Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 19:07:51 GMT -5
"Out of curiosity, how much does this cut in federal taxes paid to the IRS?"
Hard to say. Someone else (or a bunch of someone elses) are making money at JPM's expense. So JPM pays less, but those people pay more.
|
|
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 Jun 30, 2012 9:05:10 GMT -5
"Out of curiosity, how much does this cut in federal taxes paid to the IRS?" Hard to say. Someone else (or a bunch of someone elses) are making money at JPM's expense. So JPM pays less, but those people pay more. Not necessarily. If it is European banks or overseas Hedge funds based overseas, holding the profitible side of the trade, they are not going to owe the IRS squat.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jun 30, 2012 10:17:47 GMT -5
Playing the derivatives market is no different than placing bets in Las Vegas. There are 90% losers and 10% winners. Same odds. The difference is that the banks are playing with house money.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 13:28:09 GMT -5
"Not necessarily. If it is European banks or overseas Hedge funds based overseas, holding the profitible side of the trade, they are not going to owe the IRS squat."
I hadn't really considered that. Not sure how the laws work, although I'd think that if the transactions are ocurring in the US (you can't have one side in one country and the other side in another country), I would think there would still be taxes paid to the US gov't?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 13:29:34 GMT -5
"Playing the derivatives market is no different than placing bets in Las Vegas. There are 90% losers and 10% winners. Same odds. The difference is that the banks are playing with house money."
There is no truth to this statement. And I'm not sure why you're implying that banks control the markets or are the only ones that profit. Also, many of the players in the derivatives markets are not even looking to make profits.
|
|
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 Jul 1, 2012 9:14:24 GMT -5
"Not necessarily. If it is European banks or overseas Hedge funds based overseas, holding the profitible side of the trade, they are not going to owe the IRS squat." I hadn't really considered that. Not sure how the laws work, although I'd think that if the transactions are ocurring in the US (you can't have one side in one country and the other side in another country), I would think there would still be taxes paid to the US gov't? JPM had the rogue trade in the London office. Even if it was profitable, until the money was transferred back to the states, it would not be taxed by the Feds. On the bright side, with such a huge loss, maybe JPM will bring back another 9 billion in profits from overseas, balancing out the "loss" creating a "wash" taxwise for them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 10:48:18 GMT -5
LOL. Way to look at the bright side!
|
|
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 Jul 1, 2012 12:10:36 GMT -5
My guess is that JPM will be absorbed by some other large financial institution and its losses will be written off to the detriment of other financial entities. The loss is less than 10% of their investment portfolio. The problem stems from Congress repealing The Glass-Steagall act in 1999, and BC signing it into law. It prohibited depository banks from becoming investment banks. We need the Glass-Ste-gall act returned. The only problem is the banks are huge campaign donors. i agree completely. what do you think the odds are of Wall Street Mitt giving us G-S back?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 14:29:25 GMT -5
"The only problem is the banks are huge campaign donors."
Banks don't give a dime to national campaigns. It's illegal. Why is this so hard for people to comprehend?
|
|