floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on May 22, 2012 12:24:27 GMT -5
..... in this mess, will the CEO will still be rewarded ..... i guess we can expect "fees" at Chase to rise soon enough ..... it seems the bank did not learn their lesson, oh wait, will we have learned our lesson is probably more appropriate, will we allow Congress to bail them out again? Clearly Dodd Frank does not go far enough (in my opinion) to keep the too big to fail arrogance in check....if Chase, a supposed conservative institution did this, what do we think the riskier banks did or do? JP Morgan Chase** was the fifth largest contributor to Obama's 2008 campaign for POTUS (Donations to McCain were were around 40% of that amount). For the life of me, I can't see how that makes them a 'conservative institution'. It seems they benefit no matter which party holds the reigns. University of California $1,648,685 Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 Harvard University $878,164 Microsoft Corp $852,167 Google Inc $814,540 JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799 Citigroup Inc $736,771 Time Warner $624,618 Sidley Austin LLP $600,298 Stanford University $595,716 **Just to note, The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on May 22, 2012 12:33:55 GMT -5
Fla,
to the "smarter than your average conservative" "progressive" , everyone on wall st and in the 1% are white male republican Christians. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on May 22, 2012 12:38:02 GMT -5
Fla, to the "smarter than your average conservative" "progressive" , everyone on wall st and in the 1% are white male republican Christians. ;-) Really? News to me. I always thought Wall Street was heavily dominated by those practicing Judaism.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on May 22, 2012 12:38:56 GMT -5
..... in this mess, will the CEO will still be rewarded ..... i guess we can expect "fees" at Chase to rise soon enough ..... it seems the bank did not learn their lesson, oh wait, will we have learned our lesson is probably more appropriate, will we allow Congress to bail them out again? Clearly Dodd Frank does not go far enough (in my opinion) to keep the too big to fail arrogance in check....if Chase, a supposed conservative institution did this, what do we think the riskier banks did or do? JP Morgan Chase** was the fifth largest contributor to Obama's 2008 campaign for POTUS (Donations to McCain were were around 40% of that amount). For the life of me, I can't see how that makes them a 'conservative institution'. It seems they benefit no matter which party holds the reigns. conservative in their investment thinking.... I could care less about Chase's political leanings.... "con·serv·a·tive /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. 2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate. 3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit. 4. ( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party. 5. ( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism. " I added emphasis the parts of the multiple definition of the word.... I was not discussing Conservative, I was speaking of conservative....
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on May 22, 2012 12:41:41 GMT -5
JP Morgan Chase** was the fifth largest contributor to Obama's 2008 campaign for POTUS (Donations to McCain were were around 40% of that amount). For the life of me, I can't see how that makes them a 'conservative institution'. It seems they benefit no matter which party holds the reigns. conservative in their investment thinking.... I could care less about Chase's political leanings.... They are an investment bank, they are supposed to be taking risks.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on May 22, 2012 12:46:34 GMT -5
They are an investment bank, they are supposed to be taking risks.
yes with "investment capitol" not depositors savings. ;-)
re instate Glass Steigel
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on May 22, 2012 12:49:40 GMT -5
They are an investment bank, they are supposed to be taking risks. yes with "investment capitol" not depositors savings. ;-) re instate Glass Steigel Yes, that is correct. Talk to Jon Corzine about that one. Note that there is a difference between those with savings accounts and investors with 100s of thousands or millions in brokerage accounts who are looking for high stakes investments.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on May 22, 2012 13:01:22 GMT -5
Note that there is a difference between those with savings accounts and investors with 100s of thousands or millions in brokerage accounts who are looking for high stakes investments
tell that to the banks. ;-)
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on May 22, 2012 13:14:48 GMT -5
JP Morgan Chase** was the fifth largest contributor to Obama's 2008 campaign for POTUS (Donations to McCain were were around 40% of that amount). For the life of me, I can't see how that makes them a 'conservative institution'. It seems they benefit no matter which party holds the reigns. conservative in their investment thinking.... I could care less about Chase's political leanings.... D'oh...my bad. Sorry for the misinterpretation.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on May 22, 2012 13:41:03 GMT -5
"D'oh...my bad. Sorry for the misinterpretation."
No worries.... given the extremist tone of many posters here the terms liberal and conservative seem to only get one meaning (and it's political only), when in reality they do not....I guess we all need to make our comments clearer given the vile hatred of an opposing opinion or point of view by the few who will remain nameless....
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on May 22, 2012 14:33:56 GMT -5
Note that there is a difference between those with savings accounts and investors with 100s of thousands or millions in brokerage accounts who are looking for high stakes investments
and if the "banks" are properly capitalized(like they should be post bail out), the investment banking division should be the only one hurt by this. not the depositor, commercial divisions.
so what kind of "bank" is JPM? Investment? Depositor? Commercial? or all three rolled into one(and throw in some insurance for good measure).
reinstate Glass Seigel.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 22, 2012 14:41:47 GMT -5
amen
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on May 22, 2012 15:36:06 GMT -5
It's a blip, 2012 will likely remain in the black (if it takes 3 quarters, then by October). I am not an apologist. I simply understand how minor this is. Secondly, why do you or I care. You say that we bailed them out, shame on us. They did not want it, but we forced it on them so that those that needed it wouldn't take the reputational hit. You say that we will bail them out, double shame. It is time to run the risk-less, panty-waists out of DC, so that when a bank fails, and the equity holders, then unsecured stakeholders, then secured stakeholders lose money on bets that they made. Enough with the bail them out, then regulate them so that they can risk no loss (more importantly gain no reward). JPM is so far away from the equity holders losing, at this point, that it is ridiculous to care. They aren't within a hundred miles of needing any help from anyone, including the pensioners, or creditors, or equity shareholders for that matter. A market of risk and reward, only works when there is risk, corporate social safety-nets are the only reason to need regulation.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on May 22, 2012 15:39:10 GMT -5
Note that there is a difference between those with savings accounts and investors with 100s of thousands or millions in brokerage accounts who are looking for high stakes investments tell that to the banks. ;-) FDIC Anyone that carries more than the insured limit in one bank chooses to be a high stakes investor with limited return. Their decision, you win some, you lose some.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on May 22, 2012 15:56:04 GMT -5
Note that there is a difference between those with savings accounts and investors with 100s of thousands or millions in brokerage accounts who are looking for high stakes investments tell that to the banks. ;-) You might be thinking of hedge funds, like the one Corzine was involved with.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on May 22, 2012 15:58:02 GMT -5
Note that there is a difference between those with savings accounts and investors with 100s of thousands or millions in brokerage accounts who are looking for high stakes investments and if the "banks" are properly capitalized(like they should be post bail out), the investment banking division should be the only one hurt by this. not the depositor, commercial divisions. so what kind of "bank" is JPM? Investment? Depositor? Commercial? or all three rolled into one(and throw in some insurance for good measure). reinstate Glass Seigel. JP Morgan has nearly $200 billion in assets. They will not require a bailout. They likely need some management changes. Suppose we talk about something more significant to the middle class such as the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax; both which will cost middle class families thousands.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on May 22, 2012 16:07:26 GMT -5
Note that there is a difference between those with savings accounts and investors with 100s of thousands or millions in brokerage accounts who are looking for high stakes investments tell that to the banks. ;-) You might be thinking of hedge funds, like the one Corzine was involved with. Nope. Talking about banks. Not hedge funds. I'm positive.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on May 22, 2012 16:08:23 GMT -5
Message deleted by Driftr.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 22, 2012 16:16:52 GMT -5
JP Morgan isn't looking for a government bailout as far as I can see so isn't this a private concern of theirs alone..their stock holders, their employees , their CEO, their Board of Directors... to figure out where they are going next, who will face the consequences, [seems some have already done that, possible more to follow] ... a carrot and the stick scenario just as many private companys face every day...
If they did anything illegal, which it doesn't seem they did, then it would be the governments right to inteterfare but for just poor business decisions...isn't that a private matter, the consequences will be what they are dictated by the markets and share holders and Board as said before..IMHO.?
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,971
|
Post by bean29 on May 22, 2012 16:30:39 GMT -5
I thought when it came to campaign donations Wall Street generally "hedges" their bets and donates to both the R and D candidates. I understand your 40% of the amount going to McCain but they did donate to both. I wonder what Wall Street did overall for Obama vs. McCain?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 22, 2012 17:29:07 GMT -5
..... in this mess, will the CEO will still be rewarded ..... i guess we can expect "fees" at Chase to rise soon enough ..... it seems the bank did not learn their lesson, oh wait, will we have learned our lesson is probably more appropriate, will we allow Congress to bail them out again? Clearly Dodd Frank does not go far enough (in my opinion) to keep the too big to fail arrogance in check....if Chase, a supposed conservative institution did this, what do we think the riskier banks did or do? JP Morgan Chase** was the fifth largest contributor to Obama's 2008 campaign for POTUS www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638using the same link as above for 2012, we see the following for Romney: Goldman Sachs $573,080 Bank of America $398,850 JPMorgan Chase & Co $393,825Morgan Stanley $373,850 Credit Suisse Group $317,410 Citigroup Inc $301,550 Kirkland & Ellis $248,052 Barclays $228,400 PricewaterhouseCoopers $214,250 Wells Fargo $204,300 HIG Capital $191,000 UBS AG $190,500 Blackstone Group $182,550 Bain Capital $149,000 Marriott International $132,827 EMC Corp $129,200 Citadel Investment Group $127,125 Elliott Management $125,975 Deloitte LLP $124,250 Bain & Co $123,050 that's right. #3.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 22, 2012 17:30:20 GMT -5
JP Morgan isn't looking for a government bailout as far as I can see so isn't this a private concern of theirs alone..their stock holders, their employees , their CEO, their Board of Directors... to figure out where they are going next, who will face the consequences, [seems some have already done that, possible more to follow] ... a carrot and the stick scenario just as many private companys face every day... one small correction. this is a public company.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on May 22, 2012 18:28:31 GMT -5
Just think. It could have been worse. You could own FaceBook at the $42 opening last week. Now there was a scam.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 18:44:56 GMT -5
"no it isn't. it is public money. Shittybank is a public corporation."
It's a publically traded corporation. The money is all private. Public money is gov't money.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Wile I do not disagree with the "saving the system" rally about the big bank bailout...."
Very little of what is in that last paragraph is accurate, and that's what I was talking about when I said I think decisions should be based on facts.
For example, with the exception of AIG, the gov't made a profit on the "bailouts" (which were not bailouts but rather high interest rate loans). AIG is even on track to pay off it's loans. The cost to the tax payers (if any) will wind up being no more than a few billion. The cost to taxpayers of not bailing them out might have been in the trillions. That seems like a damn good investment to me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 18:45:46 GMT -5
"If it initially dropped 10% when they disclosed a $2B loss, you would expect an increase in that amount to make it drop farther."
These sorts of losses always start small and get bigger. So more than likely, the markets assumed it would be worse from the get go.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 18:50:41 GMT -5
" thought when it came to campaign donations Wall Street generally "hedges" their bets and donates to both the R and D candidates."
Big Wall Street firms didn't donate a dime to either Obama or McCain, because it is highly illegal. Their employees did. People don't donate on behalf of their companies, they donate based on whatever is most important to them (which could be their company). Donation statistics tend to reflect the diversity of the company or industry's employees, not the companies themselves.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 22, 2012 20:24:34 GMT -5
Note that there is a difference between those with savings accounts and investors with 100s of thousands or millions in brokerage accounts who are looking for high stakes investments and if the "banks" are properly capitalized(like they should be post bail out), the investment banking division should be the only one hurt by this. not the depositor, commercial divisions. so what kind of "bank" is JPM? Investment? Depositor? Commercial? or all three rolled into one(and throw in some insurance for good measure). reinstate Glass Seigel. JP Morgan has nearly $200 billion in assets. They will not require a bailout. that's good. because they already got one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 22, 2012 20:26:35 GMT -5
Just think. It could have been worse. You could own FaceBook at the $42 opening last week. Now there was a scam. truly.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on May 22, 2012 20:39:04 GMT -5
JP Morgan has nearly $200 billion in assets. They will not require a bailout. that's good. because they already got one. Against their wishes and better judgement, if the balance sheet, and ability to earn is any indication. They should have backed out of the Bear Sterns purchase and left the government to the mess it got itself in.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 22, 2012 20:41:51 GMT -5
that's good. because they already got one. Against their wishes and better judgement, if the balance sheet, and ability to earn is any indication. They should have backed out of the Bear Sterns purchase and left the government to the mess it got itself in. woulda shoulda coulda.....didn't.
|
|