Record penalties for JPMC

[kallend 1,623]

$13 Billion in penalties for JP Morgan Chase. Yet still the executives who brought the bank to this get to keep their jobs and huge incomes.

Until the execs have to show some personal accountability, where is the deterrent to such activities?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

I'm very curious what column this money actually, physically goes in.

[Tink1717 2]

They won't pay a single dime. They never do.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[normiss 622]

Nah.
GM repaid everything.
I saw it in the news.

[Gravitymaster 0]

kallend

$13 Billion in penalties for JP Morgan Chase. Yet still the executives who brought the bank to this get to keep their jobs and huge incomes.

Until the execs have to show some personal accountability, where is the deterrent to such activities?

Yeah, Obama should have fired all of them and replaced them with some of his cronies.

[billvon 2,400]

>Until the execs have to show some personal accountability, where is the deterrent to
>such activities?

Why should there be? If the owners of the company would rather pay fines than get new executives, shouldn't that be their right to make that decision? Even if you think it's a bad one?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

The pact, which isn’t yet final, doesn’t include a release of potential criminal liability for the bank, at the insistence of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the first person said. Holder told JPMorgan Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon during talks that such a release wouldn’t be forthcoming as part of any deal, said the person.

The proposed accord will probably require the bank to cooperate in criminal investigations of individuals tied to wrongdoing associated with the bank’s mortgage practices, said the person, who requested anonymity because the matter isn’t public. The deal, which may be announced next week, also includes pending inquiries by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the people said.

[kelpdiver 2]

Iago

A select few are making money off both ends- they made money off CDOs and even more when the CDOs blew up because they were the oonly ones that knew how they worked.

People buying instruments they don't understand shouldn't whine if they lose money on them. And those pretending they didn't understand seems just as criminal to their clients as any actions by the issuers of the CDOs.

[sfzombie13 307]

very true statement. but totally irrelevant. has nothing to do with the fact that people should, at the very least, be fired and at the most should be jailed.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[kelpdiver 2]

sfzombie13

very true statement. but totally irrelevant. has nothing to do with the fact that people should, at the very least, be fired and at the most should be jailed.

for what, exactly?

You jail people for criminal offenses. Fucking up isn't a criminal offense. Nor is selling risky investment vehicles. You'll need to show (ie, prove) criminal intent to defraud. Given that entire companies went out of business due to their own mistakes, this is a pretty tall bar.

You fire people for hurting the bottom line of the company, very rarely because 'the public doesn't like them.'

This agreement, as cited by someone here, leaves the door open for criminal prosecutions. If they can find individuals or managers directing the processing of liar loans, then there you have something. But if it remains just as a lot of people defaulted at the same time, that's called a bubble bursting.
--
as to the relevance, it is highly so. 2008 happened for a lot of reasons, starting with a collective financial incompetence of the people as a whole. It's much easier to blame those fucking bankers who cheated us that to admit that paying 700k for a house in Vallejo made sense, or that no matter how unaffordable this ARM will be in 3 years, my house will be worth 50% more and I'll be fine. Or we could talk about cash out refi's used to pay for vacations and credit card bills. And last, we have people (Amazon was one) who sold their equity investments in 2009 at the bottom, losing 60% and then missing the recovery because their money was now in low yielding bonds. Those who left their 401k alone were whole by 2011 (or up because they kept putting money in). Those who claim the crash and the fucking bankers cost them half their retirement need only look in the mirror to find the true blame.

So sorry, when I see a remark like the sellers of CDOs were the only ones that understood them...that ain't the truth.

[ryoder 1,384]

kelpdiver

***very true statement. but totally irrelevant. has nothing to do with the fact that people should, at the very least, be fired and at the most should be jailed.

for what, exactly?

You jail people for criminal offenses. Fucking up isn't a criminal offense. Nor is selling risky investment vehicles. You'll need to show (ie, prove) criminal intent to defraud. Given that entire companies went out of business due to their own mistakes, this is a pretty tall bar.

You fire people for hurting the bottom line of the company, very rarely because 'the public doesn't like them.'

This agreement, as cited by someone here, leaves the door open for criminal prosecutions. If they can find individuals or managers directing the processing of liar loans, then there you have something. But if it remains just as a lot of people defaulted at the same time, that's called a bubble bursting.

Watch the documentary "Inside Job".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

It explains it all very well.
It was not about "bad investments";
It was about deliberate fraud.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kelpdiver 2]

ryoder

Watch the documentary "Inside Job".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

It explains it all very well.
It was not about "bad investments";
It was about deliberate fraud.

The topic is a bit more complicated than a 100 minute documentary can cover, even if it's a more honest one than a Michael Moore offering.

It takes two sides for an investment con - the seller and the buyer. To be fraud, the buyer has to be unaware of what he is buying. They were not.

[rickjump1 0]

kelpdiver

***
Watch the documentary "Inside Job".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

It explains it all very well.
It was not about "bad investments";
It was about deliberate fraud.

The topic is a bit more complicated than a 100 minute documentary can cover, even if it's a more honest one than a Michael Moore offering.

It takes two sides for an investment con - the seller and the buyer. To be fraud, the buyer has to be unaware of what he is buying. They were not. You could say the same thing about buying a car or a dildo. Both could be considered investments.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Andy9o8 0]

kelpdiver

***
Watch the documentary "Inside Job".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

It explains it all very well.
It was not about "bad investments";
It was about deliberate fraud.

The topic is a bit more complicated than a 100 minute documentary can cover, even if it's a more honest one than a Michael Moore offering.

It takes two sides for an investment con - the seller and the buyer. To be fraud, the buyer has to be unaware of what he is buying. They were not.

Sorry, but that is not so in this case. I happen to be first-hand familiar with a lot of specific evidence in this case.

Each of the securities at issue in this case were comprised of many mortgages bundled together into individual securities; then the securities were sold off in blocs. Of course, the investors had a duty to exercise their own due diligence into the quality of those securities before buying them - and that's essentially your point. But banks such as JPM, Bank of America, etc. deliberately concealed the fact that many of the mortgage loan accounts comprising the securities were of sub-standard underwriting quality and/or already had troubled repayment histories, and they did so in such a way that those facts would not be uncovered until too late, despite investors' and govt regulators' due diligence.

In other words, albeit in a very over-simplified nutshell, the banks cooked the books and made deliberate misstatements in quarterly earnings statements to investors, and in their 10-Qs and 10-Ks filed with the SEC, for the specific purpose of concealing the sub-standard quality of the securities from investors' and analysts' due diligence investigations. They were selling snake oil, and they knew it, but passing it off as the real deal, and doing it in such a way that deliberately hid what they were doing. That was the fraud. The fraud was only uncovered (with the help of inside whistleblowers) when the mortgage accounts underlying the securities began to crumble, causing the securities to crumble.

By the way (to everyone), there is in fact an active criminal investigation ongoing that may very well implicate individual top executives of JPM and other top banks for criminal prosecution. This ain't over by a long shot.

[sfzombie13 307]

you sir must surely be joking. takes criminal intent to be charged with a crime? on what planet? i'm not even going to make any references to this one, i can think of at least seven off the top of my head that people are serving time for where there was no criminal intent.

and it most certainly can be explained in 100 minutes or less. if i were reading it, it would probably only take around 20.

and if i were a business owner, and i am, and i had people who made awful choices and lost me billions of dollars, i damn straight would fire them. they would most likely be escorted out in a most demeaning fashion, if not in an ambulance.

and to anyone who lost anything due to this situation, i am truly sorry and i feel for you. i am not trying to belittle your losses, nor am i trying to excuse the cause of it. i will say that shit happens. due to one mistake or another, i have lost everything i own and started over 6 or 8 times now in my life. it sucks, but if you try again, it works out.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[OHCHUTE 0]

Andy9o8

******
Watch the documentary "Inside Job".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

It explains it all very well.
It was not about "bad investments";
It was about deliberate fraud.

The topic is a bit more complicated than a 100 minute documentary can cover, even if it's a more honest one than a Michael Moore offering.

It takes two sides for an investment con - the seller and the buyer. To be fraud, the buyer has to be unaware of what he is buying. They were not.

Sorry, but that is not so in this case. I happen to be first-hand familiar with a lot of specific evidence in this case.

Each of the securities at issue in this case were comprised of many mortgages bundled together into individual securities; then the securities were sold off in blocs. Of course, the investors had a duty to exercise their own due diligence into the quality of those securities before buying them - and that's essentially your point. But banks such as JPM, Bank of America, etc. deliberately concealed the fact that many of the mortgage loan accounts comprising the securities were of sub-standard underwriting quality and/or already had troubled repayment histories, and they did so in such a way that those facts would not be uncovered until too late, despite investors' and govt regulators' due diligence.

In other words, albeit in a very over-simplified nutshell, the banks cooked the books and made deliberate misstatements in quarterly earnings statements to investors, and in their 10-Qs and 10-Ks filed with the SEC, for the specific purpose of concealing the sub-standard quality of the securities from investors' and analysts' due diligence investigations. They were selling snake oil, and they knew it, but passing it off as the real deal, and doing it in such a way that deliberately hid what they were doing. That was the fraud. The fraud was only uncovered (with the help of inside whistleblowers) when the mortgage accounts underlying the securities began to crumble, causing the securities to crumble.



By the way (to everyone), there is in fact an active criminal investigation ongoing that may very well implicate individual top executives of JPM and other top banks for criminal prosecution. This ain't over by a long shot.

Rating firms (S&P) were also involved in rating junk AAA, that the buyer of the Mortgage Backed Securities thought they were good investments when they were not. PLUS, having insurance (AIG) in the event of failure was also an inducement. Fact of the matter is: they all knew it was a PONZI, with Lehman Bros., ending up with the bag of worthless paper. It was all about earning commissions on selling a bunch of worthless paper. Criminal charges are still pending even though there is discussion about paying a fine. I gather only the fine will be paid, cost of doing business, and no one will go to jail.

BTW: they're doing this now with College Loan Debt Securities which is the next bubble...

[kelpdiver 2]

Andy9o8

Each of the securities at issue in this case were comprised of many mortgages bundled together into individual securities; then the securities were sold off in blocs. Of course, the investors had a duty to exercise their own due diligence into the quality of those securities before buying them - and that's essentially your point. But banks such as JPM, Bank of America, etc. deliberately concealed the fact that many of the mortgage loan accounts comprising the securities were of sub-standard underwriting quality and/or already had troubled repayment histories, and they did so in such a way that those facts would not be uncovered until too late, despite investors' and govt regulators' due diligence.

OHCHUTE had it right for a change - they all knew the score. They knew that the ratings companies and analyst ratings are a sham as well - it's not like they're just in from some communist fairyland.

If the feds can put together real cases against individuals or leadership, good hunting to them. But it's 5 years later now and they just lost their Cuban trial.

[tkhayes 126]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/28/uk-iceland-crisis-idUKBRE8BR0EW20121228

Iceland, they went to jail. The country took over some of the banks. Pretty sure that will not happen again.

They do not go to jail in the USA mostly because they can easily argue that they did nothing illegal, given they they bought the politicians and helped write the laws that they follow, which in turn, all them to run away with it all.

The fixes are actually very very simple. And they will not happen unless we vote out every single incumbent in the House and Senate.

[Andy9o8 0]

Voting out incumbents is a nice sound byte, but is otherwise meaningless. Who do you suppose is waiting in the wings, and how do you suppose they got there and are beholden to?

[rushmc 18]

funny
you hate it when companies cheat lie and steel
but it is ok when the us Gov does it


consider this
From the New York comPost no less

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jpmorgan-dimon-obama-settlement/2013/10/20/id/532044

Quote

US 'Robbed' JPMorgan, Payback for Criticism of Obama
!

The DOJ and the IRS are Obamas speech police
And you seem to like it

disgusting John
even for you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

billvon

>Until the execs have to show some personal accountability, where is the deterrent to
>such activities?

Why should there be? If the owners of the company would rather pay fines than get new executives, shouldn't that be their right to make that decision? Even if you think it's a bad one?

Corporations are people according to the SCOTUS. And people go to prison. That's where some of these execs deserve to be.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

kelpdiver

***
Watch the documentary "Inside Job".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

It explains it all very well.
It was not about "bad investments";
It was about deliberate fraud.

The topic is a bit more complicated than a 100 minute documentary can cover, even if it's a more honest one than a Michael Moore offering.

It takes two sides for an investment con - the seller and the buyer. To be fraud, the buyer has to be unaware of what he is buying. They were not.

So what is the $13B fine for, if not malfeasance by JPMC?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[weekender 0]

***


deleted my post because i mistakenly thought we were talking about the charge to earnings. i realize now your talking about the a future charge that has not been finalized and still in discussions.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Stumpy 256]

I'm not convinced the right people have been held to account. This is largely anecdotal through personal experience but would be interested to hear others views.

i know (went to university with) a bunch of the guys who were working the trading floors and were most likely the ones shifting the most cash around during this period. They were also relatively senior and experienced, and I would say more likely to play "fast and loose". When it all went belly up, I think the more junior traders got booted, a few scapegoats were made at a senior management level, but these guys actually making the trouble were too damn expensive to get rid of.
I was at a wedding a couple of years ago and they were openly joking about some things - made my blood boil.

Like I say, completely anecdotal but those closer to the market may have a view.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[weekender 0]

kallend

$13 Billion in penalties for JP Morgan Chase. Yet still the executives who brought the bank to this get to keep their jobs and huge incomes.

Until the execs have to show some personal accountability, where is the deterrent to such activities?

ok, more on topic.

keep in mind that JPMC are being held accountable for the problems of Bear Stearns and Wash Mutual, which they purchased. they were the one major bank that was not in a need of a bailout.

You want to call for the heads of people then go after Bear and Wash Mutual. they are the ones who caused their banks to fail. we should all be glad that JPMC was solvent and clean enough purchase them. otherwise their would be nobody around for the gov't to fine.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante