Jamie Dimon's Congresonl Apearanc Shws Wal Street Stil Doesn't Get It!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JimofPennsylvan, Jun 22, 2012.

  1. JimofPennsylvan
    Offline

    JimofPennsylvan VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    385
    Thanks Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +83
    Jamie Dimon the CEO of the investment bank JP Morgan appeared in front of a House Committee this week. Mr. Dimon is an impressive man he demonstrated there that he is a bright, strong and personable person one can clearly see why he is at the top of his profession and JP Morgan is one of the best investment banks in the world. That being said Mr. Dimon like many of the Wall Street heavy hitters that have appeared before Congress since the recent recession in those hearings reveal clearly that they are not on the same wavelength as ordinary Americans that they don't hold the same viewpoint on America's financial industries as most Americans.

    This whole issue can be seen with Mr. Dimon's response to one of the questions one of the representives asked during the hearing which was the simple question asking Mr. Dimon to explain the difference between proprietary trading and hedging. And I think to ordinary American's surprise Mr. Dimon essentially said he thinks proprietary trading is when his bank makes a loan to a person to buy a house or makes a loan to a business for one of its business needs it is when his bank puts its money is on the line. He is not even on the same page as the American people with those kind of views. To ordinary Americans proprietary trading is not any activity that an investment/commercial bank does that is part of them carrying out or consistent with their nature as a bank. Loans to homeowners to purchase a home loans to businesses for their business needs isn't proprietary trading, banks holding stocks or bonds as part of their work helping the issuer issue those stocks or bonds isn't propietary trading and banks buying stocks or bonds for them to be able to carry out their market making business isn't propietary trading. Propietary trading is when these banks conduct activity that is not necessary for them to carry out their natural business function it is when their activity passes into the realm of just trying to make money, speculatiting, it is not necessary for them to be doing this activity for them to be conducting their business. Proprietary trading is when as a result of their market making or bond/stock issueing work banks allow their inventory in stocks and bonds to grow to higher levels than necessary to conduct the business which often turns out profiting them handsomely. Propietary trading is when they engage in bond and stock trading solely for the purpose of generating revenue. Propietary trading is when investment banks put up money to facilitate buying a business and taking an ownership interest in the deal where they are not acting in a banking role but rather as a private equity investor. Another poignant moment during the hearing is when Mr. Dimon indignantly insisted his bank doesn't do betting; ordinary Americans don't think just because your staff does extensive research doesn't mean your financial risk taking isn't betting, for professional sports bettors do extensive research on sports teams and players they bet on!

    The Mr. Dimon's of the world are wrong the Dodd-Frank legislation was a great piece of legislation and the Democrats and Republicans responsible for its passage deserve the American peoples recognition that they did great work there. Is that piece of legislation perfect, No! The legislation's requirement that banks hold on to five percent of the home loans they make to bring about them being responsible in making such loans should be repealed immediately it causes prospective home buyers to not be able to get loans and thus be able to buy home because they can't qualify for the exclusion to this rule. Further, these provisions seek to address a problem, sloppy underwriting, already addressed through other means. This legislation should change the authority structure of the consumer protection organization from one person to a board for it is too much power to give one person. The funding of this organization should remain the same as in the legislation as part of the Federal Reserve otherwise excessively pro-business congressional members will gut the funding of this super valuable program over time if it just put in the general budget.
     

Share This Page