Posted on 03/11/2009 7:16:27 PM PDT by driftdiver
The second-biggest bank of the US, JP Morgan Chase, which acquired Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns recently, will increase its outsourcing to India by 25% this year to nearly $400 million. It will also manage the integration of the acquired companies from India to bring down the cost of integrating different information technology (IT) systems.
Right now, JP Morgan outsources $250-300 million worth of IT and back-office projects every year to Cognizant, TCS and Accenture, apart from to its own captive centre in Mumbai.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
Whatever. I’m one of those taxpayers and I don’t care if they ship jobs overseas, and I doubt the average customer service representative (or whatever jobs they sent to India) pays much in the way of taxes anyway. I want them to do whatever improves their bottom line to maximize the chance we see a return on the TARP money we invested in them.
“They aren’t using the money to send jobs overseas, presumably they’re saving money by sending jobs overseas, only increasing the (already near 100%) chance that the taxpayers will get the money back.”
Yeah ok, their boss is close with BO. Didn’t BO make a bunch of campaign promises about not sending jobs overseas?
And now he’s helping companies pay for sending our jobs overseas. Cutting thousands of high paying jobs instead of creating jobs like he’s been promising.
“You hope the one remaining major American bank that’s still healthy goes under because they moved a few jobs overseas?”
There are a lot of healthy American Banks. Just not a lot of healthy american banks who made bad business decisions.
in all fairness, they were force fed the $25 billion — their competitors got it, and they needed to get the same to keep competition even.
“in all fairness, they were force fed the $25 billion — their competitors got it, and they needed to get the same to keep competition even.”
Not buying it, they took it because they wanted to. They are shipping the jobs overseas because they want to.
They were practically FORCED to take the TARP money. They didn’t need it, they were/are not in trouble. IF your major competitors get 25 b from the govt, then your competitiveness gets affected through no fault of yours. To level things out, the bulge bracket banks ALL got the funds.
They took it as they were forced it — and if you’re getting money for nothing, wouldn’t you?
Thank you.
It’s one thing to oppose TARP—I’m certainly no fan—but the hatred people on this site display for every bank and banker involved in it (and even many banks who personally had nothing to do with it) is astounding. You’d think you stumbled onto DU or something.
I disagree with them getting money, I disagree with them being ‘encouraged’ to take it. Most of all I disagree with companies getting a bailout sending jobs overseas.
The Wall Street Journal is the paper of record for useful idiots, having become useless shills for the business (now welfare welfare) elite long ago. The JP Morgan was bailed out by tarp as were all banks and AIG. They would have died with the rest of Bank of America and Citigroup without cash injections. TARP is only the tip of the iceberg, hundreds of billions more have been shoveled via the friendly elves at the federal reserve into them all without public knowledge or even superficial congressional oversight. The biggest fly in the ointment that few have recognized is counter-party risks. Banks owe each other money and if one of the big ones die, the others are set to enjoy the crap sandwich as well.
"The JP Morgan"? You don't even know the name of the company; why on earth should I assume you know anything else about the situation?
There's not a chance in the world JPMorgan would have failed.
Actually neither of you are correct, assuming you go with their public branded name and not 1 of the hundred other names they use.
Quibbling over a space is pretty desperate.
It’s not the space, it’s the “the” he put before their name. I wouldn’t quibble over a space, but adding “the” makes it sound like he’s completely unfamiliar with Wall Street, which makes his commentary on JPMorgan’s financial health laughable.
Valid enough — however as I said, they were ‘encouraged’ or ‘forced’ to take the money. Now, sending jobs overseas — the tricky thing is that it’s not sending a job overseas but importing a service, just like importing some goods. It’s nearly impossible in a connected world to stop services and goods from being imported or exported.
It was a typographical error caused by my rush to click post and I didn’t bother to proof read. Whaaagh Whaaaagh JP Morgan can’t fail. Just like how GM, Ford, Chrysler, AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wachovia, WaMu, GE soon enough, et al couldn’t fail. Let me guess, you are busy growing Kudlow’s mustard seed.
“the tricky thing is that it’s not sending a job overseas but importing a service, just like importing some goods”
The work is being done overseas. The money is being sent overseas. The money stays overseas.
The only ‘import’ is the software or documentation associated with their product.
Its sending jobs overseas, pure and simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.