Hedging your bets makes sense. I do it myself. In my retirement fund have stocks, bonds, and gold. If stocks go down bonds usually go up. If both go down gold goes up. I do not make as much at times as those who do not hedge but they lost more in 2008.

By the way I did not defend him. I merely stated that this is nothing like what the other institutions did from 2000-2008.

My point was this is not something that will need a bail out. They did not lose money overall last quarter, they just made less. Their stock price has lost 10% last week and I am thinking about buying some if it goes a little lower. They are still strong and have a good asset to liability ratio.

Yes I am against government interference. We should not cover their bad decisions. We should not reward mismanagement.

The irony part was that they used the too big to fail money to become bigger. That is how the government seems to always get it wrong.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Spoken like a true one percenter. Why more people on this forum do not see through your subtle bs is beyond me? You use the same kind of slick reasoning that was used to push for the original deregulation - which, btw, LED to the horrible economic crash that hurt so many people.

We should not reward mismanagement??? NO. We should not allow irresponsible, greedy idiots to play with financial nukes in the first place. Regulate them. End of story.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

First of all I am not a one percenter. I am far from it. I do have money in retirement from all the work I have done over the past 25 years.

Taking risks is part of life. Without risks there would be no Apple Computer, Pixar, Joe's Deli, Dina's Pizzaria....

Chase made $5.4 billion last quarter. They lost 2 billion in one of their investment deals. It is a lot but they will not need a bail out.

How is saying that there should be no bail outs "speaking like a true one percenter?"

By the way the government sucks a regulation. They have had Sarbanes-Oxley in place for years and we still had the meltdown, Bernie Madof...

Not bailing them out would have been the best regulation.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Saying there should be no government interference in the market is speaking like a true one percenter, or a wannabe one percenter, whichever shoe fits. Taking risks is part of life....so what....regulating risk is part of life too...

I don't want another financial nuke going off because people like you have to uphold some ideological fear of government bogeyman ruining freedom. It's nonsense.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Can you at least concede that the bailouts were and are a bad idea.

I never said there should be no government interference in the markets. I said that the regulations we have in place are ineffectual and that the bail outs compounded the problem. Letting losers fail is the best medicine.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Letting losers fail is not the best medicine when they have demonstrated they can take the entire global economy down with them. Letting losers fail only makes sense if they are using their own money and it only hurts them. Regulate them and separate regular banking from casino banking.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Put your money in a credit union or community bank.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I'm not the one playing with nukes, so you hardly need to concern yourself with my money. Regulate the banks. & Take away their nukes.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

If you’re wondering why you should care if some idiot trader (who apparently has been making $100 million a year at Chase, a company that has been the recipient of at least $390 billion in emergency Fed loans) loses $2 billion for Jamie Dimon, here’s why: because J.P. Morgan Chase is a federally-insured depository institution that has been and will continue to be the recipient of massive amounts of public assistance. If the bank fails, someone will reach into your pocket to pay for the cleanup. So when they gamble like drunken sailors, it’s everyone’s problem.

If J.P. Morgan Chase wants to act like a crazed cowboy hedge fund and make wild bets on the derivatives market, they should be welcome to do so. But they shouldn’t get to do it with cheap cash from the Fed’s discount window, and they shouldn’t get to do it with money from the federally-insured bank accounts of teachers, firemen and other such real people. It’s a simple concept: you either get to be a bank, or you get to be a casino. But you can’t be both. If we don’t have rules to enforce that concept, we ought to get some.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31300.htm

The bigger question is what do these types of trades do to benefit society. Certainly banks do perform some useful functions for society, such as lending money and helping people manage their money, but it seems like these days most of what they do is trading, that benefits nobody but their employees and shareholders, while offloading huge amounts of risk onto society as a whole.

"They will not need a bail out in this case." - What about the next time?

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/05/10/jp-morgan-when-basis-trades-blow-up/

[-] 2 points by GregOrr (113) 2 years ago

I like your thinking, Sparky. Put your reform ideas on http://the99percentvotes.com. I just launched this site for people to submit, discuss, and vote on public policy ideas.

End Too Big To Fail: http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US17

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You nailed it SparkyJP.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I just tell it like I see it. Thanx :)

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Some banks were forced to take the loans even if they did not need them. Chase was forced to sell stock to the US government and was one of the first companies to pay it back as soon as they were allowed.

Chase did not need the money to pay off debt. Instead they used the money to buy other companies that were in trouble.

Now that is irony! They used the money to become bigger.

[-] 2 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

The audit done on the Federal Reserve over a year ago, which Bernanke and the Fed tried to prevent, says different. The big TBTF banks, including JPMorgan, borrowed huge amounts of money from the Fed to the tune of several trillion dollars. It is a myth that JPMorgan didn't need taxpayer money and federal guarantees. Further, the big Wall Street banks borrowed and continue to borrow huge amounts of short-term Federal funds at near-zero interest rates and turn around and lend it back to the government or credit card holders or students at high interest rates, effectively 'earning' risk-free money that the banks use to speculate in the market. In other words, the big banks are insiders that tap into Federal Reserve anytime they want. Bankers like Dimon sit at the table and are directors at the New York Fed. This system is rigged and anyone paying attention knows it.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

And in this case bigger is NOT better ................ regardless of your ideology, use your imagination to understand the power that TBTF banks wield. They have us by the short hairs. If they're TBTF, they can take unlimited risks, because their profits are privatized and their losses are socialized. They can't lose! It's not good for the country or any American.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

If you read any of my earlier posts you would see I totally agree with you. I said exactly that.

I did not think any bank should have received a bail out. I do not think we should reward bad business decisions. I don't think we should provide a safety net for taking big risks.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

My mistake - Glad we agree !

Cheers :)

[-] 1 points by field (2) 2 years ago

any comments about ALLY bank, ( formerly known as GMAC), filling for bankruptcy? by the way you US govt owns a 74% stake in ALLY.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Comments? Sure,

The US should never given Ally the money to cover their bad loans. That is the whole point. They went from car loans to risky mortgages to people with bad credit scores. When the people began defaulting we bailed them out. This only postponed the problem. So now the taxpayer foots the bill for their blunders.

The best regulation is not bailing them out.

Chase owes us nothing and should get nothing.

[-] 0 points by field (2) 2 years ago

WE the people did not bail them out, obama did, with our money

[-] 2 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Meanwhile, three JPMorgan executives involved in the trading loss, are leaving the bank this week. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan, is not among the three. This once again shows that Wall Street honchos, like Dimon and Corzine, never take responsibility for their failures, even when those failures affect honest investors and honest Americans. The bankstas are always wrong, but never in doubt. Where are the cops?

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

The cops are in the banksters pockets.

If you could go to the casino, and have your pockets filled up as you left the place, wouldn't you gamble like there was no tomorrow?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

"Where are the cops?"

Bought & paid for on the hill.

As Dick Durbin says ................. “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”

http://www.salon.com/2009/04/30/ownership/

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

JP Morgan Chase's trading losses where instigated in London (Global HQ for Financial Crime) by one 'Bruno Iksil', variously described as "The London Whale" and Harry Potter's "Voldermort" and who has described himself as "walking on water" !!!

For anyone really trying to get a handle on 'Financial Crimes', Max Keiser and Tracy Herbert's "The Keiser Report" ( http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/ ) is an excellent resource. Ex-Wall St. trader, Max's idiosyncratic style will be an acquired taste for some but his deep knowledge and the quality & insights of his guests are second to none (imho).

In the most recent episode (#286) Max and Stacy comically deconstruct Dimon and banking crimes but Chris Whalen in the second half of the programme is also pertinent given this was before JP Morgan's Mega Losses were announced today (11th May) and all are an excellent insight into our Regulatory Capture Crony Capitalist Faux Democracy Status Quo !!

radix omnium malorum est cupiditas ...

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

99% of all tapeworms have Jamie Dimon's face. Ain't it the truth :)

I'm always skeptical when I hear about the rouge trader with the fat finger, the whale, or one single individual, that becomes the scapegoat. It would mean that 4 or 5 "rouge traders" could essentially bring down the whole system and it also removes accountability from the people at the top. Not sayin' it ain't so .... cause I don't 'know' ......... but it leaves me skeptical.

Cheers :)

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i agree with you. this is not one person. there are hundred of this guy doing the same thing this very day with no one to put a stop to it. next crash- june 1st.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Another problem for JPM is that their position is still open because of lack of liquidity. Their trade is so large, and no one to unload on. Hedge funds see blood in the water and their fangs are showing. Could get ugly.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

You're right because the guy was running a 'bank within a bank' TEAM, specifically sanctioned at board level by 'look the other way' management and we can guarantee that The Tapeworm is fully implicated !!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I agree - The problem lies when these 'too big to fail' banks use depository money to place these risky trades. If they risk OPM; and if the trade doesn't work, the fed or treasury (our money) bails them out. Capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down. Glass-Steagall should be reimplemented.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Matt Taibbi on JP Morgan Chase's latest manifestation of financial diabolism :

fiat lux et fiat justitia ...

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

This is a much better article than the one I posted. Matt Taibbi explains not only what happened; but he gives a little more detail about the trade, the relationship between JP Morgan and the fed, the Volcker rule, and why you should care.

He also correctly quoted Felix Salmon at Reuters, who said:

Whenever a trader has a large and known position, the market is almost certain to move violently against that trader — and that seems to be exactly what happened here. On the conference call, when asked what he should have been watching more closely, Dimon said “trading losses — and newspapers”. It wasn’t a joke. Once your positions become public knowledge, the market will smell blood.

JPM losses will undoubtedly exceed the two billion dollars mentioned today.

Thanx for the link !!

[-] 0 points by field (2) 2 years ago

ALLY bank, formerly known as GMAC,( general motors acceptance corporation) has filed for bankruptcy. the US govt owns a 74% stake in ALLY.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

And ?! Did the Gov't establish and manage this bank ?!! Or were they forced to "own" their stake as per all the goings on in 2008 ?!!! In short, what's your point ?

ad iudicium ...

[-] -3 points by field (2) 2 years ago

the govt was not forced. they initiated the take over on their own when they took over gm to benefit the union. another waste of taxpayers money.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

So you are arguing that Banks were taken over to benefit Unions and that the Gov't wasn't coerced into doing so !! Have you ever heard of Hank Paulson & have you any real grasp of what happened in 2008 ?

Finally, I sincerely recommend that you watch the following award winning documentary film in order to acquaint yourself with some of what 'OWS' and this forum are all about !

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by field (2) 2 years ago

gm was taken over by obama to pay back the union.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Really ?! Put up some evidence of this then. What is the current situation at GM ?

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4452) 2 years ago

Good Post

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Maybe a few of those JOB CREATORS will be wanting somebody to give them a job?

Not to worry, "Too big to jail."

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I like that !!

"TOO BIG TO FAIL = TOO BIG TO JAIL"

Over 1000 people went to jail after the S&L Crisis; yet "0" indictments and even rewarding them with trillions after this scandal. Think someone's pockets are getting lined here?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

If you line them with ermine and the light it right, it looks like cotton.

The "too big", I just made up, but you have polished the slogan.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2834) 2 years ago

The real reason for our federal government not wanting to stir up the financial cesspool by prosecuting culpable people is because its regulators had very up-close information of what was going on and yet decided NOT to act to stop the horror show. Stirring it up can splash back on them, too, ergo, the systemic inertia not to prosecute to preserve the appearance of "innocence." Perhaps some regulators were just too incompetent to recognize due to their observing but not understanding but others definitely understood what was going on since early 2007. Unlike the Resolution Trust Corporation handling the aftermath of the S&L crisis, the federal government sought to merge reeling investment banks with federally insured and federal-reserve-backstopped national banks such as Merrill-Lynch with Bank of America and Bear-Stearns with J.P. Morgan Chase.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

They were able to merge because of the repeal of The Glass-Steagall Act.

Please join us in urging Congress to put Wall Street reform back on the table -- and pass a new Glass-Steagall Act today.

http://act.boldprogressives.org/go/8071?akid=7784.392714.HFwUHU&t=3

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27725) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I signed - good petition:

http://act.boldprogressives.org/go/8071?akid=7784.392714.HFwUHU&t=3

Wall Street investment bank JP Morgan took risky bets and just lost two billion dollars of other people's money.

Elizabeth Warren says: "With the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, I'm calling on Congress to put Wall Street reform back on the agenda and to begin by passing a new Glass-Steagall Act. This was the law that stopped investment banks from gambling away people's life savings for decades -- until Wall Street successfully lobbied to have it repealed in 1999."

Join Elizabeth Warren and the PCCC on this petition, which we will deliver to Congress -- sign on the right.

It's time for Congress to put Wall Street reform back on the agenda. We support passing a new Glass-Steagall law to prevent too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks from taking huge risks with people's life savings -- and then expecting taxpayer bailouts.
[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

A "Whopping 2 Billion" dollars wouldn't even cover the last "performance" bonuses paid out to the directors and CEO.

Who do they think they're kidding?

The FedRes just printed off another how many trillion in monopoly money?

It's just a game to these pirates in Italian suits.

A game they now know they can't lose.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

They used to try to deceive us; now they just blatantly do it in the open and dare us to try to do something about it.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I've been of the same opinion of late. It's like they are testing the waters to see just how far they can push their luck before the shit hits the fan.

When that happens, they can sit back and laugh, watching their cops mace the protesters.

I still can't understand why people aren't storming the white house already.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I think it's POSSIBLE that they're pushing us so they can declare martial law. Laws like NDAA, the patriot act, 10 yrs. prison time for protesting near the SS agents, 35000 drones over US, etc., that was recently passed, could be preparation for such an action.

Martial law would suspend the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and kick in these Executive Orders (see link), some that have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

http://sidlinger.tripod.com/ml.html

I'm not saying that's what they're doing; but these laws ring of Despotism.

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/01/alert-obama-signs-martial-law-executive-order/

Cheers ;}

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Was it a bad algo-rhythm? This is shocking. We better leave this one up to the Tea Party. To bail, or not to bail, that is the question....

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

No, this trade was supposed to be a hedge against another massive bet going the other way. You know they'll bail 'cause they're too big to fail !

Read more about it here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31300.htm

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Many of us knew this was coming. We have learned no lesson from 2008 and the consequence always is repeating past mistakes. Wall Street bought politicians in Washington to do their bidding. Now we will reap what they have sowed AGAIN!!! They never lose, WE do.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

it's only 2 billion what's the problem ?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

The problem is their large position is still open and there's no liquidity. Could get very ugly and cost much more before they can exit. They're getting squeezed.

[-] 0 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

sarcasm

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

you have it backwards - we need to give the banks more power - so they can hide the truth so we won't get upset before the next collapse

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Sorry ...... my mistake. I don't know what I was thinking.

BTW - I read your comment on butterflies, caterpillars, Easter bunnies and chocolate eggs. My family came in to find out what the hell I was laughing at. I couldn't even speak ........ I just pointed at the screen while rolling on the floor LOL. Guess I just wasn't expecting it.

Feels good to laugh every now and again. Thanx

[-] 1 points by ClearTarget (216) 2 years ago

Maybe J.P. Morgan will be needing more "tax payer assisted handou- bailout". What was that famous saying backed/utilized by loonies again?

Oh right "too big to fail".

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

the problem with this brainwashing is that JP Morgan is a private rich banker, that has nothing to do with us, the public, the people. We need our own public bank and that it. This 12 year old can explain it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx5Sc3vWefE&feature=youtu.be

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Ever heard of TARP? They also get money from the Fed at 0% interest. That IS public money!

BTW - The video won't play. UT either pulled it or problems on my end

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

i fixed the link, facebook was so interested in getting their points for the referral that they fucked it up, (corporations again hindering the people) so i put in the direct link from youtube.) Im getting so sick of this crap.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

JPMorgan Chase loss will be scrutinized, SEC's Mary Schapiro says

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-fi-mo-sec-jpmorgan-chase-regulators-20120511,0,1971950.story

This should be interesting - The crooks investigating the Thieves.

[-] 2 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

You're right. The SEC makes believe it regulates Wall Street and Wall Street makes believe it is regulated.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

It's a circle jerk with us in the middle.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

sigh

this place is missing traffic on the front page

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Dgoerz (20) 2 years ago

What are you talking about, the regulators were in their face. No regulations would stop this issue.

[-] 0 points by jgriff (6) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

MF Global tells its depositors to get lost to the tune of 160 billion.

Nothing has changed at all.

And its going to get worse.

[-] 1 points by field (2) 2 years ago

and corzine has not been charged with anything and is STILL bundling money for obama.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Yeah, the government can track the funds of al-Qaeda all around the world,no problem; but finds it difficult to even regulate it's own financial market. Surely we don't have kick-backs going on here; ya think?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I think you broke the code.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that or the dog is pulling our leg again

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Agreed - and also a remarkable feat for an animal that has no thumbs !

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Still waiting for our president to weigh in on JPM's $2 billion trading loss. Perhaps, Obama is too busy collecting campaign donations from Jamie Dimon et al. I guess it would be poor form to scold JP Morgan while soliciting campaign funds from them. Pay-to-play rules. Make no mistake.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I doubt he'll bite one of the hands that feeds him. Besides, I think he's on the west coast collecting bribes from Hollywood (15 M I heard).