Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(LA Times)   JPMorgan CEO Jamie "Who the f*ck do you think you are?" Dimon stripped of his board chairmanship and smug-ass grin   (latimes.com) divider line 58
    More: Followup, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase & Co., trading loss, activist investors, Municipal Employees  
•       •       •

3503 clicks; posted to Business » on 15 May 2012 at 9:48 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-15 01:13:02 AM  
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one.

/jump you f*cker
 
2012-05-15 02:06:16 AM  
Stripped? Or might be?
 
2012-05-15 03:10:57 AM  
i224.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-15 08:03:26 AM  
Jump you f*ckers
 
2012-05-15 08:13:30 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jump you f*ckers


this
 
2012-05-15 08:37:43 AM  
The trouble with Skinnerian Behaviorist theories is that they accurately describe the behavior of everything from birds to rats to Chairmen of the Board of big banks. Only Chairmen of the Board of big banks and their investors don't believe in it.

So every once in awhile, when you don't have the right structural safeguards in place to snap them out of it, you have somebody at the food chain fall prey to the compulsion to gamble. And at that level it only takes a tiny bit of compulsive gambling to take real money off the books permanently. It works like all other compulsive gambling. You make a few big wins and you feel bulletproof. The more you win, the more bulletproof you feel. Until you start losing. Then you can't believe you're losing, so a big win is just around the corner....

What's happened is that some of these guys' previous big wins that a whole bunch of people attributed to genius were luck, not skill. They've been gambling for awhile now. It just now got noticed because they had a big loss.

They weren't "minimizing risk" before. They were just winning at the table. When you're winning, nobody goes back and triple-checks your math.
 
2012-05-15 08:40:45 AM  
Sorry, "somebody at the top of the food chain fall prey"
 
2012-05-15 08:40:47 AM  
keep in mind folks:

Of the U.S.'s nine largest banks, JPMorgan Chase was arguably the healthiest bank, and did not need to take TARP funds. In order to encourage smaller banks with troubled assets to accept this money, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson allegedly coerced the CEOs of the nine largest banks to accept TARP money under short notice. JPMorgan Chase was also the first of the largest banks to repay the TARP money.
 
2012-05-15 08:53:09 AM  
While I know JP Morgan Chase's management's hubris had a lot to do with this, I have to admit that I don't know if the bad deals were straight up gambling OR if they were an example of bad modeling of risk.

I know these guys are "technical" investors, so they have mathematical models that plug in a broad number of risk factors, and so forth. This could have happened just because someone did the math wrong and someone else didn't triple check the math like they should have.

When I was taking undergraduate physics (sci & engineering school), the physics department gave no partial credit on tests, and the problems we had to work involved a whole bunch of different steps where we had to do a whole bunch of different calculations.

The reasoning was simple. As the professor who wrote the tests put it, "In the real world, if you change the sign on a number and you don't catch it, your bridge falls down and kills a bunch of people. You folks are going out there where your math errors can kill people. Learn not to make them now."

So maybe somebody's math error killed $2 billion.

Maybe their college professors gave partial credit.
 
2012-05-15 09:00:00 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jump you f*ckers

 
2012-05-15 09:00:58 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
RIP Johnny Damon
 
2012-05-15 09:06:06 AM  

SilentStrider: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jump you f*ckers

 
2012-05-15 09:19:20 AM  

Julie Cochrane: So maybe somebody's math error killed $2 billion.

Maybe their college professors gave partial credit.


He had said there was sloppiness. That sounds to me like they changed a sign and their bridge fell down.

I think it was a combination of things. He says bad judgement too. I think there were basic careless math errors. I also think that they just made bad trading decisions influenced by gut and feel as well.
 
2012-05-15 09:25:19 AM  

Julie Cochrane: So every once in awhile, when you don't have the right structural safeguards in place to snap them out of it, you have somebody at the food chain fall prey to the compulsion to gamble. And at that level it only takes a tiny bit of compulsive gambling to take real money off the books permanently. It works like all other compulsive gambling. You make a few big wins and you feel bulletproof. The more you win, the more bulletproof you feel. Until you start losing. Then you can't believe you're losing, so a big win is just around the corner....

What's happened is that some of these guys' previous big wins that a whole bunch of people attributed to genius were luck, not skill. They've been gambling for awhile now. It just now got noticed because they had a big loss.

They weren't "minimizing risk" before. They were just winning at the table. When you're winning, nobody goes back and triple-checks your math.


Yep. People attribute their wins to their own skill, their loses to outside factors. Take 1000 people guessing coin tosses. After 10 of them, about 1 person will start thinking they can guess coin tosses.
 
2012-05-15 09:40:06 AM  
He probably needs to be ousted from the chairmanship so that the board can have more independent oversight of risk management, but Dimon is a good CEO and good for America. As much as Main Street hates him, they owe him the economy that he and the other financial executives managed to salvage from the economic disaster of 2008.
 
2012-05-15 09:51:08 AM  
Seriously! Just what is her problem!?

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-05-15 09:54:09 AM  
I think I'm having a schadenfreude overdose.
 
2012-05-15 10:20:40 AM  

Julie Cochrane: The trouble with Skinnerian Behaviorist theories is that they accurately describe the behavior of everything from birds to rats to Chairmen of the Board of big banks. Only Chairmen of the Board of big banks and their investors don't believe in it.

So every once in awhile, when you don't have the right structural safeguards in place to snap them out of it, you have somebody at the food chain fall prey to the compulsion to gamble. And at that level it only takes a tiny bit of compulsive gambling to take real money off the books permanently. It works like all other compulsive gambling. You make a few big wins and you feel bulletproof. The more you win, the more bulletproof you feel. Until you start losing. Then you can't believe you're losing, so a big win is just around the corner....

What's happened is that some of these guys' previous big wins that a whole bunch of people attributed to genius were luck, not skill. They've been gambling for awhile now. It just now got noticed because they had a big loss.

They weren't "minimizing risk" before. They were just winning at the table. When you're winning, nobody goes back and triple-checks your math.


Should have dropped cable and gotten Direct TV.
 
2012-05-15 10:27:22 AM  
This will surely ruin him and send him in to poverty.
 
2012-05-15 10:27:45 AM  
f.cl.ly
 
2012-05-15 10:28:04 AM  

Julie Cochrane: The trouble with Skinnerian Behaviorist theories is that they accurately describe the behavior of everything from birds to rats to Chairmen of the Board of big banks. Only Chairmen of the Board of big banks and their investors don't believe in it.

So every once in awhile, when you don't have the right structural safeguards in place to snap them out of it, you have somebody at the food chain fall prey to the compulsion to gamble. And at that level it only takes a tiny bit of compulsive gambling to take real money off the books permanently. It works like all other compulsive gambling. You make a few big wins and you feel bulletproof. The more you win, the more bulletproof you feel. Until you start losing. Then you can't believe you're losing, so a big win is just around the corner....

What's happened is that some of these guys' previous big wins that a whole bunch of people attributed to genius were luck, not skill. They've been gambling for awhile now. It just now got noticed because they had a big loss.

They weren't "minimizing risk" before. They were just winning at the table. When you're winning, nobody goes back and triple-checks your math.


You forgot to mention that if you bet big enough and lose big enough, the house covers your losses because you're deemed "too big too fail". Of course if you bet huge and win, you get to pocket the cash, so it's a no-lose situation. That's certainly not an incentive to play conservatively.
 
2012-05-15 10:48:56 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one.

/jump you f*cker



i bet that ole' cock of his got real flacid real quick.

even a 19 year old college cheerleader wouldn't be able to get it hard now.
 
2012-05-15 11:03:38 AM  
Wish they could shoot him. That would be fun to watch!

/Make the family watch too!
 
2012-05-15 11:12:38 AM  

DrippinBalls: Wish they could shoot him. That would be fun to watch!

/Make the family watch too!


Why would you even post something that so readily identifies you as having nothing worthwhile to contribute?
 
2012-05-15 11:39:00 AM  

SilentStrider: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jump you f*ckers


Nope - no good. He'll just land on his giant pile of cash or be saved by the golden parachute.
 
2012-05-15 11:50:40 AM  

highendmighty: SilentStrider: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jump you f*ckers

Nope - no good. He'll just land on his giant pile of cash or be saved by the golden parachute.


This. Yeah, I'm sure he won't be grinning at all as he goes home to his savings that ensure he will never have to work another day in his life.
 
2012-05-15 12:00:26 PM  
Thats it suckers, focus on the soap opera created to distract you from the crimes being committed
 
2012-05-15 12:02:20 PM  

turtleking: Thats it suckers, focus on the soap opera created to distract you from the crimes being committed


Wut? Crimes?
 
2012-05-15 12:11:22 PM  
I'm just glad the careless, arrogant sons of biatches weren't doing something critical to people's lives, like designing a skyscraper in a quake zone.

Money's replaceable. Lives aren't.

Be glad those mercenary douches go to Wall Street instead of into engineering.
 
2012-05-15 12:12:00 PM  

StrangeQ: highendmighty: SilentStrider: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jump you f*ckers

Nope - no good. He'll just land on his giant pile of cash or be saved by the golden parachute.

This. Yeah, I'm sure he won't be grinning at all as he goes home to his savings that ensure he will never have to work another day in his life.


Haha, like he's going to be able to cut back on the way he was living before. He's a CEO, a class of people who throw hissy fits if at the end of the year their bonuses aren't quite big enough to cover the cost of the yacht they preemptively bought.
 
2012-05-15 12:13:52 PM  

DrippinBalls: Wish they could shoot him. That would be fun to watch!

/Make the family watch too!


How about we just put in sensible regulations and call it a day? Nobody dies, the economy doesn't crash, and we can listen to these assholes piss and moan all the live long day?
 
2012-05-15 12:27:36 PM  
This is promising. if America's shareholders were to grow a pair, and start taking proactive measures to clean up some of this nonsense, things might actually get a little better.
 
2012-05-15 12:29:11 PM  
Hahaha..

Dimon survived the vote and keeps both his bonus and his chairmanship.
Link
 
2012-05-15 12:30:02 PM  
Meh, if he gets fired that probably only triggers a "golden parachute" clause. At some point I daresay CEOs get fired on purpose when the buyout is worth more than what they make.

Julie Cochrane: They weren't "minimizing risk" before. They were just winning at the table. When you're winning, nobody goes back and triple-checks your math.


Oh, they do, but these people are driven out. America decided that it doesn't like party poopers and goody-two-shoes. Unfortunately, stigmatizing integrity is a bit of a one-way street. For example, I really don't know why anyone even remotely cares what Moody's says these days consider they created a culture that discouraged proper analysis in favor of taking bribes. When every single person in an entire company is a sell-out and the company managed to get protection from the courts, how exactly does one "clean house"? You think anyone in the company has the slightest incentive to replace themselves with people nothing like them?

Goldbugs keep talking about the drop in value of the dollar, but this slow inflation due to a slow economy is nothing compared to the hideous crash that would result if investors lost confidence in our economic information. The reason why America's investment opportunities -- from treasuries to stocks & bonds -- still dominate the global economy is because they're still considered far more reliable than most -- not in terms of return rate, but the integrity of the return itself. For example, we can get away with selling our government debt for 2% because for all the derp on cable networks, investors are going off over a century of rock-solid returns -- no defaults, no hyperinflation. Entrepreneurs can raise VC relatively easily in this country precisely because of our financial regulations. In spite of the Republicans' best efforts, an audit still actually means something in this country. People are certainly investing in BRIC economies, but they always flee to T-bills at the first sign of trouble because there's limited trust in the actual numbers coming out of developing nations. Trash the Fed and BLS all you want; they're still trust far more than most foreign governments. Regardless of how bad the numbers get, investors will always prefer numbers they trust over numbers they don't. The more you politicize accounting (which is what the banks are working night and day to do), the less reliable the numbers get. When global investors finally decide that America's numbers aren't any more reliable than any BRIC nation's, we're TOTALLY farked. When (not if, WHEN) America shiats away this last overwhelming advantage, there will be a MASSIVE flight of capital out of the country. It'll be a one-way process, and you're better off not thinking of the consequences if you want to sleep.

America's financial institutions were built on a reputation of trust, NOT PROFITS, and they're busy cashing that in. Pray you don't live long enough to see the end of it.
 
2012-05-15 12:30:45 PM  
The shareholders' meeting is in Tampa, FL and the Florida tag wasn't employed? Shocking!
 
2012-05-15 12:33:39 PM  

jso2897: This is promising. if America's shareholders were to grow a pair, and start taking proactive measures to clean up some of this nonsense, things might actually get a little better.


Very few companies actually allow shareholders to have any power other than selling off stock in protest.
 
2012-05-15 12:34:11 PM  

SlothB77: keep in mind folks:

Of the U.S.'s nine largest banks, JPMorgan Chase was arguably the healthiest bank, and did not need to take TARP funds. In order to encourage smaller banks with troubled assets to accept this money, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson allegedly coerced the CEOs of the nine largest banks to accept TARP money under short notice. JPMorgan Chase was also the first of the largest banks to repay the TARP money.


It helps that they were handed Bear Stearns on a silver platter with a ton of governmental assistance and picked up Wamu for pennies.
 
2012-05-15 12:43:17 PM  
Don't worry Jamie. Your has proven itself able to self regulate.

/in the internets, no one can hear your sarcasm
 
2012-05-15 12:44:57 PM  

FlashHarry: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jump you f*ckers

this


And they will, into a pile of money.
 
2012-05-15 12:47:21 PM  

Julie Cochrane: While I know JP Morgan Chase's management's hubris had a lot to do with this, I have to admit that I don't know if the bad deals were straight up gambling OR if they were an example of bad modeling of risk.

I know these guys are "technical" investors, so they have mathematical models that plug in a broad number of risk factors, and so forth. This could have happened just because someone did the math wrong and someone else didn't triple check the math like they should have.

When I was taking undergraduate physics (sci & engineering school), the physics department gave no partial credit on tests, and the problems we had to work involved a whole bunch of different steps where we had to do a whole bunch of different calculations.

The reasoning was simple. As the professor who wrote the tests put it, "In the real world, if you change the sign on a number and you don't catch it, your bridge falls down and kills a bunch of people. You folks are going out there where your math errors can kill people. Learn not to make them now."

So maybe somebody's math error killed $2 billion.

Maybe their college professors gave partial credit.


Hubris? Math error? This was not a mathing error accident!
i90.photobucket.com

This was a deliberate end run around regulation to add risk and more leverage to the JPM books. They tried to slip these past the goalie by classifying the trades as a hedge, in a risk management division. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. They got caught. Please stop, you're killing me with your math error possiblity.
 
2012-05-15 12:53:32 PM  

Lucky LaRue: He probably needs to be ousted from the chairmanship so that the board can have more independent oversight of risk management, but Dimon is a good CEO and good for America. As much as Main Street hates him, they owe him the economy that he and the other financial executives managed to salvage from the economic disaster of 2008.


Jamie Dimon will not sleep with you.
 
2012-05-15 01:02:58 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Hahaha..

Dimon survived the vote and keeps both his bonus and his chairmanship.
Link


Really? You mean the righteous indignation of the economic intellectuals of Fark did nothing to influence the actual owners of the bank?
 
2012-05-15 01:15:53 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Hahaha..

Dimon survived the vote and keeps both his bonus and his chairmanship.
Link


What did you win?
 
2012-05-15 01:20:09 PM  
That poor, poor man. He oversees a $2billion loss and he's going to lose a 1% portion of his $100M bonus. Those guys have it tough. Sally Struthers should create some new TV ads so that they will be given back all of the taxes they ever paid in compensation.
 
2012-05-15 01:21:26 PM  
Question: what exactly were they trading that they took such a big loss? Was it a large volume of stocks? Bonds? Commodities? I'm just wondering where the loss came from?

/obviously not a finance guy
 
2012-05-15 01:38:40 PM  

FormlessOne: Lucky LaRue: Hahaha..

Dimon survived the vote and keeps both his bonus and his chairmanship.
Link

What did you win?


schadenfreude
 
2012-05-15 02:07:59 PM  
The link didn't say he would be, only that he might.

He survived. We still haven't addressed the underlying causes of the '08 crash and it doesn't seem likely that we'll learn our lesson in time for another one.

Guess that's how it goes. Too bad.
 
2012-05-15 02:26:16 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Lucky LaRue: Hahaha..

Dimon survived the vote and keeps both his bonus and his chairmanship.
Link

Really? You mean the righteous indignation of the economic intellectuals of Fark did nothing to influence the actual owners of the bank?


"The actual owners of the bank". That's cute.

This is also cute:

"Most of the shareholder ballots were cast in the weeks before Dimon revealed the trading loss."
 
2012-05-15 02:38:06 PM  
See the system works. Jamie Dimon allowed a horrible mistake and totally mismanaged the reaction to it and the system corrected itself by giving him a massive bonus and completely insulating him from any negative consequence from his failures. That's exactly what the current corporate governance system is designed to do: enrich the top executives under any and all circumstances, no matter how much incompetence is shown.
 
2012-05-15 03:03:31 PM  
Somehow I think he'll survive just fine even without the job.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report