With a $2 to $3 billion trading loss and about $20 billion in market capitalization erased, there are really the only two likely conclusions facing JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon: at best, he's incompetent; at worse, laws may have been broken.
True, so far, it is very difficult to know what really happened because JP Morgan – or more accurately, it's CEO -- is saying a lot, but disclosing very little. In fact, there appears to be a disinformation campaign designed to confuse and mislead regarding what really happened at the bank and how it happened. Nevertheless, cutting through that spin, what we do know raises very serious questions about the bank's conduct and that of its vaunted and lionized CEO.
In summary: in early April the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg reported specific facts about the bank's high risk trading operation in London, which the CEO claims he didn't learn until early May. But, the CEO had previously transformed the bank's London operation (it's Chief Investment Office or CIO) from low risk hedging to high risk derivatives betting. Confirming the concerns many have had, former traders from the bank's proprietary trading business were moved into the CIO. While the new high risk CIO generated billions in profits, concerns about the risks were raised with senior officers including the CEO personally, who were told that the CIO was an "accident waiting to happen."
Ignoring those many internal warnings and red flags apparently resulted in this big loss, but it also required JP Morgan and its CEO to ignore the prominently reported facts in early April.
Read the whole article: JP Morgan's CEO Jamie Dimon: Incompetent or Culpable? | Better Markets.
Who did it then, his greedy, evil, identical-twin, bankster brother?
Thanks for starting the deregulation craze, Ronald Reagan. You really made a mess of things. Where's Franklin D. Roosevelt's clone when he's needed? Let's see, Barack Obama told the banksters that his administration is the only thing between them and the pitchforks. Well, FDR also told the banksters that FDR was actually saving capitalism.
That's too bad. It's too bad that "freedom" and "liberty" means laissez-faire at JP Morgan and caveat emptor for the rest of us. Why do you think that being free of evil via regulations isn't considered freedom? I like being self-regulated, but I'm not averse to God. It seems way too many libertarians/neoliberals really just want the delusional liberty (it isn't real freedom) to rape with impunity.
Why do you think Jamie Dimon has failed? He's failed because he's on the wrong side. It will always come back around to haunt and destroy. Evil gets you when you turn to it. That's the eternal fact.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)