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

[lawgator1]

Knowing that, generally speaking, they are investing in hedge funds, is not the same thing as knowing the amount, the type, or the risk, involved.

As I understand the comments of bank management and of Ttown (and Ttwon correct me if I am wrong) they were both in the former category. That is, the bank management, and Ttown as an investor, were generally aware that the portfolio included hedge funds, no necessarily what kind, amounts, etc.

Now, bank management says that sucks, they ought to have kept a better eye on it, they will reform, a few people are retiring, etc.

Ttown, you are okay with that because, in your view, knowing the general state of affairs is okay since you are investing with them precisely so that they manage the money. If the totally screw up and lose it all, then they go away. And the investor accepts that risk.

And, since the bank on the whole shows profit in investing, you simply view this as a loss to be balanced against better gains.

Have I about got it right?

 

[TennTradition]

Very "LG" of you to define what I meant by using the word "exactly".
Your questions have been asked and answered by me and others. But I will repeat, I do not micro manage my accounts, that is what my brokers are for. He would have provided exact funds, amounts and locations IF I had asked. I did not, as I suppose the CEO did not ask so that he can make the claims he is now making.

OK, so he is telling the truth but could have known had he not wanted plausible deniability.

Also, you could have known exactly what "bets" this office was making, but you didn't. Correct?

I didn't intend to stretch the meaning of the word exactly - I was simply trying to point out that exactly is a strong word. And, it seems that it didn't apply in this case...just that you could have known exactly had you wanted to micromanage your account (in other words, they weren't hiding this).

 

[BigPapaVol]

If he's trading on bank capital that is tied to FDIC deposits, it should be canned. If he's trading third party capital that is uninsured accounts, then the gov't should shut its piehole.

 

[T-TownVol]

OK, so he is telling the truth but could have known had he not wanted plausible deniability.

Also, you could have known exactly what "bets" this office was making, but you didn't. Correct?

I didn't intend to stretch the meaning of the word exactly - I was simply trying to point out that exactly is a strong word. And, it seems that it didn't apply in this case...just that you could have known exactly had you wanted to micromanage your account (in other words, they weren't hiding this).

:hi:

 

[T-TownVol]

If he's trading on bank capital that is tied to FDIC deposits, it should be canned. If he's trading third party capital that is uninsured accounts, then the gov't should shut its piehole.

if only

 

[volinbham]

I know I'm stating the obvious but the only reason the govt is getting involved is for political theater

 

[Redstater]

So JP Morgan loses $2 to $4 billion of shareholder money over the course of six weeks and ~$15 billion in market capitalization. Every politician in DC, every news outlet and commentator goes ape____ calling for more regulation and for firings.

Every day if not every hour several billon of our money is wasted through incompetenance, theft and every other conceivevable way. Where's collective outrage?

I currently don't own JPM stock and as long as depositers' money wasn't gambled and they're not putting the banking system in danger I don't give a rip. What does irritate the hell out of me are sanctimonious politicians who wouldn't know a put from a call but are recklessly spending trillions.