at least one person on this thread can read. She never said he should resign from JPM like most of the Department of Education educated kneejerk rightwing mush filled braindead posters believe because they saw it in a thread title on ET, or heard it on Fox News. All she said is he should resign from the New York Fed as LincolnArmy correctly pointed out. Without getting into it too deep, it's just a suggestion that the foxes shouldn't be overseeing the henhouse.
LOL! I think it was Bill Cohen who interviewed an ex-Lehman exec who told him that back pre-2008 they actively recruited guys with sociopath personalities. I guess they had the bright idea that they would be sociopathic towards others, but not toward their own company. So basically, sociopathic people were being hired by stupid people.
A "quasi" risk-free banking industry is very simple to define and I am a proponent of it: Simple asset-liability management, in other words, deposit taking and lending under strict risk management metrics. Yes, there is no risk-free in any enterprise that is supposed to be profit oriented, true, but I very much favor a return to a strict banking-broker separation. Depositors of cash should NEVER EVER fear again that their funds are at risk because of traders that went on a rampage. It makes zero sense. Thus, a bank should be an entity without ANY brokerage business, without proprietary trades, without facilitation teams (= prop trading, well, almost...), no underwriting or advisory, no research groups, no nothing other than simple asset and liability management of cash, short-term loan management, the limit should be well defined risk limits and notional ceilings of extended business loans. Period. Pretty simple to define in my book and we would not need Basel 3 and 4 and 5 and what else will come in the future. There was a discussion going on involving Martinghoul and I suggested ways to change this current global economic mess and this is a very practical way to start cleaning up the worst of the financial industry. Then you have brokers that are strictly regulated to ONLY facilitate the making of markets, selling of newly issued shares, issuing M&A advice, and such forth. Some argue that being an arranger in IPOs always involves risks. Yes, true, but it can be mitigated. No broker should be allowed to underwrite insane amounts of stocks that only end up on its own balance sheet because they cannot be distributed. The whole process of IPOs and secondary offerings should be re-designed, companies who should go public SHOULD NEVER EVER AGAIN be guaranteed a price NOR number of shares they can sell to the public UNTIL the public actually takes up shares as a pure function of demand. I understand perfectly well that there are huge monetary interests involved, heavily backed by lobbyists that argue to the contrary but hey, will anything ever change to the better when being in bed with lobbyists. Additionally I do not understand the whole political campaign financing in the U.S. Is this a joke? Since when should politicians and political groups EVER be financed and supported by the very same entities they are supposed to later regulate??? Of course the result of abolishing any campaign financing will be that the money whores who currently sit in Washington need to get out and make their dishonest living in the private industry rather than at the expense of taxpayers. How can all this change be undertaken? This is where the real crux lies: It can't until the pain on the street becomes so impossible to bear that the ordinary man starts to rise up against the rigged system. We are still too far away from that. The system is so well designed and lubed to benefit those who are complicit that change can only come from the very bottom of the food chain. As soon as those individuals feel they are cheated enough and left out then the time has come for those majority of people to rise against the established institutions, not a second before that. Sad but true in my opinion.
The masses is still sleeping. They will be in for a very rude awakening. The scums, many of them will probably seek asylum...in places like Brazil and Argentina along with other scums. It's gonna be one big scumbag reunion in South America lol. By then, the US of A will get their second storming of the Bastille (DC).
================ Great points; I wonder if Elizabeth Warren is long GLD,gold??.I wouldnt blame game Elizabeth for that, most of the longer trends are up. But with all due respect for Elizabeth, she helped create the CFPB, according to that article. So she seems to be wrong so long; i would like to see her do to CFPB, what the market did to BSC,BAC ,C, LEH....................................... I dont really have an opinion on Mr Dimon resigning. With the lawsuits already filed on this 2 or 3+ billion loss; & JPM downtrendibng, GLD, gold uptrending[1+ year chart] C downtrending, BAC downtrending, BB fed head seeking more derivative oversight. This may help''change'' the banking system, for the better... So investor/trader payday someday may come sooner than the lobbyists figured.I do disagree with Mr Dimon & BAC calling a market bottom in real estate. But call enough bottoms in a bear trend, one of these years, he may be right.LOL And to be fair with him , some RE has done well... While $50,000 JPM campaign cash to Senator Scott Brown[Eiizabeth Warren opponent]probably helped JPM some. Actually no matter how good the gold uptrend, most Americans did not want higher debit/bank card fees reguardless
Ahahahahahaha Does she explain how banks are going to cover their cost of capital by earning the risk-free rate? Does she think a corporate loan book, or a residential mortgage portfolio, is risk free? Why are Wal-Mart, Exxon and Microsoft allowed to take risks, but not banks?
well, the argument started when we bailed out the banks, and there is still a concern that if JPM takes big risks the taxpayer may have to bail them out again. It has something to do with government guranteed loans. So, I'm cool with GNMA but I'm not cool with covering your bet on them.
lol, why? Very simple answer: Because the risk is born by SHAREHOLDERS. If a corporate misjudged risk and gets bitten there are two options: It goes out of business or its executive managers get axed by the real owners of the firm, its shareholders. If this was the case with big banks then I have no problem with them taking insane amounts of risks, BUT its not the case: Here the risk is born by deposit takers who unassumingly believe the probability of getting 100 cents back on the dollar is 1 and secondly the risk is born by tax payers who had no interest in being liable for such bank otherwise they would have become shareholders in the first place. I am not sure what you are confused about to be honest, I find the distinction crystal clear.
============= Old time & A Industry; Execellant points,and AIG.... Who can forget Citigroup taking thier gov bailout, then shortly after trying to buy a new jet??.Even the gov stopped that jet set.. And the current C ,bid of $26.01; is actually $2.60 since they reverse stock split 10 for 1...