JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon took aim at U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a critic of large banks, as he expressed broad concerns about leadership in Washington. “I don’t know if she fully understands the global banking system,” Dimon, speaking Wednesday at an event in Chicago, said of the Massachusetts Democrat. Still, he said he agrees with some of her concerns about risks. Warren, a Senate Banking Committee member, has won popular support and gained influence in her party by openly challenging the size of large lenders and their political power. She has said it was a mistake for the U.S. government to refrain from breaking up big banks, such as Citigroup Inc., after the 2008 financial crisis. Last month, as firms including JPMorgan pleaded guilty to resolve probes into market-rigging, she criticized regulators for granting waivers that let the companies continue operating certain businesses. Dimon, who runs the largest U.S. bank by assets, said he would meet with Warren any time she wants. A spokeswoman for the lawmaker declined to comment. In an April speech, Warren, a former professor, chided “finance guys” who assert she and others can’t grasp their business. “The finance guys argue that if you’re never in the club, you can’t understand it, but I think they have it backward,” she said. “Not being in the club means not drinking the Kool-Aid.” ‘Finance Guys’ Such bankers are smart, but no smarter than people in many other professions, she said. When their mistakes led to the financial crisis, they “took care of themselves and their bonuses while millions of people lost everything.” Warren led the congressional oversight panel for the Treasury Department’s 2008 bailout of the financial system. She also proposed the creation of what eventually became the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help shield Americans from predatory financial products after the crisis. “The problem was never that I didn’t understand what the finance guys were doing,” she said in April. “The problem was that I understood exactly what the finance guys were doing. I knew it, and they knew it.” Dimon and Warren have crossed paths before. In a new afterword for the paperback version of her book, “A Fighting Chance,” she recounted a visit by the CEO to her office shortly after she was sworn in. She said their conversation heated up after Dimon complained of stiffening regulation, and that she warned him CFPB rules might take effect that would spell trouble for the bank. Quoting Warren Warren said Dimon “leaned back and slowly smiled,” and then replied, “So hit me with a fine. We can afford it.” A bank spokesman denied in April that Dimon made the remark. On Wednesday, Dimon recalled meeting with Warren during the CFPB’s founding to discuss credit cards. He quoted her during the encounter as complimenting the bank’s product: “By the way I have your credit card, and I love it.” Later on Wednesday, when asked about his biggest worries, Dimon voiced concern that the U.S. eventually may be hurt by ideological decisions made in Washington. While the 59-year-old said he won’t run for office, he repeatedly returned to politics in his remarks, calling for immigration and tax reform and improvements to inner-city education. Warren’s tactics have been a growing topic of debate in the U.S. this year. Last month, President Barack Obama accused her and other fellow Democrats who opposed his trade agenda of playing politics and misleading the public. Billionaire Warren Buffett, who profited from investing in banks while faulting the industry’s lapses, said in March that her approach to Wall Street is too confrontational. “She would do better if she was less angry and demonized less,” Buffett, who leads Berkshire Hathaway Inc., told CNBC at the time. “I believe in ‘hate the sin, and love the sinner.’” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-if-warren-understands-global-banking-system
well at least Elizabeth and I have two uneducated opinions in common. She thinks BANKS are too big and I think GOVERNMENT is too big. But either way, we both believe something is too big. Easy solution would be just to make everything "smaller." But those democrats don't like to compromise. They are holding our children's credit cards ransom until they get their way. Some women just don't like white men.
I am not sure anyone fully understands the global banking system. Least of all this poor disadvantaged native american woman.
all I remember is they were raising hell because banks were charging $3.50 to use an atm. Whatever happened to that?
I keep waiting for Elizabeth to tell me how my life would have been better if we had broken up Citi. but getting back to opie, that is the new thing, it is sexist to refer to a woman by her first name. So we can't refer to her as Elizabeth anymore, we must now call her "Warren." Same goes for Hillary, although they may wave that because Hillary sounds better than Clinton. (and it really is sexist. We call her Elizabeth to give her a break because she is a woman. It just seems too cruel for us to call her Warren and hit her like we would hit a man.) Something to watch though if you are a media and propaganda observer like I am. Do they call her Hillary or Clinton? Especially if Fox calls her one thing and msnbc calls her another.
ok, if that's the way you want it. I am a gentleman and always give a woman special consideration and would never refer to her by her last name like I would a man or one of my friends. oh shit, now I'm so confused. What am I suppose to call you? I'm still struggling whether it is black or African American. When I was a kid we called them "colored." That was the polite pc term. Now you lose an election if you ever used that word. Best just to play it safe and refer to them as, "A person of color." And don't you dare ever shorten it to "colored" or the NAACP will come after you. ok, I think I got that so now, what are the rules on women? Better get ready because you know Clinton/Hillary is going to be the next big thing
Yeah, and Dimon is also "concerned" about regulation. Meanwhile: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/12/17/whistleblower_sick_over_jpmorgan_settlement.html Not that the article is news to anyone, but the blatant hypocrisy...
Yes JPM could give no shits whatsoever about what's fair and right - they're merely concerned with losing power and money only. There has seriously never been a bank or banker who has ever been concerned with anything other than making and taking money regardless of how unscrupulous the method is.