[Kartographer]

Almost like a government projects and their cost over runs, the 'hole' just gets deeper and deeper and.....

[pointsal]

.

Looks like JPMorgan's analysts have been moonlighting as advisors to Governor Jerry Browns financial staff.... /sarc

[A Strict Constructionist]

“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.

[mo]

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?!!!

[KarlInOhio]

But the red ink has been mounting in recent weeks,

Upon further review the official ruling is: COMPLETELY EXPECTED. There will be no drinking on this.

[liberalh8ter]

Remember, JP Morgan was given 94.7 billion in the 2008 bailout. They've supposedly paid it back. Dimon claims all the losses JP Morgan amassed are covered by assets and do not involve any customer funds. To recap: During a U.S. economic emergency and subsequent recession/depression which required 'loaning' 94.7 billion dollars to JP Morgan, they've managed to pay it all back - plus interest - and amass losses of at least 9 billion and that 9 billion was 'profit'.

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

[The_Reader_David]

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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Ann Barnhardt called this a long time ago. She said it would end up being more like $30 billion.

"Ann Barnhardt" is becoming a verb.

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - May 22, AD 2012 2:32 PM MST

"Ann Barnhardt" is becoming a verb, and amazingly, it doesn't mean "to eat bacon cheeseburgers to gluttonous excess."

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.

That piece is here.

[MarkL]

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

[dfwgator]

Here comes another bailout.