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
    More: Followup, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase & Co., trading loss, activist investors, Municipal Employees  
•       •       •

3504 clicks; posted to Business » on 15 May 2012 at 9:48 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-05-15 10:48:56 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:28:04 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:27:22 AM  
1 vote:
This will surely ruin him and send him in to poverty.
2012-05-15 08:53:09 AM  
1 vote:
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 08:37:43 AM  
1 vote:
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.
 
Displayed 5 of 5 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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