Jamie Dimon Says Banking Crisis Not Over and Will Cause 'Repercussions For Years' (cnbc.com) 93
The stress on the financial sector caused by two bank failures in the United States last month is still a threat and should be addressed by a reimagining of the regulatory process, according to JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. From a report: "As I write this letter, the current crisis is not yet over, and even when it is behind us, there will be repercussions from it for years to come," the longtime CEO said in his annual letter to shareholders Tuesday. "But importantly, recent events are nothing like what occurred during the 2008 global financial crisis," he added. The recent banking issues in the U.S. began with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, which was closed by regulators on March 10 as depositors pulled tens of billions of dollars from the bank. The smaller Signature Bank was closed two days later. And in Europe, Swiss regulators brokered a purchase of Credit Suisse by UBS.
JPMorgan and other large banks stepped in to make $30 billion of deposits at First Republic, another regional lender that investors feared could become the next SVB. The stress on the regional banks has led investors and analysts to suggest that the too big to fail institutions would be a beneficiary of the crisis, but Dimon said JPMorgan wants to strengthen the smaller banks for the benefit of the whole financial system. "Any crisis that damages Americans' trust in their banks damages all banks -- a fact that was known even before this crisis. While it is true that this bank crisis 'benefited' larger banks due to the inflow of deposits they received from smaller institutions, the notion that this meltdown was good for them in any way is absurd," Dimon wrote. Dimon also cautioned against knee-jerk changes to the regulatory system. He wrote that most of the risks, including the potential losses from held-to-maturity bonds, were "hiding in plain sight." The interconnected network of SVB's deposit base was the unknown variable, he said. "The recent failures of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) in the United States and Credit Suisse in Europe, and the related stress in the banking system, underscore that simply satisfying regulatory requirements is not sufficient. Risks are abundant, and managing those risks requires constant and vigilant scrutiny as the world evolves," Dimon wrote.
JPMorgan and other large banks stepped in to make $30 billion of deposits at First Republic, another regional lender that investors feared could become the next SVB. The stress on the regional banks has led investors and analysts to suggest that the too big to fail institutions would be a beneficiary of the crisis, but Dimon said JPMorgan wants to strengthen the smaller banks for the benefit of the whole financial system. "Any crisis that damages Americans' trust in their banks damages all banks -- a fact that was known even before this crisis. While it is true that this bank crisis 'benefited' larger banks due to the inflow of deposits they received from smaller institutions, the notion that this meltdown was good for them in any way is absurd," Dimon wrote. Dimon also cautioned against knee-jerk changes to the regulatory system. He wrote that most of the risks, including the potential losses from held-to-maturity bonds, were "hiding in plain sight." The interconnected network of SVB's deposit base was the unknown variable, he said. "The recent failures of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) in the United States and Credit Suisse in Europe, and the related stress in the banking system, underscore that simply satisfying regulatory requirements is not sufficient. Risks are abundant, and managing those risks requires constant and vigilant scrutiny as the world evolves," Dimon wrote.
Still to big and still failing (Score:4, Insightful)
Still to big and still failing
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, too not to. Damn dictation.
Not too big if you nationalize them (Score:2)
Trouble is you can never get Americans to go in for that. So we're kinda boned. Wall Street can gamble with all our lives and there's fuck all we can do about it because about 30% of the country only cares about culture war issues so we can't do the regulations needed to stop the gambling.
Putting Jerome Powell in charge of the federal reserve didn't help matt
Re: (Score:2)
Biden is the Senator from MBNA. I'm not the least bit surprised. He is a wholly owned subsidiary of the oligarchs just as much as any of them. The Establishment doesn't care which one of *their* pre-selected canidates you vote for (D or R) but watch them move heaven and earth to make sure that non-establishment types don't have a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump I get, dude's a shill for the multinationals, but I expected a *little* better from Biden.
Biden has pretty consistently sided against The People in the past, and the present too. The difference between Ds and Rs isn't whether they're corporate whores, it's whether they think we should have any human rights at all. But both parties fully support the corporatocracy, and the only difference is that one provides a quick trip to fascism, while the other represents the scenic route. It's clear which one you have to vote for if you care about other people, but it's also clear that both lead to our dest
This means that the Fed (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, a recession is right around the corner, this banking thing is the first real tangible sign of it, and the Fed is doing it deliberately in hopes of engineering it to be as mild as possible.
Before the anarchists, libertarians and government-haters all pile on, allow me to point out that the Fed is doing this because it's the best way they know to stop the inflation that's been building up and starting to get out of control. A mild recession absolutely sucks. People lose their jobs and there's real pain. But runaway inflation sucks even worse. Ask anyone who lived through the 60s and 70s in America just how much damage runaway inflation can do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the Fed is doing this because it's the best way they know to stop the inflation that's been building up and starting to get out of control.
The best way to do it isn't at the fed. It's to institute nationwide rent control, enforce existing restrictions on price gouging, and of course, redistribute wealth from the most wealthy to the poorest, not from the poorest to the most wealthy which is what we've been doing. Even if inflation goes down, if people's buying power goes down more it's only going to cause more problems. Over 50% of the inflation is due to direct price increases which produced increases in corporate profits, and raising interest
Re:This means that the Fed (Score:5, Insightful)
Economists may disagree on a lot of things, but price controls are not one of them. Price controls counter-intuitively result in much higher prices.
Outside of petroleum/energy companies, which companies are price gouging, exactly? Everything I've seen suggests that it's mostly demand outpacing supply or regulations that haven't caught up with the present economy.
Studies have shown that wealth inequality leads to worse outcomes for all so I agree with closing the wealth gap, but when you say "redistribute" the people that have the wealth think "legalized theft". You'd have better luck phasing out tax breaks or tax exemptions once total income in a year exceeds certain thresholds. E.g. the capital gains tax rate, nominally ~20%, should really be computed as the tax rate for the person's total income (including capital gains) minus 5%. That way Warren Buffet's secretary's capital gains tax rate would be 10-15% and Warren Buffet's capital gains tax rate would be 29-34%. Similar systems for all investment income (carried interest, muni bonds, etc.) would generate a truly progressive tax system.
Re:This means that the Fed (Score:5, Insightful)
Rent controls do the opposite of what you think. It goes like this:
1. A city, state or nation has a housing shortage.
2. People introduce rent controls. That means that rents are set super low, enforced by law.
3. Yay cheap rent. Problem solved? Not so fast....
4. Landlords can't make money. They say, screw this, I'm going to repurpose my building for something other than housing.
5. Housing supply drops and housing shortage gets worse.
6. Low rents mean that investors can't make as much money from building new apartments, so the construction of new apartment complexes grinds to a halt.
7. The housing shortage gets EVEN WORSE.
8. The final result is a nasty combination of not enough houses and artificially low rents. People cram into the housing available, no new housing gets build, landlords cheap out on maintenance because they're not pulling in enough money to cover roof repairs. The entire society gets more miserable.
Re: (Score:1)
Repurpose? What they going to do, turn it into an office no one wants any more?
The rent can be forced below what the market will bear and still be higher than any alternative income it can generate. Land is a natural monopoly, not a free market open to competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Repurpose? What they going to do, turn it into an office no one wants any more?
Renovate the building and convert it to condos is most likely. Or demolish the building and put up a bigger one full of condos.
In the short run, that is okay, In the long run, there are fewer and fewer rental units on the market and situation gets worse and worse for the people rent control was intended to help.
Re: (Score:2)
Rents can be well below what the market will bear and still be profitable, especially in a low growth and interest rate economy.
A planned economy of course has inefficiencies and unintended consequences, but the market isn't the be all and end all. If a pipe breaks, insurance companies talk to each other and take care of it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then zone property so landlords can't do that.
Look, landlords are almost purely parasitic. They buy up property so people can't buy it themselves and live in it. A landlord provides nothing except higher prices.
If a landlord is covering their costs and nothing more, then anyone renting could, by definition, also cover those costs. A renter could own that place and also pay for all the repairs, because a landlord that isn't losing money is passing all those costs on to the tenant.
If the landlord is losing mo
Re: (Score:2)
Then zone property so landlords can't do that.
Or zone so more housing can be created. What? Don't want to do that because of NIMBYs? Easier to dump the problem onto landlords instead of addressing the actual cause? Boo.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Landlords' whole job is to make housing less efficient. They should not exist at all: it should be literally illegal to rent housing, and unoccupied housing should be taxed punitively to induce its sale. All housing should be owned by the residents or the state, with systems designed to promote the former over the latter. State-managed co-ops can maintain apartments not managed by a private co-op.
The next best thing is to have a rent control regime which accomplishes the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual solution is to build more housing, especially apartment buildings.
Rent control is a well meaning bandaid that perhaps improves the situation in the short term but tends to make things worse in the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Rent control is a well meaning bandaid that perhaps improves the situation in the short term but tends to make things worse in the long term.
No, that's rent. Rent control is simply a patch on a bad idea. It will never be as good as abolishing the bad idea, but if done correctly then it can make a substantial positive difference. This whole thing where capital tells us all what to do — it's known as capitalism, which people think means a whole bunch of stuff it doesn't — is fundamentally unsustainable, because capital begets capital. It creates the opposite of a meritocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You still barely need a down payment. It’s just too fucking expensive period. The solution to this whole crisis will be 2008 part 2 where a bunch of small time property investors lose everything because back in 1978 a relator said “see property always goes up because they’re not making more of it” and he thought that was a cool sounding bit of folksy wisdom.
or else corporations will own everything in a generation or so and we’ll be the last ones to own our homes.
Re: (Score:2)
There are much better (and more reasonable) solutions on the horizon. First, we might have to accept more medium density housing
Re: (Score:2)
Housing cannot be both affordable and a good investment and part of making it affordable will mean some unrealized losses for certain real estate investors. That's okay. But you don't have to wipe them out either. In fact the current high-inflation market is a great time to correct things. You can stabilize the market so that housing appreciates lower than the rate of inflation as more units become available. Nominal gains but real losses are the most easily tolerated correction in any market.
Exactly right.
I see a lot of radical opinions presented as self-evident, as if abolishing landlords or doubling down on increasing real estate prices were the only options, as if nothing in between is possible.
For several decades running in the 20th century we lived an "in between", where an average of 2% after inflation increases in the average house price was the norm. Larger jumps were primary restricted to a few problematic markets in California and New York. In the 21st Century, we have seen 5%, 10%,
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing not discussed is that the number of new units being built is only one factor. There's also units becoming disused. We had some relief from this during the pandemic. There are entire rust belt towns as well as whole blocks i
Re: (Score:2)
I also think this should happen, for the record. I'm very much a YIMBY and speak out in my community for more housing. But the fact remains that landlords are a drag on the system. They buy property and raise prices by reducing supply. Then they charge arbitrary and exorbitant amounts of money that are well in excess of their costs, most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Renting an apartment is always cheaper than buying a house. You have to own a house for a good 40 years before you break even on what you would have spent renting an apartment (provided you aren't renting a super-luxurious place or more rooms than you actually need). Renting an entire house is a losing proposition, since you are paying the full mortgage for the house plus a profit margin. Renting a full house only makes sense if you have multiple families living in it, so it is effectively an apartment c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is mostly true because there are so many landlords. Landlords artificially increase the cost of housing by drawing down the supply. The scarcity in the system exists in no small part because landlords are skimming off the top.
Even then, again, we know that people could afford to own these places because *they can afford to pay rent, and the landlord is not operating at a loss*. That means given a mortgage of the same size (less, actually, since repairs and upkeep aren't part of the mortgage), the typic
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a house I bought as an investment. It's actually the first house my wife and I bought and when we had to move for employment reasons, we decided to keep it and rent it out. I have no mortgage so it's a nice bit of extra money.
Here in
Re: (Score:2)
4. Landlords can't make money. They say, screw this, I'm going to repurpose my building for something other than housing.
That's what zoning is for.
6. Low rents mean that investors can't make as much money from building new apartments, so the construction of new apartment complexes grinds to a halt.
Stop permitting unneeded commercial structures in cities full of empty commercial structures. They'll build apartments.
Re: (Score:2)
There are in-between options though. You needn't impose universal rent control, just rent stabilization. Forbid rent increases exceeding pick-your-favorite-CPI-inflation measure +0.5% or whatever (ideally tied to wages, so rent increases are tied to what people can pay, not what some arbitrary basket of commodities cost). Perhaps allow slightly faster increase between tenants, but not completely unbounded increases even then. Existing rents don't go down, they simply stop rising above general inflation. Ini
Re: (Score:2)
There are in-between options though.
Yep. And those are worse than doing nothing but not quite as bad as full-on rent controls.
The bizarre thing about these arguments is that there is extensive experience with and research on the effects of all of these policies, and they're universally bad. But people keep proposing that we do more of the thing that has been bad everywhere it's been tried, believing that it will somehow turn out different this time because we really want it to.
As Weekend Triathlete pointed out, there is very little econom
Re:This means that the Fed (Score:4, Informative)
...which companies are price gouging, exactly?...
Cal-Maine Foods, with egg prices, for one.
Re: (Score:2)
Wholesale eggs are sold by bidding, the price is set by buyers not sellers.
Re:This means that the Fed (Score:5, Informative)
Outside of petroleum/energy companies, which companies are price gouging, exactly?
Well, to name a few: [accountable.us]
Walmart, Kroger, Costco
McDonalds, YUM! Brands
ExxonMobile, Chevron, Marathon Petroleum
Exelon, Duke, Southern Company
General Motors, Ford
CarMax, AutoNation
TJX, Nike, Gap
Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, AbbVie
CVS, UnitedHealth, Cigna
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Starwood Property Trust, AvalonBay
Sorry, a few of those are petroleum companies.
Re: (Score:1)
Outside of petroleum/energy companies, which companies are price gouging, exactly?
McDonalds, YUM! Brands
this'll probably sound like an advertisement, but get the mcdonalds app if you have family that goes there.
20% off all orders over $10, and you get free items too.
you provide the drive-thru a 4-digit code from the app when placing your order to get the discount.
by me, a regular mcdonalds combo (e.g., big mac combo) costs ~$11... which is stupefying and insulting, so i personally never go to mcdonalds.
but my wife goes there occasionally, and she told me about the app.
20% off basically all orders makes
Re: (Score:3)
rent controls aren't the answer.
medium density development is an answer for many cities however.
I live in a pre-war medium density neighborhood. The quality of life is superb. Big apartment, two balconies, private parking, huge parks near by, almost every business I would frequent one or more times a week exist within walking distance, excellent public transport links to downtown or to adjacent neighborhoods. My neighborhood, and neighborhoods like it in my city and other cities in north america, are the mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of petroleum/energy companies, which companies are price gouging, exactly?
Every company I deal with.
Also the company I work for received raw material price increases of 10 - 20 % so we put our prices up 35%, except for a couple of products where there is not much competition. We put those prices up 50%.
Re: (Score:1)
It's to institute nationwide rent control
You're right, we need to set all rent at 1$/month. Great idea! Power to the People!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> redistribute wealth
Who is going to do the redistribution? Where is the force behind the redistribution going to come from? Who is going to authorize the use of that force? Who is going to enforce that those in posession of such force are going to their job properly? And so on.
Look up "kulaks" for the example of how such redistributions of wealth invariably go.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the biggest parts of wisdom is knowing how and when a particular tool should be used.
The excluded middle is that the only approach to address inflation is by crushing the working class instead of a multifaceted approach.
This like saying the only approach to climate change is genocide.
Re:This means that the Fed (Score:5, Insightful)
Q: The economy is running way too hot. What's the solution?
A: Squash the middle class. Give more money to the ultra-wealthy.
Q: The economy is collapsing. What's the solution?
A: Squash the middle class. Give more money to the ultra-wealthy.
Q: The economy seems to be so-so to lukewarm. What should we do?
A: Squash the middle class. Give more money to the ultra-wealthy.
Seems like things are going as planned. Head to the grindstone! We'll kill off the entire race in the name of greed eventually. In the meantime, enjoy the ride!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who's been paying attention to the market knows we've been in a "recession" for 2+ years at this point. Nobody is hiring, everyone is cutting, and markets are flat - or worse.
Really? In March 2023, we found an aggregate of 238,000 nonfarm payroll jobs were added to the U.S. economy last month [yahoo.com] with an aggregate U6 of 3.6%. In February, it was +311,000 jobs. (Note: these figures include the layoffs in the tech-sector that got massive media coverage.) In January, prior to the Fed trying to put a damper on the markets, it was +517,000.
The only reason why unemployment is going up at all is because wages are getting so good, people are deciding to reenter the job market, adding to th
Re: (Score:2)
The "number of jobs added" is itself meaningless. Why? Because 1) people with two jobs are counted twice, and 2) it tells us nothing about the quality of the jobs. If one full time position is terminated and two part time positions are created, and whoever had the one full time position now works two jobs to make ends meet, the number of jobs has doubled.
Democratic and Republican presidents alike lie through their liars' faces about unemployment numbers. Wages are not getting good. In fact, they are not kee [marketplace.org]
Re: (Score:3)
"Ask anyone who lived through the 60s and 70s in America just how much damage runaway inflation can do."
Why? What would they know about runaway inflation? Highest inflation in the 70's was about 13%. Highest inflation in the 60's was about 6%.
When has the US experienced runaway inflation EVER?
It's doing nothing of the sort (Score:2)
Powell's been crystal clear about what raising interest rates is about. He wants 2 million layoffs (which he acknowledges will be followed by another 1.5 million minimum). Senator Warren called him out on it and asked him what's his plan to stop the layoffs when they start. He didn't have one.
Powell doesn't give a rat's buttered behind (as my mommy used to say) about inflation. If
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal is to take money out of the money supply there's a much simpler way to do it: taxation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Huh, what exactly is Biden doing wrong on Ukraine?
The only criticism of his war effort seems to come from Puta-loving MAGA cultists who believe Ukraine belongs to the Russian Empire.
Re: (Score:2)
A little OT, but if he had put US troops in Ukraine in January of last year, Putin probably would not have invaded.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's suggesting that the US should have said to Zelinsky: "Let us station troops in your country along your borders with Russia and Belarus because we think they're going to invade." Do you expect Zelinsky, who wanted to join the EU, and NATO and any other organization or alliance that would distance/protect them from Russia - whose invasion of Ukraine had actually been going on for years at that point - would have said "No way! US troops on our land! Sovereignty!!!"
No, that would be nonsense. The
Re: He's right, which is sad. (Score:2)
Putting US troops in Ukraine would have been used as justification for invasion by Putin. And sadly many countries would believe him.
The US could do more to support Ukraine in its defense, but at least they are doing more than when Crimea was taken.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting US troops in Ukraine would have been used as justification for invasion by Putin. And sadly many countries would believe him.
It would have given him a justification for a whole lot more whining. Actual invasion though? I have some serious doubts. As it was, as incompetent as the invasion was, the Russians thought they were going to win. If they thought they were going to fight the Americans plus the Ukrainians, even all that Russian toxic masculinity would not have been enough for them to actually think they could win. You do have a point about some other countries believing him, but that's just a sad fact of life. You can't go a
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reasons "that simply satisfying regulatory requirements is not sufficient" is because some of the regulatory protections put into place after 2008 got gutted in 2018.
Re: (Score:2)
managing those risks requires constant and vigilant scrutiny
By whom?
The FDIC provides smaller depositors an insurance policy against bank runs and other failures. But I saw a graph recently showing how most of SVB's depositors held more than the insured amounts in accounts. And held it there for longer terms.
The bank run was caused by fear among remaining depositors that they would be wiped out. Depositors that were, as the financial press claims, numerous Silicon Valley companies using accounts to manage cash for operations. But realistically, how many of these c
Re: (Score:3)
AFAIK, there is no financial service company that accepts a deposit and doesn't loan it out or invest it in some way (or at least most of it).
Sure, you can buy extra insurance (or open multiple accounts or something similar) to reduce risk, but you can't not bank and still write and cash checks.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't get why FDIC does not guarantee the full amount of the deposit. It does not make sense why a bank with lots of smaller accounts is fully insured while a bank with a smaller number of large ones is not fully insured if they both have the same amount of money in total. If the insurance exists to prevent a run on the bank, then it only protects from a run on the bank from small depositors. If they are worried about banks playing too fast and loose if they have no risk, maybe full insurance shoul
Re: (Score:2)
Because risk is not free. And the government (via the FDIC) does not want to pick up the tab for wealthy depositors who have the ability to hedge that risk on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of get that. The reality seems to be that plenty of these wealthy depositors very obviously can't hedge that risk on their own otherwise there would not have been a run on SVB. The rules don't seem to have achieved their goals and, in the end, the government had to jump in and guarantee deposits anyway. So, it seems to me like there should be a more formalized framework on guaranteeing deposits. After all, if all those companies that withdrew their money had not been scared that their deposits would
Result of near-zero accountability (Score:3, Insightful)
We need some of this here in the US
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Bankers and regulators should be jailed.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
SVB was 'too small' for the feds to 'stress test' it, however even if it were 'stress tested', it would have shown nothing. The bank would have easily passed the test, because the so called 'stress' they are testing for is the 'stress' of interest rates falling.
However the interest rates on short term debt went up as the Fed raised the Fed's fund rate. So the so called 'stress test' wasn't testing any kind of stress that mattered. SVB would have passed it and still would
Kind of an understatement (Score:2, Insightful)
There are four significant attacks to the integrity of the system in the last 25 years:
1. The Republicans repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999.
2. The insufficient response in 2008-2010, particularly Dodd-Frank not going to at least where Glass-Steagall was.
3. The de facto abolition of reserve requirements during COVID.
4. The sudden shift in interest rates under COVID.
Taken together, these things make it extremely likely that systemic failure is in the cards for our banking system. They also have allowed the ban
Re:Kind of an understatement (Score:5, Insightful)
Who was president in 1999? Right. Then how is it that Republicans repealed it?
They drafted the legislation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like it was the Democrats that lead Dodd-Frank.
Re: (Score:2)
Shit maybe having just two parties isn't actually a good idea after all
Re:Kind of an understatement (Score:5, Insightful)
Who was president in 1999?
Who controlled Congress? That's equally important, if not more so.
A wise man once said "Our government is like a whorehouse. Electing a president is just like choosing a piano player."
Re: (Score:2)
Who controlled Congress? That's equally important, if not more so.
The corporations controlled Congress, just like they have since they bought both sides of the Party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Kind of an understatement (Score:2)
There are four significant attacks to the integrity of the system in the last 25 years:
1. The Republicans repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999.
2. The insufficient response in 2008-2010, particularly Dodd-Frank not going to at least where Glass-Steagall was.
What does that have to do with Credit Suisse?
Re: (Score:2)
3. The de facto abolition of reserve requirements during COVID.
There's a conspiracy theory that the FED abolished fractional reserve banking by setting the reserve requirement to 0% in 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] but the US had two systems for bank reserves the remaining one being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No organization should be become too big to fail.
why (Score:1)
Why is this here? I read wsj for financial news, not /.
Very funny (Score:5, Insightful)
that Jamie Dimon is saying that regulations need overhauling.
"JPMorgan Admits to Widespread Recordkeeping Failures and Agrees to Pay $125 Million Penalty to Resolve SEC Charges" (https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-262)
"JPMorgan Chase Agrees to Pay $200 Million and Admits Wrongdoing to Settle SEC Charges" (https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2013-187)
"JPMorgan Chase Paying $264 Million to Settle FCPA Charges" (https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2016-241)
"J.P. Morgan Securities Admits to Manipulative Trading in U.S. Treasuries" (https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-233)
"JPMorgan to Pay More Than $135 Million for Improper Handling of ADRs" (https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-306)
"SEC Charges JPMorgan, UBS, and TradeStation for Deficiencies Relating to the Prevention of Customer Identity Theft" (https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-131)
"J.P. Morgan to Pay $267 Million for Disclosure Failures" (https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2015-283)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Yeah. I'm sure they'd like to change some regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Is he? Not sure how you got that out of what he did say: "Dimon also cautioned against knee-jerk changes to the regulatory system. He wrote that most of the risks, including the potential losses from held-to-maturity bonds, were "hiding in plain sight."
Re: (Score:2)
That's an editorial rewrite that confuses the actual message. Go read his letter to shareholders, section "BANKING TURMOIL AND REGULATORY GOALS".
Re: (Score:2)
I am confused (Score:2)
But this is coming from a person in a group known for not wanting that. That is why crypto was such a scam.
Indeed (Score:2)
Complexity breeds loopholes (Score:2)
Complexity in regulations breeds loopholes. It's a well known concept [consumerfinance.gov]:
Remember Evergrande (Score:2)
Screw all these bankers (Score:2)
They've been feasting off of an economy that normalized 0.25% interest rates and the moment the federal rate goes up, they all choke on their own greed. I'm middle aged and for the first time I'm about to replace my savings account with a brokerage account after being brainwashed my whole life that I needed a savings account. I could care less if their business model is based on me losing wealth. People used to be able to get good enough rates to retire just using savings accounts.
If this means we live in
Re: (Score:2)
Clarification..."i could care less ABOUT BANKS since their business model is based on me losing wealth in a financial instrument."
Banks still do not know cascaded risk and losses (Score:2)
The answer? (Score:2)