Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amazing how these stupid mother $(#$(& banks continue to do the same ***** that tanked the economy in the first place in 2008. Funny how they lobbied hard to prevent the Volcker rule from being put on the books, look what it has gotten them now. How more bank failures have to happen before we learn that we should have NEVER repealed the financial laws that were put on the books after the Great Depression begs in order to avoid the same thing from happening again?
Amazing how these stupid mother $(#$(& banks continue to do the same ***** that tanked the economy in the first place in 2008. Funny how they lobbied hard to prevent the Volcker rule from being put on the books, look what it has gotten them now. How more bank failures have to happen before we learn that we should have NEVER repealed the financial laws that were put on the books after the Great Depression begs in order to avoid the same thing from happening again?
Surprising how people can delude themselves. The crisis was actually caused by the very people (the middleclass) who are now protesting the banks. If they paid their mortgages, there would not have been a financial crisis. Instead they are out there protesting something. There should be a prison for deadbeats because that's what they are. Just goes to show you Liberals can not be honest even with themselves.
As for what happened at JPMorgan, its practically a non event. The bank lost its own money. There was no taxpayer bailout and no need for one. The only ones who are affected are the shareholders.
If the fear of a taxpayer bailout is the reason for the Volker rule, then you can see the fear is unfounded. The bank lost 2 bln but there was no need to bail it out. Only if there had been a tax payer bailout would the need for the Volker rule make sense.
Amazing how these stupid mother $(#$(& banks continue to do the same ***** that tanked the economy in the first place in 2008. Funny how they lobbied hard to prevent the Volcker rule from being put on the books, look what it has gotten them now. How more bank failures have to happen before we learn that we should have NEVER repealed the financial laws that were put on the books after the Great Depression begs in order to avoid the same thing from happening again?
JPMorgan emerged from the 2007-2009 financial crisis with the best reputation among big U.S. banks for identifying risk and for staying away from the pitfalls, like too much exposure to the subprime housing market, that damaged its rivals.
With that credibility in tow, Dimon has been vocal with his view that excessive regulation such as stringent capital standards would make it harder for banks to provide loans and help drive economic growth.
"Has anyone bothered to study the cumulative effect of all these things?," he asked Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in June at a banking conference in Atlanta. "Do you have a fear, like I do, that when we look back and look at them all that they will be a reason it took so long that our banks, our credit, our businesses and most importantly, job creation, started going again?"
While the industry's all-out lobbying and pressure campaign to soften the impact of Dodd-Frank rolls on, Dimon was quick to admit on Thursday that in the case of the trading loss, mistakes were made and bank executives have "egg on our face." The mea culpa, however, does not soften the shot to his reputation. "This is a black eye and it's acute because Jamie has been so critical of Dodd-Frank and the regulatory response to the financial crisis," said Brian Gardner
Amazing how these stupid mother $(#$(& banks continue to do the same ***** that tanked the economy in the first place in 2008. Funny how they lobbied hard to prevent the Volcker rule from being put on the books, look what it has gotten them now. How more bank failures have to happen before we learn that we should have NEVER repealed the financial laws that were put on the books after the Great Depression begs in order to avoid the same thing from happening again?
Our President loves to reward failure....especially if the top guys are his buddies.
Surprising how people can delude themselves. The crisis was actually caused by the very people (the middleclass) who are now protesting the banks. If they paid their mortgages, there would not have been a financial crisis. Instead they are out there protesting something. There should be a prison for deadbeats because that's what they are. Just goes to show you Liberals can not be honest even with themselves.
As for what happened at JPMorgan, its practically a non event. The bank lost its own money. There was no taxpayer bailout and no need for one. The only ones who are affected are the shareholders.
If the fear of a taxpayer bailout is the reason for the Volker rule, then you can see the fear is unfounded. The bank lost 2 bln but there was no need to bail it out. Only if there had been a tax payer bailout would the need for the Volker rule make sense.
I did not know the middle class was in charge of the banks. Ha!
Your comments reveal why instead of peacefully protesting the banks, extreme violence is actually what is required to bring about change.
considering that jp morgan is on course to make $4 billion this year, i doubt there will be any need for the fed to force a bailout on the company.
Doesn't mean JPM won't cash-in on the areas where the government guarantees losses.
JPMorgan is also part of a broad program of guarantees, explicit on deposits, implicit through the general aspect of too-big-to-fail. Misbehavior like what seems to have happened here feeds such losses. JPMorgan’s story looks a lot more like actual malfeasance.
Watch how the people who harp about the much smaller loss at Solyndra not do the same here.
considering that jp morgan is on course to make $4 billion this year, i doubt there will be any need for the fed to force a bailout on the company.
Chase is a FDIC insured 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 made stupid bets, it's everyone's problem.
This is why we need the Volcker rule, which would ban risky trading by federally insured institutions. Either you're a bank, or you're an investment house, but you shouldn't be able to be both if you're federally insured.
JPMorgan emerged from the 2007-2009 financial crisis with the best reputation among big U.S. banks for identifying risk and for staying away from the pitfalls, like too much exposure to the subprime housing market, that damaged its rivals.
With that credibility in tow, Dimon has been vocal with his view that excessive regulation such as stringent capital standards would make it harder for banks to provide loans and help drive economic growth.
"Has anyone bothered to study the cumulative effect of all these things?," he asked Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in June at a banking conference in Atlanta. "Do you have a fear, like I do, that when we look back and look at them all that they will be a reason it took so long that our banks, our credit, our businesses and most importantly, job creation, started going again?"
While the industry's all-out lobbying and pressure campaign to soften the impact of Dodd-Frank rolls on, Dimon was quick to admit on Thursday that in the case of the trading loss, mistakes were made and bank executives have "egg on our face." The mea culpa, however, does not soften the shot to his reputation. "This is a black eye and it's acute because Jamie has been so critical of Dodd-Frank and the regulatory response to the financial crisis," said Brian Gardner
Nothing to do with homeowners, although some peons like to point at that issue. Global scale of derivatives fraud.
That is what makes it more alarming in my opinion. JP Morgan had a reputation of not taking big risks. They get tagged with a 2 billion dollar hit which will most likely go up to 20 billion. What the hell are these other banks too big to fail betting on is the question? It's all a big casino to them because they are playing with house money when all is said and done..........the fed. When the dominoes start going in the derivitive market '08 will look like nothing. There simply isn't enough money to bail these folks out. Better have something in the mattress if/when the sheet hits the fan cause the window will be closed and the ATM's offline.
That is what makes it more alarming in my opinion. JP Morgan had a reputation of not taking big risks. They get tagged with a 2 billion dollar hit which will most likely go up to 20 billion. What the hell are these other banks too big to fail betting on is the question? It's all a big casino to them because they are playing with house money when all is said and done..........the fed. When the dominoes start going in the derivitive market '08 will look like nothing. There simply isn't enough money to bail these folks out. Better have something in the mattress if/when the sheet hits the fan cause the window will be closed and the ATM's offline.
The leveraging and funny money going on with derivatives is the epitomy of "risk". On the other hand if you are one of the kings in banking and the world, as stated you are considered too big to fail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
agree...
