Upon further review the official ruling is: COMPLETELY EXPECTED. There will be no drinking on this.
Posted on 06/28/2012 6:34:16 AM PDT by Kartographer
Losses on JPMorgan Chase’s bungled trade could total as much as $9 billion, far exceeding earlier public estimates, according to people who have been briefed on the situation. When Jamie Dimon, the bank’s chief executive, announced in May that the bank had lost $2 billion in a bet on credit derivatives, he estimated that losses could double within the next few quarters. But the red ink has been mounting in recent weeks, as the bank has been unwinding its positions, according to interviews with current and former traders and executives at the bank who asked not to be named because of investigations into the bank.
(Excerpt) Read more at dealbook.nytimes.com ...
Looks like JPMorgan's analysts have been moonlighting as advisors to Governor Jerry Browns financial staff.... /sarc
“lost $2 billion in a bet on credit derivatives”
When the house can’t win in a fixed game it’s sad...ban all derivatives they have no intrinsic value.
Somebody please remind me...just EXACTLY what does “investment banking” do for We the People?
I think I know what it does for the Feds...but how about the Feds employers?!!!
Upon further review the official ruling is: COMPLETELY EXPECTED. There will be no drinking on this.
the most immediate effect of this will be to get a Fake White Indian elected to the US Senate.
Seems to me, we can completely erase our Country's deficit and become financially sound (and then some) just by letting Jamie Dimon handle everything. /s
Just to be fair about JP Morgan if my memory is right Paulson and Helicopter Ben forced Dimon to take TARP money. They did not want to have the banks that really needed TARP to become marked so they forced all the big banks to take TARP.
No one who had fiduciary responsibility for the goods of others, and that includes top corporate managers, who at least in theory are supposed to look out for their shareholders, should trade in derivatives, except as a hedge against risk in real investments (equities, bonds, commodities, real estate).
It looks increasingly like neither personal responsibility on the part of fiduciaries nor the influence of shareholders on management suffice to prevent this, so I’m afraid this may actually be a case in which government regulation is warranted. Perhaps the law establishing such regulation should create a classes of corporations and mutual funds that have the phrase “speculative trading” in their names that would be exempt from the rules, so investors who’d like their money managers to take risks on derivatives with their money could do so. But if it does neither banks nor mutual funds nor pension funds should be allowed to invest in “speculative trading” entities, and there should be strict, low limits on the percentage of other corporations’ holdings that can be invested in such enterprises.
Maybe so but they kept the money for a year. If they didn’t need it, they could have returned it the next day. Call me cynical but I think when the smoke clears, we’ll find out that there was a wealth distribution to big banks. Why else have the elite fought tooth and nail to halt any attempt to fully audit the Fed?
Back in the day, investment banking aided capital formation for businesses and was thus a useful service to the economy as a whole, and thereby indirectly to the citizenry as a whole.
There was a piece less than a year ago written by an investment banker who had resigned a post a Goldman Sachs, in which he lamented that the company had “lost its soul” and that the bankers now referred to clients as “muppets”. The problem, which I had seen from afar, and which that piece confirmed, is that our zeitgeist may be described as “the Era of Bad Stewards” (or as one wag here at FR suggested it be typeset “the Era of BAd STewARDS”): folks who have fiduciary responsibility for the goods of others (like investment bankers, corporate CEOs, Congressmen, university presidents, . . .) all now act as if their positions exist not to serve the good of others, but to enrich themselves. Once that zeitgeist permeates an investment bank, it not only doesn’t do anything for the public good — which was never the point, really — it doesn’t do anything for its clients or shareholders either.
In defense of the trust, JP Morgan could not give the TARP money back when it wanted to. It had to get approval from the Federal gov’t and Reserve. Once again they were not given immediate approval because Bernanke etc did not want to mark distressed banks with a big bulls eye on them.
Woody O'Brien has shut down his brokerage and surrendered his licenses. He "joined the Ann Barnhardt parade."
http://www.youtube.com/v/ERLiHp0d3kQ?version=3
This is a very interesting interview, and O'Brien talks about the JP Morgan prop trade debacle. Jamie Dimon initially said the losses were $2 billion. Now people are talking about it being $7 billion. I think it is $30+ billion. Why? Because as ZeroHedge pointed out, JP Morgan has stopped their stock buy-back program even though their share price has tanked. Interestingly, JPM was told by the Fed that IF they suffered a $31 Billion dollar prop trade loss, they would have to suspend all stock buy-backs.
Uh-huh. Dollars to doughnuts says JPM lost at minimum $30 billion.
Back in the day investment banks were partnerships. So the partners had a direct financial stake to make sure the bank was a watertight as possible and did not sink dragging them along with it. When this changed and investment banks became publicly owned corporations now you can run up the risk get huge compensation packages when the bets paid off and jump like a rat off the ship.
They keep going on about JPMC and their LEGAL loss of company money.
Not a word about the criminal theft of funds from MF Global by John Corzine.
Not a word. I wonder why?
Mark
No they couldn't.
Call me cynical but I think when the smoke clears, we’ll find out that there was a wealth distribution to big banks.
LOL! It cost JPM $795,138,889 in dividends.
And the Treasury sold the JPM warrants for $936.1 million.
Yeah, the banks lied about paying it back and the Treasury lied about getting the money.
I have no choice to believe that because A.) there's been no complete accounting of the FED
TARP was the Treasury, not the Fed.
B.) Bernanke has already been caught in a lie about bailing out foreign interests.
What lie? Where? Link?
At such a time that a complete audit is undertaken
They're audited every year.
Sure they could. It's called a "check". Just make it out, sign it, and drop it in the mail. Then deduct that amount from their cash on hand ledger.
Whether or not it's cashed isn't up to JPM. But they could have sent out a press release saying they'd sent the Fed a check and that the debt was now officially off their books. They could have done that an hour after they were forced to accept the money.
I think you should demonstrate with a sign that reads " Fairness for JP Morgan". Do the bankers have to come in and take your furniture before you understand what's happening?
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.