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.

(Washington Post)   JPMorgan Chase executives finally appear before Senate committee to answer for staggering losses. GOP lawmakers immediately attack the blatant irresponsibility, recklessness, and rampant unprofessionalism of ... federal regulators   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Dana Milbank, GOP, United States Senate committees, Senate, Gary Gensler, Mike Crapo, recklessness  
•       •       •

5148 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2012 at 11:08 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-23 01:46:48 PM  
Clearly the answer is less regulations!
 
2012-05-23 01:51:33 PM  
The Chase Mentality
*a couple's front door knob breaks and they can't lock it*
Honey, tomorrow we're going to the store and getting a new lock for our front door.
*during the night, someone breaks in*
Well, obviously locks don't work. So, not only are we not getting the lock, we're just going to go ahead and remove the entire front door.
 
2012-05-23 01:55:26 PM  

I alone am best: Or perhaps not very many of them can be traced back to Bush.

Repeal of glass-steagal: Clinton


Ctrl-Alt-Del: Virtually every one of these items can be traced back to either the Bush administration (via the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Securities and Exchange Commision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, etc), Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, banking industry lobbiests, and the senior management of banks themselves.


I alone am best:Commodities Futures Modernization Act: Clinton

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Virtually every one of these items can be traced back to either the Bush administration (via the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Securities and Exchange Commision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, etc), Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, banking industry lobbiests, and the senior management of banks themselves.


Also, both of these were passed by veto proof bipartisan majorities. your incessant juvenile implication that they are the sole responsibility of Bill Clinton is telling.

I alone am best: Interest rate cuts by Greenspan: I dont know how you would consider this Bush's fault.


Ctrl-Alt-Del: Virtually every one of these items can be traced back to either the Bush administration (via the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Securities and Exchange Commision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, etc), Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, banking industry lobbiests, and the senior management of banks themselves.


I alone am best: Creation of ever riskier asset backed securities and collateralized debt obligations: How can you even try to say that this traces back to Bush


Ctrl-Alt-Del: Virtually every one of these items can be traced back to either the Bush administration (via the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Securities and Exchange Commision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, etc), Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, banking industry lobbiests, and the senior management of banks themselves.


I alone am best: Credit default swap: Once again emerging as a hot thing in the 90s and did not increase in activity because of Bush


Ctrl-Alt-Del: Virtually every one of these items can be traced back to either the Bush administration (via the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Securities and Exchange Commision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, etc), Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, banking industry lobbiests, and the senior management of banks themselves.


So yeah, I think I could have saved myself the trouble ans simply stuck with the first sentence of my original post

I alone am best: Additionally could you explain this one.
- The Bush administrations successful dismantling of virtually all State consumer protection and banking regulations, and even banking laws, through the preemption doctrine


Given your inability (or unwillingness) to actually read and understand the paragraph I have had to repost five times now to demonstrate your mendacious cherry-picking of what I wrote to make it seem as if I laid all the blame on Bush, i see no point in explaining a goddamned thing to you -- you really are either a blithering idiot or a shameless farking liar.
 
2012-05-23 02:24:07 PM  
Sickening.

Reminds me of how they were apologizing to BP.
 
2012-05-23 02:44:25 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Also, both of these were passed by veto proof bipartisan majorities. your incessant juvenile implication that they are the sole responsibility of Bill Clinton is telling.


First I will apologize I seemed to not be capable of reading the word "either". I guess that would be the the benefit of quoting an entire post.

I still didn't see Clinton, or Frank in your list, your apparent inability to list them and to lump them under the "Banking Industry lobbyists" is enlightening though. Both of which had a major role.

Lets look at what Clinton said.

"On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into." - Clinton

It's pretty obvious a veto proof majority had nothing to do with his decision because he didn't want to veto it.

Like the fact that the SEC leverage waiver would have been taken care of with the changes to the net capital rules that Bush tried to do in 2003 but was balked at by congress and Frank

"These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis," - Frank

Or once again in 2005 when Mcain tried to push legislation to reform Fannie and Freddie but was killed in committee by Frank.

It seems to me that you have some sort of vested interest in keeping it all on one side while omitting the other side completely. Then you proceed to call someone else a partisan hack, I call that hypocrisy.
 
2012-05-23 02:46:00 PM  
JungleBoogie:The situation is this: investment banks (traders, brokers, taking high stakes risks, winning big and losing big) have been merged with commercial banks (places Joe6Pack deposits his money, has a checking and savings account with, places that make low-risk loans to businesses). This was possible because the Glass-Steagall rule was eroded over the years, and finally completed done away with.

The PROBLEM is: These big companies are Too Big To Fail. And their failure would mean the loss of consumer deposits. They have de facto taken consumer deposits hostage. All approved of course by the politicians who ultimately write the laws.

You're right - if deposit accounts were separated from Wall Streets betting operations, who cares. But they're not. So now, that's why people care. If one of these chimera investment/commercial banks made a big enough bad bet, they'd need to get bailed out. It puts consumer deposits at risk. That's more that taxpayers have to pay for stupid mistakes and trader/executive bonuses who caused the problem. The system works great for Wall Street. They have the ability to institute ad hoc taxes. Government being forced to bail you out no matter what is the most basic element of Too Big To Fail. The folks on Wall Street are well aware of this. They're very smart. And amoral.

Investment banks and commercial banks are one, and that's a big problem, leading to government intrusion into places it really doesn't need to be.


I'm not an economist, but the whole "OMGlass-Steagall!!1!" thing sounds like a post hoc fallacy. Yes, hybrid commercial/investment banks failed during the financial crisis. So did many pure investment banks, and many pure commercial banks. And let's remember that the crisis originated in the pure investment banks (particularly Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Goldman Sachs) - the ones who wrote the crap mortgage underwriting guidelines and invented the process of securitization. (Hell, securitization was being done all the way back in the 80's, when GS was still in effect.) Glass-Steagall would not have prevented that. And as for the loss of consumer deposits, that's what the FDIC is for, to make sure that private accounts held in commercial banks are insured against loss. Yes, that creates moral hazard, particularly in a hybrid bank. But the easier, and less costly and intrusive solution, would be to raise reserve capital requirements (making sure that the bank has enough capital on hand to cover a loss - the riskier the investment, the more reserve capital should be required.) And that's what happened here - JP Morgan had more than enough capital to cover this loss, enough that it'll even turn a profit this quarter. Talking about re-imposing Glass-Stegall in response to this, IMO, makes about as much sense as seeing a bad traffic accident and using that as a reason to ban smaller cars and make everyone drive the 2-ton 60's-70's era gas guzzlers in the name of "safety."

Katie98_KT:so, having been reading about this, my understanding is: we need regulation to prevent banks from using riskier debts to back up risky debts.

They already exist, and were strengthened after 2008. And again, JP Morgan had enough capital on hand to cover this loss. In short, the system worked as intended.
 
2012-05-23 03:04:15 PM  
...Please outlaw the GOP. I have stopped caring about the dangers of a one-party system. Get these lunatics the fark away from our government because they are actively trying to destroy it.
 
2012-05-23 03:36:02 PM  

Pocket Ninja: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.


That's the definition of "rehearsal."
 
2012-05-23 03:38:02 PM  

vpb: hillbillypharmacist: sweetmelissa31: There's not enough regulation, so that means regulation doesn't work, and therefore we should have no regulation.

Exactly. Republicans are physically unable to understand the adage don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sure they do. They just see it as a goal.



GOP politicians: well paid sociopaths
 
2012-05-23 03:45:08 PM  

mc6809e: HotWingConspiracy: mc6809e: Funny. The government is in the red by $15 trillion and thinks it should be lecturing JPMorgan for losing $3 billion (while JPMorgan still made $3 billion).

The private sector can do no right and the public sector can do no wrong, apparently.

Damn you're dumb.

Sounds like a personal attack. I thought the moderators were here to prevent that sort of thing.


welcometofark.jpg

Besides, the only reason fark mods exist is to make sure nobody tells the mods' sock puppet alts to stop trolling.
 
2012-05-23 03:48:43 PM  
So lemme get this right...
the republican congresscritters didn't get pissed at the private sector corporate assholes who farked up...
they got pissed at the federal regulators who didn't catch them farking up...

(jackiechanheadisfulloffark.jpg)
 
2012-05-23 03:52:21 PM  

rewind2846: So lemme get this right...
the republican congresscritters didn't get pissed at the private sector corporate assholes who farked up...
they got pissed at the federal regulators who didn't catch them farking up...

(jackiechanheadisfulloffark.jpg)


and after making sure that the regulators couldn't catch this kind of fark-up.
 
2012-05-23 04:49:21 PM  

I alone am best: Chummer45: This is what bothers me the most -- the media should be having a field day with this and bashing the GOP across the board. But, that assumes that most of the media isn't beholden to the same wall street interests.

It also assumes that the media doesn't know who actually eviscerated financial regulation. Who was that again? That guy who signed the repeal of glass-steagall? The one guy.. I think he was from a political party that started with the letter D.


I blame the f*ckheads who came up with the repeal legislation in the first place (and their wall-street puppetmasters) as much if not more than the one guy you're trying to pin this all on.
If you didn't know, these particular f*ckheads were: Senator Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia). Note the (R)'s by their names.

Your shallow attempt at deflection and partisanship is not pretty.
 
2012-05-23 04:49:29 PM  
Divide and Conquer would work a lot better against Wall Street than it does against us from Wall Street.

All you have to do is wake the fark up.
 
2012-05-23 04:55:56 PM  

rewind2846: I blame the f*ckheads who came up with the repeal legislation in the first place (and their wall-street puppetmasters) as much if not more than the one guy you're trying to pin this all on.
If you didn't know, these particular f*ckheads were: Senator Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia). Note the (R)'s by their names.

Your shallow attempt at deflection and partisanship is not pretty.


You also forgot - who should pay for the financial reform?

Everyone: Wall Street.
Scott Brown (R): Taxpayers.

Link
 
2012-05-23 05:04:47 PM  

MasterThief: I'm not an economist, but the whole "OMGlass-Steagall!!1!" thing sounds like a post hoc fallacy. Yes, hybrid commercial/investment banks failed during the financial crisis. So did many pure investment banks, and many pure commercial banks.


Pure investment bank fails: who loses, except stockholders who were warned of risks?
Pure commercial bank fails: FDIC moves in on Friday evening, reopens the bank on Monday morning, firing those responsible, clamping a vise on salaries and eliminating all bonuses and making sure all depositors' money is safe.
Hybrid bank fails: Treasury and Fed strong-arm FDIC into stepping aside and letting the government shovel billions to the banks, loaning them money at zero percent interest and allowing them to use the money (which was supposed to be loaned to keep companies from firing workers) buy short-term government paper at 2-3% and make a profit, allowing them to keep their inflated salaries and bonuses, and teaching them there's no investment too shaky to make, since the Uncle Sam Safety Net & Welfare For the Rich Co. is there for them.

And let's remember that the crisis originated in the pure investment banks (particularly Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Goldman Sachs) - the ones who wrote the crap mortgage underwriting guidelines and invented the process of securitization.

Ever read anything about Citi, WaMu, Wells Fargo, etc.?
 
2012-05-23 05:09:50 PM  

Speaker2Animals: WaMu


Yes, that I was becoming a chase customer regardless if I liked it or not
 
2012-05-23 05:11:55 PM  

MasterThief: And again, JP Morgan had enough capital on hand to cover this loss. In short, the system worked as intended.


Yeah, this one, so far. But:

What about the $100 billion in Euro mortgage securities?
 
2012-05-23 06:17:19 PM  

arcas: And Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey judged that "we've gone down the wrong road" with Dodd-Frank. The better course, he said, is a less intrusive plan that would "let the people in the marketplace make the decisions they will make."

I don't normally comment on politics threads but that's a damned scary statement, right there. Because, you know, that sort of autonomy worked so well leading up to 20081929...


FTFY
 
2012-05-23 06:46:32 PM  

I alone am best: Just claiming that we need more regulation is silly and every time I see it I laugh because what we actually need is effective regulation regulators, funding and punishment for infractions in addition to reinstatement of regulations wall street has paid to have removed.


fix'd
 
2012-05-23 11:59:27 PM  
Dodd-Frank could have been three words: No More Bailouts.

or

Let Them Fail.

or

Stop Subsidizing Stupid.
 
2012-05-24 12:20:26 AM  

vernonFL: What losses? They actually made money. They lost $2 billion in one instance, but overall the company was highly profitable.


Correction: ONE GUY lost them $2 billion by acquiring a position so large that the rest of the market noticed and acted accordingly.
 
2012-05-24 09:30:59 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: vernonFL: What losses? They actually made money. They lost $2 billion in one instance, but overall the company was highly profitable.

Correction: ONE GUY lost them $2 billion by acquiring a position so large that the rest of the market noticed and acted accordingly.


He represents the company, so it's not just "one guy". The company gave him that authority and right to trade under the company name, so the company as a whole is responsible.
 
Displayed 23 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

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