JP Morgan debacle: Regulation of the banks and Dodd-Frank

#76
#76
therealUT said:
1. Individuals die.

2. Individuals lose money.

Nobody wants your coddled nanny-state. If big-banks go under, they go under. Maybe, if that happened more often, mindless automatons would decide not to be under-water on mortgages, not to buy everything on credit, not to buy houses that they cannot afford, etc.

Let me make this quite clear: every system is going to have its proles; trying to make everyone bourgeois is a pipe dream. The sooner this is realized, the sooner individuals like you will stop trying to tinker and meddle where they do not belong.
Click to expand...

Except, in reality, we both know that doesn't happen, now does it? These big banks will never "fail", because the consequences are too dire, or so we are told.

By bailing these banks out the state has in effect coddled this industry because they are "Too Big". I agree with you...maybe if that did happen and they let them fail these institutions would be more careful with the bets they make. You disagree?

And I'm not going to sit here and defend people that overspend, but at the same time, some people were innocent victims in this, there was no "deciding" going on.
 
#77
#77
therealUT said:
1. Individuals die.

2. Individuals lose money.

Nobody wants your coddled nanny-state. If big-banks go under, they go under. Maybe, if that happened more often, mindless automatons would decide not to be under-water on mortgages, not to buy everything on credit, not to buy houses that they cannot afford, etc.

Let me make this quite clear: every system is going to have its proles; trying to make everyone bourgeois is a pipe dream. The sooner this is realized, the sooner individuals like you will stop trying to tinker and meddle where they do not belong.
Click to expand...


I'll give you this: your belief that these sorts of problems will just get cured or avoided altogether by totally free markets and absence of regulation of the finance industry has not changed.

Despite all the evidence that you are dead wrong.
 
#78
#78
If people really believe their money should be elsewhere, they should put their money elsewhere, and JPM will suffer more. JPM didn't want to lose $2B. Lucky for them, they are still managing a profit. There's no such thing as no risk.
 
#79
#79
lawgator1 said:
I'll give you this: your belief that these sorts of problems will just get cured or avoided altogether by totally free markets and absence of regulation of the finance industry has not changed.

Despite all the evidence that you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...

He doesn't think it's going to solve it all, but in a free market the moral hazard is high enough to highly discourage this behavior.
 
#80
#80
Awesome that the WH and Congress are weighing in on this private company making a bad investment and the ethics behind it while they dismiss Solyndra as just the risk that comes along with making investments...
 
#82
#82
rjd970 said:
Except, in reality, we both know that doesn't happen, now does it? These big banks will never "fail", because the consequences are too dire, or so we are told.

By bailing these banks out the state has in effect coddled this industry because they are "Too Big". I agree with you...maybe if that did happen and they let them fail these institutions would be more careful with the bets they make. You disagree?

And I'm not going to sit here and defend people that overspend, but at the same time, some people were innocent victims in this, there was no "deciding" going on.
Click to expand...

They should not have been bailed out; they should have been allowed to fail: consequences be damned.
 
#83
#83
volinbham said:
Awesome that the WH and Congress are weighing in on this private company making a bad investment and the ethics behind it while they dismiss Solyndra as just the risk that comes along with making investments...
Click to expand...

Just trying to save the middle class...
 
#84
#84
lawgator1 said:
I'll give you this: your belief that these sorts of problems will just get cured or avoided altogether by totally free markets and absence of regulation of the finance industry has not changed.

Despite all the evidence that you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...

Where did I say there would not be problems? Banks would fail; automobile producers would fail; sporting goods stores would fail; restaurants would fail.

Second, where is any evidence that I am dead wrong?
 
#85
#85
therealUT said:
They should not have been bailed out; they should have been allowed to fail: consequences be damned.
Click to expand...

They should have let the ones failed, and then instead of the bail out, used that money to give private loans out to individuals that meet the high standards of a loan.

This would have kept tax payers from buying toxic assets, and have kept a line of credit open with the highest chance of the tax payers not taking the hit.
 
Last edited:
#86
#86
Volst53 said:
He doesn't think it's going to solve it all, but in a free market the moral hazard is high enough to highly discourage this behavior.
Click to expand...

Especially in the age of information and reputation management.

Reputation is going to mean everything as information becomes more symmetrical, and is/will be regulating behavior far better than government has.
 
#87
#87
therealUT said:
They should not have been bailed out; they should have been allowed to fail: consequences be damned.
Click to expand...

Agreed, we are probably in agreement here. I'm sure the eggheads that push imaginary pieces of paper and collect millions in commissions would disagree.

I bought a house and lost money on it. I could afford it and I was responsible, and through no fault of my own values dropped. That's fine, I paid for it and it set me back considerably. I accept that because I made the investment. I did invest so it would only hurt if my investment lost, not economically destroy me. It seems like those rules didn't apply to these big banks.
 
#88
#88
Volst53 said:
They should have let the ones failed, and then instead of the bail out, used that money to give private loans out to individuals that meet the high standards of a loan.

This would have kept tax payers from buying toxic assets, and have kept a line of credit open with the highest chance of the tax payers not taking the hit.
Click to expand...

+1.

Too many lobbies are around to let this happen though.
 
#89
#89
volinbham said:
Awesome that the WH and Congress are weighing in on this private company making a bad investment and the ethics behind it while they dismiss Solyndra as just the risk that comes along with making investments...
Click to expand...

ding, ding, ding
 
#90
#90
rjd970 said:
Agreed, we are probably in agreement here. I'm sure the eggheads that push imaginary pieces of paper and collect millions in commissions would disagree.
Click to expand...

Some probably play both sides of the fence; others might actually want the opportunity to actually fail, as it would allow those with actual business and financial acumen to succeed and progress.
 
#91
#91
volinbham said:
Awesome that the WH and Congress are weighing in on this private company making a bad investment and the ethics behind it while they dismiss Solyndra as just the risk that comes along with making investments...
Click to expand...

SHHHHHH
Obama doesn't want the word Solyndra mentioned until mid November.
 
#94
#94
T-TownVol said:
I actually do and knew exactly what they were doing, as any good investor would. Has NOTHING to do with your line of ignorant bull shat.
More proof that you want a "nanny state" and the government running your life........pathetic

If one can not stand to lose the money, stay the hell out of the game.
Click to expand...

So - you were aware of exactly what they were doing and the CEO wasn't? Hmm...

The CEO definitely cited a lack of oversight that led down a road that was, to paraphrase, careless. I don't recall him saying that everyone knew about this position and was OK with it.
 
Last edited:
#96
#96
TennTradition said:
So - you were aware of exactly what they were doing and the CEO wasn't? Hmm...

The CEO definitely cited a lack of oversight that led down a road that was, to paraphrase, careless. I don't recall him saying that everyone knew about this position and was OK with it.
Click to expand...

Not you too......I knew of the play that they were making before it was made. I am not into the micro management of my account, that is what they are for. CEO is making prepared statements written by a PR firm. People that have no skin in this issue sure seem to care about it a lot more than those of us that do. Nice attempt to try to "pile on" though.

It was a Hedge Fund bet. High risk, high reward or lose.
 
Last edited:
#97
#97
myrobbins7 said:
It should be a fun shareholder meeting today down in Tampa. :)
Click to expand...

Serious damage control because of the "nanny state" idiots.
I did vote to split the Chairman and CEO from Dimon.
The lose, even if it doubles, will only be 20% of 2011 profits. I believe JPM can survive and is still a "buy" for now.
 
Last edited:
#98
#98
T-TownVol said:
Not you too......I knew of the play that they were making before it was made. I am not into the micro management of my account, that is what they are for. CEO is making prepared statements written by a PR firm. People that have no skin in this issue sure seem to care about it a lot more than those of us that do. Nice attempt to try to "pile on" though.

It was a Hedge Fund bet. High risk, high reward or lose.
Click to expand...

Not a soul on this board believes for one second that you knew anything about the risks associated with this bet.

That's a fact.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top