Oh, Oh, Oh, Jamie’s Cryin’ Part 4

JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon: Anti-Banking Sentiment ‘A Form Of Discrimination’

Alexander Eichler, Huffington Post

jamie Dimon ready to fight

JPMorgan Chase Jamie Dimon

Jamie Dimon, the head of JPMorgan Chase, would like to make it clear that he is not that kind of banker.

“I’ve disagreed right from the beginning of this blanket blame of all banks,” Dimon said in an interview with Charlie Gasparino of the Fox Business Network Tuesday. “I don’t like that. I think that’s just a form of discrimination that should be stopped.”

Dimon, who has been CEO of JPMorgan Chase since 2005, didn’t get specific about whom he’d rather not be lumped in with. He seemed, though, to be trying to draw a distinction between his own company — which accepted a bailout from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but is generally seen as having weathered the financial crisis better than many other major firms — and banks that needed a greater degree of government assistance during and after the meltdown.

But Dimon’s critics may not be persuaded by his argument. After all, JPMorgan Chase received $25 billion through the U.S. Treasury under TARP and at least $3 billion from the Federal Reserve in 2008 — the same year that Dimon took home about $19.7 million in salary, stock and options. Dimon’s compensation later climbed to $23 million in 2010 and 2011, as JPMorgan overtook Bank of America to become the nation’s largest bank by assets.

Pay packages on that scale are unlikely to endear Dimon to his detractors, of which he has many.The Occupy Wall Street movement has demonstrated at Dimon’s speaking events and organized marches outside JPMorgan Chase buildings. Politicians – including President Obama – have said that the lopsided concentration of wealth in America is contributing to the country’s economic woes.

Even so, when Gasparino brought up the Occupy movement, Dimon struck a diplomatic tone, discussing the protests in language that was almost identical to comments he made in November.

“There are parts I agree with and there are parts I don’t,” Dimon told Gasparino. “It is fair for the average American to say that the major institutions of America let me down. That’s true. And it is fair, generically, to say that it was predominantly Wall Street and Washington… I think once you go beyond that, and say all politicians, all banks, all bankers — that’s terrible. I don’t accept that.”

Read more here

Share

Meow! Meow! The Watchdogs That Didn’t Bark

Four years after the banking system nearly collapsed from reckless mortgage lending, federal prosecutors have stayed on the sidelines

Scot Paltrow, Reuters

NoJail For Banksters

No jail time for Wall Street crimes

The federal government, as has been widely noted, has pressed few criminal cases against major lenders or senior executives for the events that led to the meltdown of 2007. Finding hard evidence has proved difficult, the Justice Department has said.

The government also hasn’t brought any prosecutions for dubious foreclosure practices deployed since 2007 by big banks and other mortgage-servicing companies.

But this part of the financial system, a Reuters examination shows, is filled with potential leads.

Foreclosure-related case files in just one New York federal bankruptcy court, for example, hold at least a dozen mortgage documents known as promissory notes bearing evidence of recently forged signatures and illegal alterations, according to a judge’s rulings and records reviewed by Reuters. Similarly altered notes have appeared in courts around the country.

Banks in the past two years have foreclosed on the houses of thousands of active-duty U.S. soldiers who are legally eligible to have foreclosures halted. Refusing to grant foreclosure stays is a misdemeanor under federal law.

The U.S. Treasury confirmed in November that it is conducting a civil investigation of 4,500 such foreclosures. Attorneys representing service members estimate banks have foreclosed on up to 30,000 military personnel in potential violation of the law.

Read more here

 

Share

TARP: The Biggest Con Job In The History Of Banking

The notion that without the $700bn bailout we would be reduced to bartering was a ruse by the banks to get taxpayers’ money

Dean Baker, UK Gaurdian

Bankers Got rich With Corporate WelfareTwo years ago, the top honchos at the Fed, Treasury and the Wall Street banks were running around like Chicken Little warning that the world was about to end. This fear-mongering, together with a big assist from the elite media (thatis, NPR, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc), earned the banks their $700bn Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp) blank cheque bailout. This money, along with even more valuable loans and loan guarantees from the Fed and FDIC, enabled them to survive the crisis they had created. As a result, the big banks are bigger and more profitable than ever.

Now, the same crew that tapped our pockets two years ago is eagerly pitching the line that their bailout was good for us. It may be the case that the history books are written by the winners, but that doesn’t prevent the rest of us from telling the truth.

Let’s step back to where we were two years ago. The huge investment bank Bear Stearns had collapsed. So had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants. Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest investment bank had also gone down. AIG, the country’s largest insurer, had been put on life support by the government.

At this point, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, the three remaining independent investment banks, all faced runs that would quickly sink them without government intervention. Citigroup and Bank of America, two of the three largest commercial banks, were also almost certainly insolvent. Many other banks also faced insolvency, especially if they took big losses on their loans to other institutions that were about to go bankrupt.

This was when the Wall Street boys made their mad rush for the public trough. They enlisted everyone that mattered in the effort, including Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, then the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

The line was that the economy would collapse if congress did not immediately rescue the banks. They were prepared to make up anything to save the banks in their hour of need. Bernanke was probably caught in the biggest fabrication when he told congress that the commercial paper market was shutting down.

Read more here

Share

FBI Reportedly Investigating Fannie and Freddie

, Huffington Post

It’s been a bad month for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced last week that it was suing half a dozen former executives from the mortgage giants, including the ex-CEOs of both companies. Now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is reportedly asking questions about Fannie and Freddie’s behavior in the months preceding the financial crisis, according to The Daily.

At issue is whether Fannie and Freddie — two of the largest mortgage companies in the country, and the recipients of a major government bailout in September 2008 – misled the public and investors about the relative risk of their loans in the lead up to the financial crisis, the Daily reports. The matter has serious implications, since many allege that mortgage lenders’ enthusiasm for making loans to homeowners with shoddy credit, and banks’ penchant for using those loans as financial instruments, are among the principal reasons for the housing crash and financial crisis.

The SEC’s lawsuit probes much the same question, hitting six former executives at the two companies with charges of security fraud, and accusing them of continuing to hold onto questionable loans even after the magnitude of the risk became clear. Neither company is directly named as a defendant in the SEC’s suit.

The SEC appears to be framing that suit as a response to critics who have accused the agency of going easy on the major banks and financial institutions who played a central role in the financial meltdown, according to The New York Times.

However, it’s unclear whether the SEC’s pursuit of Fannie and Freddie alumni will assuage taxpayer ire or merely inflame it further, since, as CNBC recently pointed out, it’s taxpayers who may end uppaying the legal fees for the six defendants named in the suit, as Fannie and Freddie are now owned by the government.

Read more here

Share