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)   JP Morgan says the buck stops with their scapegoats, who will be bled the maximum amount of cash allowed by law   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 13
    More: Obvious, JPMorgan Chase & Co., trading loss, credit derivatives, CIO, restricted stock  
•       •       •

1376 clicks; posted to Business » on 13 Jul 2012 at 4:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-07-13 02:22:08 PM  
"bank accepted Drew's offer to return about two years of compensation" .. subby ...
 
2012-07-13 03:05:58 PM  

xynix: "bank accepted Drew's offer to return about two years of compensation" .. subby ...


FTA: "We've made the decision to claw back compensation from each of these individuals," said Michael Cavanagh

Since when is a "clawback" a voluntary process? Sounds like he just couldn't fight it. It's like quitting instead of being fired.
 
2012-07-13 03:32:27 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: xynix: "bank accepted Drew's offer to return about two years of compensation" .. subby ...

FTA: "We've made the decision to claw back compensation from each of these individuals," said Michael Cavanagh

Since when is a "clawback" a voluntary process? Sounds like he just couldn't fight it. It's like quitting instead of being fired.


Huge difference.. A contractual clawback would have to go through a lengthy legal process. If the person had already spent the money there would be lawsuits, liens, etc which of course involve legal fees. This person is offering to write a check and fulfill the clawback clause which frankly is pretty damn impressive. Otherwise there would be years and years of fighting and JPM may never recover all of the monies compensated.
 
2012-07-13 05:07:56 PM  
So when the banks cost the taxpayers trillions, jack shiat gets clawed back but when it costs their firm instead they start yanking two years back pay.

Does anyone remember back when banking execs were moving their own personal assets into other people's names because they were afraid they would be subject to government enforced clawbacks after they farked up so badly they bankrupted their firms?

Of course, as sold out as our government is, they got to pay bonuses with bailout money, instead of facing any clawbacks.
 
2012-07-13 05:34:52 PM  

BullBearMS: Of course, as sold out as our government is, they got to pay bonuses with bailout money, instead of facing any clawbacks.


The whole "the people responsible faced no consequences" is one of the things I am most disappointed about under this administration. I have no illusions it would be better under a Romney presidency either, but it is one of my two major disappointments with Obama.
 
2012-07-13 05:41:38 PM  

unlikely: The whole "the people responsible faced no consequences" is one of the things I am most disappointed about under this administration. I have no illusions it would be better under a Romney presidency either, but it is one of my two major disappointments with Obama.


Not gonna blow Obama's horn, but I'm rather of the opinion that things would be monstrously worse under Romney.
 
2012-07-13 07:39:23 PM  
I really don't care how much money J.P. Morgan Chase lost as long as they did not break the law and the government does not have to make good on the losses.
 
2012-07-13 07:49:39 PM  

runwiz: I really don't care how much money J.P. Morgan Chase lost as long as they did not break the law and the government does not have to make good on the losses.


I think this is an issue because it's somehow going to affect taxpayers or because we bailed them out and then they continue to take big risks knowing they're "too big to fail" or something like that.
 
2012-07-13 08:13:33 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: unlikely: The whole "the people responsible faced no consequences" is one of the things I am most disappointed about under this administration. I have no illusions it would be better under a Romney presidency either, but it is one of my two major disappointments with Obama.

Not gonna blow Obama's horn, but I'm rather of the opinion that things would be monstrously worse under Romney.


Why, because then there would be a Republican serving the interests of the wealthy instead of a Democrat?

Let's not forget just who Obama put in charge of the Department of Justice. Eric Holder is a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney whose clients include all the big names.

Had Obama wanted to strike real fear in the hearts of bankers, he might have appointed former special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald or some other fire-breather as his attorney general. Instead, he chose Eric Holder, a former Clinton Justice official who, after a career in government, joined the Washington office of Covington & Burling, a top-tier law firm with an elite white-collar defense unit. The move to Covington, and back to Justice, is an example of Washington's revolving-door ritual, which, for Holder, has been lucrative--he pulled in $2.1 million as a Covington partner in 2008, and $2.5 million (including deferred compensation) when he left the firm in 2009.

Putting a Covington partner--he spent nearly a decade at the firm--in charge of Justice may have sent a signal to the financial community, whose marquee names are Covington clients. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Deutsche Bank are among the institutions that pay for Covington's legal advice, some of it relating to matters before the Department of Justice.

But Holder's was not the only face at Justice familiar to Covington clients. Lanny Breuer, who had co-chaired the white-collar defense unit at Covington with Holder, was chosen to head the criminal division at Obama's Justice. Two other Covington lawyers followed Holder into top positions, and Holder's principal deputy, James Cole, was recruited from Bryan Cave LLP, another white-shoe firm with A-list finance clients.


When you stack the Justice Department with Wall Street defense attorneys at the highest levels, it's hardly any wonder that nobody has been charged with a crime.

Of course the Republicans wouldn't do anything better, but they never promised to if they were elected. That's what Obama said he would do.
 
2012-07-13 08:15:30 PM  

king of vegas: runwiz: I really don't care how much money J.P. Morgan Chase lost as long as they did not break the law and the government does not have to make good on the losses.

I think this is an issue because it's somehow going to affect taxpayers or because we bailed them out and then they continue to take big risks knowing they're "too big to fail" or something like that.


isnt the problem is that there is no law there... or they are the "experts" so they made the law...
 
2012-07-13 08:31:23 PM  

Virulency: king of vegas: runwiz: I really don't care how much money J.P. Morgan Chase lost as long as they did not break the law and the government does not have to make good on the losses.

I think this is an issue because it's somehow going to affect taxpayers or because we bailed them out and then they continue to take big risks knowing they're "too big to fail" or something like that.

isnt the problem is that there is no law there... or they are the "experts" so they made the law...


They make whatever laws they like.

When President Clinton's administration began, it was illegal for a bank to gamble if they had deposits backed up by the FDIC.

As usual, PBS can fill you in on what happened.

Bill Moyers talks with former Citigroup Chairman John Reed and former Senator Byron Dorgan to explore a momentous instance: how the late-90's merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group - and a friendly Presidential pen - brought down the Glass-Steagall Act, a crucial firewall between banks and investment firms which had protected consumers from financial calamity since the aftermath of the Great Depression. In effect, says Moyers, they "put the watchdog to sleep."

This was yet another example of a bipartisan action that served the interests of the obscenely wealthy and damned everyone else to the inevitable financial crisis we just suffered.
 
2012-07-14 10:23:09 AM  

BullBearMS: Patrick Fitzgerald


Do you really think the senate would have signed off on that? Heck, it be filibustered long before a vote could be called for to approve the appointment.
 
2012-07-14 03:58:34 PM  

limeyfellow: BullBearMS: Patrick Fitzgerald

Do you really think the senate would have signed off on that? Heck, it be filibustered long before a vote could be called for to approve the appointment.


Instead of making excuses, how about you remember the difference between what were were promised and what we got?

Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers "at the expense of hardworking Americans." Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it's not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.

Then he got elected.

What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.


Would you be making excuses if it had been McCain pulling this lying ass shiat?

Obama promised to put an end to special interests owning the White House. He lied.

Bill Moyers on PBS discussing just how deeply Wall Street and the Obama administration are intertwined:

Jack Lew is President Obama's new chief of staff - arguably the most powerful office in the White House that isn't shaped like an oval. He used to work for the giant banking conglomerate Citigroup. His predecessor as chief of staff is Bill Daley, who used to work at the giant banking conglomerate JPMorgan Chase, where he was maestro of the bank's global lobbying and chief liaison to the White House. Daley replaced Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who once worked as a rainmaker for the investment bank now known as Wasserstein & Company, where in less than three years he was paid a reported eighteen and a half million dollars.

The new guy, Jack Lew, ran hedge funds and private equity at Citigroup, which means he's a member of the Wall Street gang, too. His last job was as head of President Obama's Office of Management and Budget, where he replaced Peter Orzag, who now works as vice chairman for global banking at - hold on to your deposit slip - Citigroup.

Bush and Cheney aren't the only ones to have a soft spot for financiers. President Obama may call bankers "fat cats" and stir the rabble against them with populist rhetoric when it serves his interest, but after the fiscal fiasco, he allowed the culprits to escape virtually scot-free.

According to The New York Times, that as President Obama's inner circle has been shrinking, his "rare new best friend" is Robert Wolf. They play basketball, golf, and talk economics when Wolf is not raising money for the president's campaign.

Robert Wolf runs the U.S. branch of the giant Swiss bank UBS, which participated in schemes to help rich Americans evade their taxes.

And so it goes, the revolving door between government service and big money in the private sector spinning so fast it becomes an irresistible force hurling politics and high finance together so completely it's impossible to tell one from the other.


There is no excuse for this bullshiat. The Democratic party leadership is no different than the Republicans on this issue.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report