REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

CAPITALISTS - Doing what they do best

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 06:43
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 663
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, May 14, 2012 7:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Playing with other people's money and losing....

JPMorgan executive out after $2bn loss

Northern Rock Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, and HBOS (bank) rescued by the UK

Fortis Bank rescued by Belgian and Dutch governments

Irish Nationwide Building Society, Irish Life & Permanent, Allied Irish Banks PLC, Bank of Ireland, Anglo Irish Bank etc nationalized or rescued by the Irish government

Caja Banks rescued by Spain

Hypo (bank) rescued by Germany

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 14, 2012 4:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I bring this up to show where the REAL problem with "government spending" is in the EU. And, trust me, it's not excessive social benefits... unless you count bailing out a shitload of banks as social benefits.

The next person who pulls out that old chestnut about how the EU is in trouble because of government deficit spending "caused by" socialized medicine ... or any similar such idiocy... is going to get a pin diddled around in their very own voodoo doll, I promise. The financial crisis caused government deficits, not the other way around.

So god bless the Europeans for voting out the IMF, the European Central bank, all those privateers and their lap-dog politicians: Berlusconi, Sarkozy, the two main parties in Greece, and Merkel's own party in North Rhine-Westphalia. One can only hope that Cameron will follow shortly. They all belong at the end of a rope, but putting them out to pasture will do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:48 AM

CAVETROLL


Back in the 80's a friend of mine interned with an insurance company in Hartford, CT. She described how there were whole floors of people playing the stock market with the company's money. When she questioned the wisdom of this practice the response was basically; "If we lose money we'll just raise the rates on a few insurance policies to make back the money."

Which is an unbelievably corrupt and ethically bankrupt philosophy. But, when there is no single person to point to with authority to set an example, say, the owner, then people will take their examples where they can find them. To whit, from others in the industry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Brrrr, scary thought, Cave!

Thanx for putting this up. I was appalled by it when I heard about it (yes, I'm still capable of being appalled, amazingly enough!). The number one critic of Obama's plan to regulate banks that also engage in risky trading practices was CEO Jamie Diamond of JP Morgan Chase. I love this:
Quote:

The system worked: The JPMorgan Chase losses were not discovered by regulators; they were discovered by the bank itself conducting its own management reviews. Mistakes that cause losses are part of capitalism, but they should be handled responsibly by the company that made the error. This is what happened here.
What an argument! Nobody should oversee them and there should be no regulations, because they will discover it on their own...AFTER they've lost $2 billion!

Obama's got it right:
Quote:

JP Morgan is one of the best managed banks there is. Jamie Dimon the head of it is one of the smartest bankers we got and they still lost $2 billion dollars and counting precisely because they were making bets in these derivative markets. We don’t know all the details yet. It’s going to be investigated, but this is why we passed Wall Street reform. The whole point was, even if you’re smart, you can make mistakes and since these banks are insured backed up by taxpayers, we don’t want you taking risks where eventually we might end up having to bail you out again, because we’ve done that, been there, didn’t like it.

“So this is why we raised capital requirements so that when they do lose money, they’ve got enough money socked away so they can pay off those obligations. This is why we’ve put in place something called the Volcker rule that says if you are a federally insured supported bank you can’t make bets on your own trades with your own money that could end up resulting in $2 billion or $3 billion losses.”

“Think about it, this is the best or one of the best managed banks. You could have a bank that isn’t as strong, isn’t as profitable making those same bets and we might have had to step in and that’s exactly why Wall Street reform is so important. Now we’re still fighting this battle because all these regulations are being put in place as we speak, a lot of the financial industry is still fighting, they have hired tons of lobbyists to push back on this stuff and I hope that everyone who is watching is lettering their members of Congress know, you know what we want these rules in place to make sure this stuff does not happen again.”More at http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-jpmorgan-is-one-of-
the-best-managed-banks/
Volker Rule, of course, wouldn't fix any of this, given the wiggle room the banks managed to get into it, but hey ho, splitting banks off so all they do is BANK certainly would! One of my protest sighs:

Bankers = Criminals
Politicians = Enablers

For me, that about says it. Apparently, they DID know about the dangers, and people spoke up:
Quote:

NYT’s Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Nelson D. Schwartz: “In the years leading up to JPMorgan Chase’s $2 billion trading loss, risk managers and some senior investment bankers raised concerns that the bank was making increasingly large investments involving complex trades that were hard to understand. But even as the size of the bets climbed steadily, these former employees say, their concerns about the dangers were ignored or dismissed. An increased appetite for such trades had the approval of the upper echelons of the bank ... Dimon ... current and former employees said. Initially, this led to sharply higher investing profits, but they said it also contributed to the bank’s lowering its guard. ...

“Overall tolerance for risky trading did not increase, current executives said, just the scale of the office’s activities because of the bank’s acquisition of Washington Mutual in 2008 and its more risky credit portfolio. ... Top investment bank executives raised concerns about the growing size and complexity of the bets held by the bank’s chief investment office as early as 2007, according to interviews with half a dozen current and former bank officials” http://nyti.ms/JCmCOe even DIMON knew about it, and dismissed it:
Quote:

When rumors of the bad trade bubbled to the surface a month ago, Dimon said there was nothing to worry about, meaning he either lied or doesn't understand the complex trades his own company is making. http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=d1ed9cb4-1f43-438c-a5f9
-51fabbbe0144
only that, but most people don't realize that Dimon sits on the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank--the very organization that is supposed to oversee his bank's financial practices! That's just plain insane! But then, with political power, an awful lot of what Wall Street is doing is insane...and getting insaner.

So the spin begins...
Quote:

Reeling from a massive $2 billion loss on a risky bet, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has launched a campaign of contrition to contain the damage. "We made a terrible, egregious mistake and there's almost no excuse for it," he told NBC's 'Meet the Press.'
"ALMOST"?! That's a laugh, if ever there was one!

The basic thing is, yeah, Chase is a $2.3 trillion bank with a net worth of $189 billion, so $2 billion is a drop in the bucket (and as Cave quoted, they'll just raise rates ON POLICY HOLDERS to cover it. The point is, when will a bank or many banks NEXT make enough "mistakes" that we taxpayers will have to bail them out AGAIN...and again and again and again...?!

Sick. It's absolutely sick how much power and political might Wall Streetl wields.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:40 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Sick. It's absolutely sick how much power and political might Wall Streetl wields.



Yep. They apparently OWN the President.

Quote:

Despite his populist posturing, the president has failed to pin a single top finance exec on criminal charges since the economic collapse. Are the banks too big to jail—or is Washington’s revolving door at to blame? Peter J. Boyer and Peter Schweizer investigate:


With the Occupy protesters resuming battle stations, and Mitt Romney in place as the presumptive Republican nominee, President Obama has begun to fashion his campaign as a crusade for the 99 percent--a fight against, as one Obama ad puts it, "a guy who had a Swiss bank account." Casting Romney as a plutocrat will be easy enough. But the president's claim as avenging populist may prove trickier, given his own deeply complicated, even conflicted, relationship with Big Finance.


Obama came into office vowing to end business as usual, and, in the gray post-crash dawn of 2009, nowhere did a reckoning with justice seem more due than in the financial sector. The public was shaken, and angry, and Wall Street seemed oblivious to its own culpability, defending extravagant pay bonuses even while accepting a taxpayer bailout. Obama channeled this anger, and employed its rhetoric, blaming the worldwide economic collapse on "the reckless speculation of bankers." Two months into his presidency, Obama summoned the titans of finance to the White House, where he told them, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."


The bankers may have found the president's tone unsettling. Candidate Obama had been their guy, accepting vast amounts of Wall Street campaign money for his victories over Hillary Clinton and John McCain (Goldman Sachs executives ponied up $1 million, more than any other private source of funding in 2008). Obama far outraised his Republican rival, John McCain, on Wall Street--around $16 million to $9 million. As it turned out, Obama apparently actually meant what he said at that White House meeting--his administration effectively would stand between Big Finance and anything like a severe accounting. To the dismay of many of Obama's supporters, nearly four years after the disaster, there has not been a single criminal charge filed by the federal government against any top executive of the elite financial institutions.


"It's perplexing at best," says Phil Angelides, the Democratic former California treasurer who chaired the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. "It's deeply troubling at worst."

Strikingly, federal prosecutions overall have risen sharply under Obama, increasing dramatically in such areas as civil rights and health-care fraud. But according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data-gathering organization at Syracuse University, financial-fraud prosecutions by the Department of Justice are at 20-year lows. They're down 39 percent since 2003, when fraud at Enron and WorldCom led to a series of prosecutions, and are just one third of what they were during the Clinton administration. (The Justice Department says the numbers would be higher if new categories of crime were counted.)


"There hasn't been any serious investigation of any of the large financial entities by the Justice Department, which includes the FBI," says William Black, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, who, as a government regulator in the 1980s, helped clean up the S&L mess. Black, who is a Democrat, notes that the feds dealt with the S&L crisis with harsh justice, bringing more than a thousand prosecutions, and securing a 90 percent conviction rate. The difference between the government's response to the two crises, Black says, is a matter of will, and priorities. "You need heads on the pike," he says. "The first President Bush's orders were to get the most prominent, nastiest frauds, and put their heads on pikes as a demonstration that there's a new sheriff in town."


Obama delivered heated rhetoric, but his actions signaled different priorities. Had Obama wanted to strike real fear in the hearts of bankers, he might have appointed former special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald or some other fire-breather as his attorney general. Instead, he chose Eric Holder, a former Clinton Justice official who, after a career in government, joined the Washington office of Covington & Burling, a top-tier law firm with an elite white-collar defense unit. The move to Covington, and back to Justice, is an example of Washington's revolving-door ritual, which, for Holder, has been lucrative--he pulled in $2.1 million as a Covington partner in 2008, and $2.5 million (including deferred compensation) when he left the firm in 2009.

Putting a Covington partner--he spent nearly a decade at the firm--in charge of Justice may have sent a signal to the financial community, whose marquee names are Covington clients. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Deutsche Bank are among the institutions that pay for Covington's legal advice, some of it relating to matters before the Department of Justice. But Holder's was not the only face at Justice familiar to Covington clients. Lanny Breuer, who had co-chaired the white-collar defense unit at Covington with Holder, was chosen to head the criminal division at Obama's Justice. Two other Covington lawyers followed Holder into top positions, and Holder's principal deputy, James Cole, was recruited from Bryan Cave LLP, another white-shoe firm with A-list finance clients.

Justice's defenders point out that prosecuting financial crime is a complicated matter requiring the highly specialized expertise found in the white-collar defense bar. But some suggest there is also the potential for conflicting interest when the department's top officials come from lucrative law practices representing the very financial institutions that Justice is supposed to be investigating. "And that's where they're going back to," says Black. "Everybody knows there is a problem with that." (Two members of Holder's team have already returned to Covington.) A spokesperson for Covington was not available for comment. (Newsweek uses the firm as outside counsel.)


Justice's inaction regarding the big Wall Street firms is not for a lack of suspicious activity. Three different government entities exhaustively examined the practices that contributed to the financial collapse, and each has referred its findings to the department for possible criminal investigation. One such matter involved a 2007 transaction by Goldman Sachs, in which Goldman created an investment, based on mortgage-backed securities, that seemed designed to fail. Goldman allowed a client who was betting against the mortgage market to help shape the investment instrument, which was called Abacus 2007-AC1; then both Goldman and the client bet against the investment without informing other clients (whose investments were wagers on its success) how the securities included in the portfolio were selected. These uninformed clients lost more than $1 billion on the investment. In 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Goldman with securities fraud "for making materially misleading statements and omissions" in marketing the investment. The SEC, which conducts only civil litigation, referred the case to Justice for criminal investigation.


A year later, in April 2011, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Democrat Carl Levin, after a two-year inquiry, issued a fat report detailing several transactions, including Goldman's Abacus deal, that Levin and his staff believed should be investigated by Justice as possible crimes. The subcommittee made a formal referral to the department (as did the federal Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, chaired by Phil Angelides), and Levin publicly stated his view that criminal inquiry was warranted. Goldman executives, including the firm's chief executive officer, Lloyd Blankfein, started hiring defense lawyers.


Meanwhile, Obama's political operation continued to ask Wall Street for campaign money. A curious pattern developed. A Newsweek examination of campaign finance records shows that, in the weeks before and after last year's scathing Senate report, several Goldman executives and their families made large donations to Obama's Victory Fund and related entities, some of them maxing out at the highest individual donation allowed, $35,800, even though 2011 was an electoral off-year. Some of these executives were giving to Obama for the first time.


Justice insists that political operations such as fundraising are kept strictly distanced from the department, in order to avoid even the appearance of political influence. But the attorney general and his team are not unfamiliar with the process; Holder was himself an Obama bundler--a fundraiser who collected large sums from various donors--in 2008, as were several other lawyers who joined him at Justice.


It would be a leap to infer these Goldman contributions were made--or received--as quid pro quo for dropping a criminal investigation. Still, the situation constitutes what one Justice veteran acknowledged is a "bad set of facts."


Maintaining public faith in the justice system is one of the reasons why people such as Angelides continue to call for a rigorous criminal investigation into Wall Street. "I think it's fundamental that people in this country need to feel that the justice system is for everyone--that there's not one system for those people of enormous wealth and power, and one for everyone else," he says.


In July 2010, three months after the SEC charged Goldman in the Abacus case, the agency reached a settlement with the firm. Goldman agreed to pay $550 million, but admitted no wrongdoing. The agency touted the amount of the fine as the biggest ever--but to Goldman it was a relative pittance. The fine amounted to about 4 percent of the sum that Goldman paid its executives in bonuses ($12.1 billion) in 2007, the year of the Abacus transaction.


Earlier this year, it was reported that Goldman executives were feeling optimistic that the Justice inquiry would not result in criminal charges against the firm, or its executives. Goldman declined to comment on the case, as did the Justice Department. But spokeswoman Alisa Finelli said, "When we find credible evidence of intentional criminal conduct--by Wall Street executives or others--we will not hesitate to charge it. However, we can and will only bring charges when the facts and the law convince us that we can prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Holder, speaking in February at Columbia University, said that while "we found that much of the conduct that led to the financial crisis was unethical and irresponsible ... we have also discovered that some of this behavior--while morally reprehensible--may not necessarily have been criminal."


Midway through his State of the Union speech this year, President Obama announced plans "to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis," and he vowed again to "hold accountable those who broke the law."


That portion of the speech had a familiar ring. In November 2009, Attorney General Holder, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side, announced the creation of another special unit--the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force--that was similarly charged with investigating securities and mortgage fraud that contributed to the financial meltdown. Since its creation, that task force, which critics say was drastically under-resourced, has produced not a single conviction (or even indictment) of a major Wall Street player related to the financial disaster.


Some who heard the president's State of the Union speech thought they discerned a hidden purpose behind his new "special unit"--the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, as it would be called. The day before the president's speech, state attorneys general from around the country met in Chicago with Justice officials to discuss a proposed national settlement with five major banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, over questionable foreclosure practices. The administration was pushing the settlement, as were the banks. But a handful of attorneys general were resisting the settlement, believing it gave too much away to the banks--including protection from mortgage-related investigations that were still unfolding. These holdout state officials were supported by a coalition of activists, who argued that the banks would never make meaningful concessions--such as the reduction of principal on underwater mortgages--unless they faced the threat of investigation.


One of those activists, Mike Gecan, of the Industrial Areas Foundation, says he was disheartened when he heard Obama's speech, and the news that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman would be co-chairing the new "working group." Schneiderman, who is in the tough-guy mold of his predecessors, Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo, had been a leader of the state holdouts; now, Gecan feared, Schneiderman had been co-opted by the Chicago Way. "I'm from Chicago, I've seen this game played my whole life," he says.


Gecan's view seemed vindicated two weeks later, when Obama announced that the settlement had been reached.


Nearly three months later, it is not clear what, if any, progress the "working group" has made. The unit was only promised 55 investigators, attorneys, and support staff--a tiny fraction of the resources afforded to similar groups investigating the S&L and Enron/WorldCom scandals--and it is not clear that even that commitment has materialized. "I think what happened is what usually happens: the administration rope-a-doped," says Gecan. "There's no office, there's no director, there's no staff, there's no space, there's no phone."


Last month, Gecan wrote an op-ed article for the New York Daily News, calling upon Schneiderman to quit the group in protest (Schneiderman's office did not respond to requests for an interview). In the meantime, Gecan said, he will work to bring pressure on Obama. "There's a little presidential campaign that's going to start, and we're going to make this issue central to this campaign," he said.


It may be, as the attorney general points out, that Wall Street was greedy, stupid, and immoral, without actually breaking any laws. But the powers of the Justice Department are immense, and a more aggressive prosecutor surely could have found cases to make. Black, the UMKC professor, says the conduct could well have violated federal fraud statutes--"securities fraud for false disclosures, wire and mail fraud for making false representations about the quality of the loans and derivatives they were selling, bank fraud for false representations to the regulators."


The absence of prosecutions, and the fact that the cops on the beat hail from the place that represents the banks, does not sit right with many who hoped Obama would fulfill his promise to hold Big Finance accountable. The left's frustration fuels the Occupy movement, and chills the Democratic base. And it gives Romney, the career capitalist, an opening he is avidly exploiting.


Through last fall, Obama had collected more donations from Wall Street than any of the Republican candidates; employees of Bain Capital donated more than twice as much to Obama as they did to Romney, who founded the firm. By this spring, however, resolution had come to the GOP contest, and Wall Street could see a friendly alternative to Obama. While most of Romney's contributions so far come mainly from the financial sector, Obama's donations from Wall Street have dropped sharply.


But this turn may yet help Obama, playing into the Romney-as-plutocrat theme. Just the other week, the Republican candidate quietly slipped into a fundraiser at the home of hedge-fund king John Paulson, who made a killing shorting mortgage futures (including about $1 billion on the Abacus deal). The Obama campaign pounced. Obama may yet fully liberate his inner populist--that Obama who in 2010 in an off-Prompter moment uttered a sentence that made blood run cold on Wall Street: "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."



http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-can-t-obama-bring
-wall-street-to-justice.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:48 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Yep. They apparently OWN the President.


Hello,

Is this not the purpose of political donations and PAC practices? To buy the seats of power?

And now there is no limit to the bribe.

--Anthony


Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Is this not the purpose of political donations and PAC practices? To buy the seats of power?



Not always, Anthony.

You can't buy the Democrats.

You can only rent them.

Quote:

And now there is no limit to the bribe



There never has been, now it's just more out in the open.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:01 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

You can't buy the Democrats.

You can only rent them.





And Republicans are different.... how?

(oh, and, still waitin' for ya over here, Geezer)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51876&mid=8
96058#896058


"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:46 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:

Yep. They apparently OWN the President.


Hello,

Is this not the purpose of political donations and PAC practices? To buy the seats of power?

And now there is no limit to the bribe.

--Anthony




It seems they must own the GOP candidate as well, since Wall Street seems to be shifting the lion's share of its money to Romney.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:29 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
(oh, and, still waitin' for ya over here, Geezer)



Enjoy the wait.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:35 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


When confronted, Geezer does what he does best...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:47 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
When confronted, Geezer does what he does best...


Not very topical for this thread Kwicko, perhaps you meant to post this in the bully thread?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
And Republicans are different.... how?



They stay bought, meeting the description of an "honest" politician.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:59 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

It seems they must own the GOP candidate as well, since Wall Street seems to be shifting the lion's share of its money to Romney.



After backing Obama in '08...


financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.



and seeing how he's run the country, (or NOT run it) can ya blame them ?

How'd that 2010 Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act work out for us ?



" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Hmmmmm...I seem to remember someone..."We might also have a MORATORIUM on pages-long CUT-AND-PASTES"...

Nah. Must be my memory.

Too bad about Dodd-Frank; compromise, compromise ended up with it being a pansy-ass piece of shit. Bring back Glass-Steagall, for heaven's sake! Banks should NOT be in the casino game, and apparently they're even too BIGGER to fail. The whole thing is a joke...and a bad one!

Life goes on as usual:
Quote:

A shareholder proposal to separate the roles of chairman and chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., both held by Jamie Dimon, was defeated Tuesday at the bank’s annual meeting, with investors raising various concerns but not delving too much into the $2 billion-plus trading loss disclosed last week.
.....
The J.P. Morgan boss also said the bank agreed with the intent of the Volcker rule, but believes in the importance of being able to hedge risks.
.....
Splitting the role of chairman and CEO would prevent “an inherent conflict of interest” and maintain a system of checks and balances, since Dimon is now in charge of monitoring his own performance, according to AFSCME’s Lisa Lindsley. The nonbinding proposal, however, garnered around 40% of the votes cast and therefore was defeated.

Another shareholder also brought up the fact that the J.P. Morgan chief serves on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, arguing that Dimon is both “his own boss and his own regulator.”

Responding to these concerns, Dimon was laconic, saying that the New York Fed position was “an advisory role.” As for the J.P. Morgan board, he said that its members have determined there will be one chairman and chief executive.
.....
One shareholder asked whether there will be any impact from the trading loss on the firm’s dividend.

“I certainly hope not,” Dimon said, reiterating that even after the recent losses, the bank is strong and profitable. The board decides on the dividend, but “we see no reason right now” for potential impact, he added.

After the meeting, Dimon told reporters that the bank may take back compensation paid to executives involved in the trading losses under its clawback provisions, according to media reports. “We will do the right thing ... That may well include clawbacks,” he said, according to reports. http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-15/industries/31707198_1_jamie
-dimon-independent-director-shareholder-proposals
old, same old. "Nothing to see here, folks, move along..."




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:22 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
When confronted, Geezer does what he does best...




Oh, I know. It's what he does every time. You'd think a guy who posts a military pic as his avatar would have some modicum of nerve. Hell - he can't even muster the acuity to respond to people pointing out obvious fallacied in THIS thread.

But yeah, I never really expected him to man up - but I do so enjoy rubbing his face in it.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:23 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Hmmmmm...I seem to remember someone..."We might also have a MORATORIUM on pages-long CUT-AND-PASTES"...

Nah. Must be my memory.



LOL.

But we're talking to the captain of the local "do as I say, not as I do crew, so whaddya expect?

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yeah. I just found it amusing...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
I think this man makes a valid point.
Mon, July 28, 2014 10:18 - 21 posts
Meanwhile, back in Libya
Mon, July 28, 2014 09:23 - 68 posts
The NFL - beating women less offensive than talking bad about gays, or getting free tattoos.
Mon, July 28, 2014 08:38 - 31 posts
Report: Climate Change Skeptics Could Reach Catastrophic Levels By 2020
Mon, July 28, 2014 07:03 - 17 posts
Coffee - Cheers!
Mon, July 28, 2014 04:41 - 122 posts
Obama is the Killer of our Economy... isn't he-?
Mon, July 28, 2014 04:09 - 6 posts
Thankfully, that scourge known as 'empathy' is finally being done away with.
Mon, July 28, 2014 00:54 - 22 posts
U.S. releases images it says show Russia has fired artillery over border into Ukraine
Mon, July 28, 2014 00:30 - 6 posts
Running of the Bulls 2014
Sun, July 27, 2014 19:27 - 32 posts
Getting fit by 3mins of exercise a week?
Sun, July 27, 2014 18:51 - 93 posts
Isis 'orders female genital mutilation' for women in Mosul
Sun, July 27, 2014 12:47 - 44 posts
Accident or Not? Malaysian Airliner shot down.
Sun, July 27, 2014 11:06 - 313 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS