If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   JP Morgan investment chief gets deregulated   (money.cnn.com) divider line 40
    More: Followup, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Jamie Dimon, swaps, CIO  
•       •       •

1346 clicks; posted to Business » on 14 May 2012 at 2:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-05-14 11:01:59 AM
As much as I want to make a "I'd invest in her portfolio" comment....
 
2012-05-14 11:16:35 AM
When in doubt, fire the one woman at your firm.
 
2012-05-14 11:18:11 AM
In before "Jump you farkers!"

/Jump you farkers!
 
2012-05-14 11:19:27 AM
let me cry for him and his millions of dollars....
 
2012-05-14 11:21:20 AM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: In before "Jump you farkers!"

/Jump you farkers!


img545.imageshack.us
 
2012-05-14 11:55:45 AM
Good good. Now the rest of them need to follow his lead, and JUMP YOU F*CKERS.
 
2012-05-14 01:03:31 PM
FTFA:Zames was formerly a senior trader at Long-Term Capital Management, the failed hedge fund that placed massive bets on the trajectory of interest rates and required a $3.6 billion bailout from the Federal Reserve in 1998.

"Nobody knows about the dangers of what's happening at JPMorgan more than Matt," said James Rickards, former general counsel at Long-Term Capital Management.


What could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-05-14 01:34:56 PM
Next up:

Congressional hearing.

Dimon: "I knew nothing about it."
Ina Drew: "He knew nothing about it. It was a rogue trader. I resigned and took my huge pension with me."
Dimon: "Let me use this as a platform to talk about why regulation is bad."
Senator 1: "Do you seriously believe the shiat that comes out of your mouth?"
Dimon: "I wish to make a significant donation to your SuperPAC."
Senator 1: "I think we can all agree, regulation is bad. Obviously Britain is to blame. You are a hero for catching this and firing your subordinates."

SEC: "Our hands are tied. We're busy not investigating the next Bernie Madoff. OK, pay a $50 fine and the incident was not your fault. Case dismissed."

America: "WTF"
 
2012-05-14 01:39:29 PM

bdub77: Next up:

Congressional hearing.

Dimon: "I knew nothing about it."
Ina Drew: "He knew nothing about it. It was a rogue trader. I resigned and took my huge pension with me."
Dimon: "Let me use this as a platform to talk about why regulation is bad."
Senator 1: "Do you seriously believe the shiat that comes out of your mouth?"
Dimon: "I wish to make a significant donation to your SuperPAC."
Senator 1: "I think we can all agree, regulation is bad. Obviously Britain is to blame. You are a hero for catching this and firing your subordinates."

SEC: "Our hands are tied. We're busy not investigating the next Bernie Madoff. OK, pay a $50 fine and the incident was not your fault. Case dismissed."

America: "WTF"


^^Unfortunately, this.
 
2012-05-14 02:10:48 PM
bdub77, can you give me the winning numbers on the next powerball? You see the future as clearly as any psychic ever could.

/sad but true
 
2012-05-14 02:35:22 PM
FTA:

"Ina Drew, 55, reportedly is one of the highest-paid women on Wall Street."

Well, I for one am shocked!
 
2012-05-14 03:12:16 PM

Beerguy: FTA:

"Ina Drew, 55, reportedly is one of the highest-paid women on Wall Street."

Well, I for one am shocked!


Hey, if you don't pay these positions tens of millions of dollars a year you won't get the best people, and then there might be costly mistakes.
 
2012-05-14 03:34:37 PM
Drew is in line to receive $14.7 million severance in the form of stock, $2.6 million in pension benefits and almost $10 million in deferred compensation, according to Theo Francis, a senior reporter at footnoted.com, a website that specializes in SEC filings.

That's a pretty nice golden parachute...
 
2012-05-14 03:38:07 PM

Beerguy: FTA:

"Ina Drew, 55, reportedly is one of the highest-paid women on Wall Street."

Well, I for one am shocked!


I assume her specialty was making pie graphs.
 
2012-05-14 03:44:38 PM
What other job could you shiat the bed and still get 30 million on your way out the door?
 
2012-05-14 03:49:10 PM
Who was the schmuck that thought a woman would be good at managing money?
 
2012-05-14 03:53:53 PM
Drew is in line to receive $14.7 million severance in the form of stock, $2.6 million in pension benefits and almost $10 million in deferred compensation,

I know we like to talk shiat about people in the financial industry but they are people. How is she supposed to live on this? That poor dear...
 
2012-05-14 04:08:27 PM
See, most of you should have went to school to learn how to game the system instead of forming opinions about operating systems.
 
2012-05-14 04:09:25 PM
I'm still confused why losing money is a crime.

/Yes, I was against TARP
 
2012-05-14 04:13:21 PM

xtragrind: What other job could you shiat the bed and still get 30 million on your way out the door?


Professional sports.
 
2012-05-14 04:23:48 PM

YixilTesiphon: I'm still confused why losing money is a crime.

/Yes, I was against TARP


And they lost their own money unlike Obama that's lost billions and billions of taxpayer money. When Obama invests half a billion in Solyndra and that goes bad.....from liberals we get, "Hey, that happens in business!! You take the good with the bad." When JP Morgan loses $2 billion of their own money while still showing a profit...from liberals we get "These scumbags need more regulations!!!"

What's so had to understand libtards?? Obama lost your money (well not really your money because liberals are likely to be in the 47% that pay no taxes) and JP Morgan lost their own money.

Why the outrage?
 
2012-05-14 04:25:32 PM
REGULATORS ! Mount up.
 
2012-05-14 04:26:18 PM

crispyone: And they lost their own money unlike Obama that's lost billions and billions of taxpayer money. When Obama invests half a billion in Solyndra and that goes bad.....from liberals we get, "Hey, that happens in business!! You take the good with the bad." When JP Morgan loses $2 billion of their own money while still showing a profit...from liberals we get "These scumbags need more regulations!!!"

What's so had to understand libtards?? Obama lost your money (well not really your money because liberals are likely to be in the 47% that pay no taxes) and JP Morgan lost their own money.


To be fair "conservatives" do all of this moronic crap too.
 
2012-05-14 04:34:54 PM

YixilTesiphon: crispyone: And they lost their own money unlike Obama that's lost billions and billions of taxpayer money. When Obama invests half a billion in Solyndra and that goes bad.....from liberals we get, "Hey, that happens in business!! You take the good with the bad." When JP Morgan loses $2 billion of their own money while still showing a profit...from liberals we get "These scumbags need more regulations!!!"

What's so had to understand libtards?? Obama lost your money (well not really your money because liberals are likely to be in the 47% that pay no taxes) and JP Morgan lost their own money.

To be fair "conservatives" do all of this moronic crap too.


Yeah, but conservatives waste money in military defense spending and those companies don't go broke within 2 years and the technology they develop actually works.
 
2012-05-14 04:36:48 PM

crispyone: YixilTesiphon: crispyone: And they lost their own money unlike Obama that's lost billions and billions of taxpayer money. When Obama invests half a billion in Solyndra and that goes bad.....from liberals we get, "Hey, that happens in business!! You take the good with the bad." When JP Morgan loses $2 billion of their own money while still showing a profit...from liberals we get "These scumbags need more regulations!!!"

What's so had to understand libtards?? Obama lost your money (well not really your money because liberals are likely to be in the 47% that pay no taxes) and JP Morgan lost their own money.

To be fair "conservatives" do all of this moronic crap too.

Yeah, but conservatives waste money in military defense spending and those companies don't go broke within 2 years and the technology they develop actually works.


I take no side in this argument but simply want to utter the syllables f-22
 
2012-05-14 04:40:28 PM

arcas: Drew is in line to receive $14.7 million severance in the form of stock, $2.6 million in pension benefits and almost $10 million in deferred compensation, according to Theo Francis, a senior reporter at footnoted.com, a website that specializes in SEC filings.

That's a pretty nice golden parachute...


Well, she surely earned it. I'm waiting for some libtards to come in here and bash capitalism/freedomfries and say she should give the money back. I think she set a record. That deserves to be recognized.
 
2012-05-14 04:41:45 PM
30 mil? Nah the system is on the up and up
 
2012-05-14 04:49:13 PM
I wonder how much my severance pay will be when I decide to resign in disgrace? I better get busy and fark up really big so I can find out!!
 
2012-05-14 04:58:56 PM
I honestly dont get the major public and political outcry about this. A company lost money and everything is fine. Nobody is getting bailed out, the system is shrugging this off, everything's fine, nothing is ruined.

All this really seems to do is highlight how hard the volker rule would be to implement. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the losing position was a hedge or speculation. This is a pretty good (long) description of everything:

http://dealbreaker.com/2012/05/the-tale-of-a-whale-of-a-fail/
 
2012-05-14 06:00:31 PM

jst3p: Drew is in line to receive $14.7 million severance in the form of stock, $2.6 million in pension benefits and almost $10 million in deferred compensation,

I know we like to talk shiat about people in the financial industry but they are people. How is she supposed to live on this? That poor dear...


Meanwhile, when I was laid off from Chase (not for farking the company out of $2bn, btw, it was just an impersonal bureaucratic numbers game) I got six month's severance. The end.
 
2012-05-14 06:06:22 PM

gtp123: I honestly dont get the major public and political outcry about this. A company lost MY FREAKING money and everything is fine. Nobody is getting bailed out, the system is shrugging this off, everything's fine, nothing is ruined.


You don't get it - they're a bank that people put money into and that's where their money comes from. They don't make anything, they don't provide specialized services like doctors or lawyers, and they don't deal with anything besides money. At the root of it, their entire business is based on the fact that I would like to put my money someplace safe today and expect to have it still be safe in a month or so. Now, I understand that they don't provide this service for free - that's why they're allowed to give my money to other people, with the expectation that those people will pay it back plus enough extra to keep the lights on and pay salaries.

The reason I have to describe this in such fundamentals is because people have lost sight of the true purpose of banks. They're designed to facilitate the transfer of money. The whole purpose of a banking system (and the reason there is a government controlled one in the Fed) is to allow money to move. And as the world economy has gotten more complicated, and there are more directions in which money is moved, and more ways for it to be spent, the banking system has gotten increasingly more complicated, until the end result is that bankers worry more about moving money than anything else.

But it goes back to the bottom line: Banks exist because I want to put my money somewhere where it will be safe when I come back for it. And because people sometimes need more money now than they have, and are willing to pay extra to get their hands on it now. Anything that obfuscates or harms that basic farking mission of banking is just flat out bullshiat. And if it takes the government gutting every one of these companies until they're broken into a million pieces, and regulating them so tight that they can't even take a shiat without a ream of paperwork to make sure that I will continue to be able to get a loan when I need one, and have my deposits there when I come back for them, then I'm all for it.

All this really seems to do is highlight how hard the volker rule would be to implement. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the losing position was a hedge or speculation. This is a pretty good (long) description of everything:

http://dealbreaker.com/2012/05/the-tale-of-a-whale-of-a-fail/

Who gives a shiat about some hack's whining about the Volcker Rule being complicated? It wouldn't be hard at all - "Everybody who wants to trade on Wall Street, get on this side of the room. Everybody who wants to take deposits and make loans to customers, get on this side of the room. Ok, this side of the room never gets to talk to this side of the room again. In fact, this side of the room is now a completely separate company, and you can't even share a coffeemaker with that side of the room." Bam, done.
 
2012-05-14 07:17:25 PM

phyrkrakr: A company lost MY FREAKING money


A company lost some shareholder's earnings. Nobody's deposits were lost. It doesn't work that way. Relax.

You don't get it - they're a bank that people put money into and that's where their money comes from. They don't make anything, they don't provide specialized services like doctors or lawyers, and they don't deal with anything besides money. At the root of it, their entire business is based on the fact that I would like to put my money someplace safe today and expect to have it still be safe in a month or so.

No, a bank's job is to match up short term liabilities with long term assets, i.e. borrowing short term from depositors and lending long term to people who want to build factories or buy houses. You get those nice things like checking and interest because they're competing to get your money you don't need now so they can lend it out to people who do need it now.

They're designed to facilitate the transfer of money. The whole purpose of a banking system (and the reason there is a government controlled one in the Fed) is to allow money to move.

Oh okay, now you got it.

But it goes back to the bottom line: Banks exist because I want to put my money somewhere where it will be safe when I come back for it.

Well, like you just said, that's not soley why banks exist, but you're right in that you want to be reasonably sure you'll get your deposits back. Since banks lend to corporations and homeowners they end up with massive credit risk, part of which is idiosyncratic, and part of which is more broad (I might be bad at paying back my loans b/c I'm lazy vs. everyone might be bad at paying back their loans because the economy tanks). The little idiosyncratic stuff is pretty easy to deal with - it works on the same principle that fire insurance works on, but it's tough if a bank's entire loan portfolio defaults because the economy blows up - you can't get rid of that risk by diversifying. So, because banks want to pay you back, it makes sense for them to try to protect themselves somewhat, for example by buying CDS protection to hedge against possible losses on their (real) loan portfolio.

The specifics are tricky. In this case, JPM messed up the specifics of the hedge, but this loss is properly categorized as an operational error (with consequences to JPM only) rather than a system-wide problem like we saw in 2008.

And because people sometimes need more money now than they have, and are willing to pay extra to get their hands on it now. Anything that obfuscates or harms that basic farking mission of banking is just flat out bullshiat. And if it takes the government gutting every one of these companies until they're broken into a million pieces, and regulating them so tight ...

I would argue that having massively long vanilla credit exposure (which is what a "bank with no bullshiat" is) is way more risky and speculative than putting on a simple hedge. If I were a regulator, I would look at a bank with massive unhedged credit exposure and say "that's prop trading, they're betting good credit conditions." Your point is kind of like saying airlines buying oil futures to hedge fuel costs is flat out bullshiat too. It's just basic risk management. In this case, JPM messed up, but like I said, it's totally on them and nobody is being bailed out or losing their deposits. Operational vs. systematic problem.
 
2012-05-14 07:43:50 PM

Beerguy: FTA:

"Ina Drew, 55, reportedly is one of the highest-paid women on Wall Street."

Well, I for one am shocked!


She apparently was integral to JP Morgan having escaped the crisis relatively unscathed.

But whatever, don't let any facts interfere with our jealousy induced rage.
 
2012-05-14 07:52:23 PM

gtp123: phyrkrakr: A company lost MY FREAKING money

A company lost some shareholder's earnings. Nobody's deposits were lost. It doesn't work that way. Relax.

You don't get it - they're a bank that people put money into and that's where their money comes from. They don't make anything, they don't provide specialized services like doctors or lawyers, and they don't deal with anything besides money. At the root of it, their entire business is based on the fact that I would like to put my money someplace safe today and expect to have it still be safe in a month or so.

No, a bank's job is to match up short term liabilities with long term assets, i.e. borrowing short term from depositors and lending long term to people who want to build factories or buy houses. You get those nice things like checking and interest because they're competing to get your money you don't need now so they can lend it out to people who do need it now.

They're designed to facilitate the transfer of money. The whole purpose of a banking system (and the reason there is a government controlled one in the Fed) is to allow money to move.

Oh okay, now you got it.

But it goes back to the bottom line: Banks exist because I want to put my money somewhere where it will be safe when I come back for it.

Well, like you just said, that's not soley why banks exist, but you're right in that you want to be reasonably sure you'll get your deposits back. Since banks lend to corporations and homeowners they end up with massive credit risk, part of which is idiosyncratic, and part of which is more broad (I might be bad at paying back my loans b/c I'm lazy vs. everyone might be bad at paying back their loans because the economy tanks). The little idiosyncratic stuff is pretty easy to deal with - it works on the same principle that fire insurance works on, but it's tough if a bank's entire loan portfolio defaults because the economy blows up - you can't get rid of that risk by diversifying. So, because banks want to pay you back, it makes sense for them to try to protect themselves somewhat, for example by buying CDS protection to hedge against possible losses on their (real) loan portfolio.

The specifics are tricky. In this case, JPM messed up the specifics of the hedge, but this loss is properly categorized as an operational error (with consequences to JPM only) rather than a system-wide problem like we saw in 2008.

And because people sometimes need more money now than they have, and are willing to pay extra to get their hands on it now. Anything that obfuscates or harms that basic farking mission of banking is just flat out bullshiat. And if it takes the government gutting every one of these companies until they're broken into a million pieces, and regulating them so tight ...

I would argue that having massively long vanilla credit exposure (which is what a "bank with no bullshiat" is) is way more risky and speculative than putting on a simple hedge. If I were a regulator, I would look at a bank with massive unhedged credit exposure and say "that's prop trading, they're betting good credit conditions." Your point is kind of like saying airlines buying oil futures to hedge fuel costs is flat out bullshiat too. It's just basic risk management. In this case, JPM messed up, but like I said, it's totally on them and nobody is being bailed out or losing their deposits. Operational vs. systematic problem.


Hi, haven't seen you here before. First off, welcome to fark.

Secondly, allow me to summarize the standard fark rejoinder to your long winded and unnecessarily detailed post:

OMFG BAILOUTS GOLdmaN SAChS SOCIALIZED LOSSES GLASS STeAGALL JUMP YOU FaRKERS TAx CUTS SPECULATORS GREED 1!!!1!!!!!!

Thanks and try to keep these points in mind before posting again.
 
2012-05-14 11:08:49 PM
Executives should be let go when a significant trading loss occurs? Or only when the loss doesn't require a government bail out?
 
2012-05-15 01:26:31 AM
How does an incompetent manager of portfolio managers get $15 million a year? I guess my dad was doing it wrong. Then again, he never let people make multiple negating, stupid hedge bets on stuff like this. People in finance used to be worthy of respect. And it wasn't that long ago.

The good news: Eventually, frauds like Ina Drew reach the end. The first paragraph of their obits will remind everybody that they were failures.
 
2012-05-15 05:47:24 AM
Megabanks are corrupt and screwing the public.

Film at 11
 
2012-05-15 08:59:46 AM
If businesses are people (as brought to us by Citizens United)...and the businesses are betting against other people...technically shouldn't we be able to bet against them (since they are people)?
 
2012-05-15 09:54:45 AM

OhioUGrad: If businesses are people (as brought to us by Citizens United)...and the businesses are betting against other people...technically shouldn't we be able to bet against them (since they are people)?


It's called shorting stock. Anybody with a brokerage account can do it.
 
2012-05-15 10:37:43 AM

YixilTesiphon: OhioUGrad: If businesses are people (as brought to us by Citizens United)...and the businesses are betting against other people...technically shouldn't we be able to bet against them (since they are people)?

It's called shorting stock. Anybody with a brokerage account can do it.


Ah, well I have one, but do not know enough about the stock market to really do much with it...so well damn. Thanks for the info though.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report