JPMorgan Chase Loses $2 Billion On Bad Bets

FredHayek wrote: Another example of someone speculating (gambling) in the market and making the wrong call.

When someone speculates (gambles) with their OWN money, and is allowed to fail when they make a bad choice, I have NO problem with that. When they are actually gambling with money that belongs to OTHER PEOPLE--without their express permission--and if they fail, and ultimately the taxpayers are expected to cover their losses, then I have a HUGE problem with that.

That's what we got when Glass-Steagall was removed; and that's what they tried to control a little bit with Dodd-Frank...And I don't care which party started it. But the piggy-squeals you hear from Wall Street right now because regulations are being put in place to stop this gambling with exotic junk that is covered by taxpayer dollars, are from the very slime that got us into the mess in the first place. And the chutzpah of Jamie Dimon to complain one day about being regulated and then explain 6 days later later to his stockholders that "We had a little 'oops'...actually, a $2 BILLION 'oops''" is too delicious....

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

CritiKalbILL wrote: What's the big deal? Can't we just bail them out and move on?

That's my point above. They did nothing illegal. Investing is a crap shoot. No one guarantees you ANYTHING when you invest. If you loose 10,000 dollars in your investments because of the market or because your investment banker makes a bad decision, that's the game. If you don't like these outcomes, don't play. Put your money somewhere else. What are you going to do, change your whole political ideology because you lost some money?

There is an item called DISCLOSURE.......which was conveniently lost in the rush to GREED. It was NOT disclosed,by anyone.....NOT
the banks,NOT the brokers,NOT the thousands who got obscenely wealthy on "funny money floating around in cyber-space." The vehicle
was NOT fully understood,nor did ANYONE want to understand it (and the ramifications) BECAUSE boatloads of money was the result and WHY question that?.......in answer to your question......if you have done extensive and retroactive research into the issue you
would have found that alot of illegal actions were taking place. Try IMPLODE/EXPLODE website,try Market Oracle website, try reading
Weiss Research and Rbt. Pritcher's analysis and you will have an answer to your question......but it takes EXHAUSTIVE RESEARCH to
obtain those answers. JMO

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Another example of someone speculating (gambling) in the market and making the wrong call.

When someone speculates (gambles) with their OWN money, and is allowed to fail when they make a bad choice, I have NO problem with that. When they are actually gambling with money that belongs to OTHER PEOPLE--without their express permission--and if they fail, and ultimately the taxpayers are expected to cover their losses, then I have a HUGE problem with that.

Are you talking about Solyndra and all the other green companies the government is gambling on with TAXPAYER MONEY?

This is a non-issue as long as we the taxpayers never ever again bail out any corporation. It never should have been done in the first place.

They pulled this "too big to fail" crap out of thin air- a government should not be involved in bailing out mis-management. It's called moral hazard- and Bush AND Obama stabbed it in the back. There's no risk when a corporation makes bad investments if the government is there to back them up with taxpayer money.

What a corporation chooses to invest in is their choice- just dont get the taxpayer involved and this is a non issue.

Follow the money to see the reason for these synthetic credit markets, credit default swaps, and derivatives. It is another time bomb waiting to go off some day. Is there any chance the massive amount of government borrowing around the world is feeding this system of derivatives and risk management hedges? Yep, just go ahead and regulate away these products and then see who is going to step up to lend trillions at low rates to insolvent Governments in the future.

In a regulatory filing on Thursday, the bank said that, since the end of March, its chief investment office "has had significant mark-to-market losses in its synthetic credit portfolio, and this portfolio has proven to be riskier, more volatile and less effective as an economic hedge than the firm previously believed."

So, they've known this since the end of March and didn't do anything/say anything until May. Hmmmmm.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/syntheticcdo.asp#axzz1ufI7yHXr

Synthetic CDOs are a modern advance in structured finance that can offer extremely high yields to investors. However, investors can be on the hook for much more than their initial investments if several credit events occur in the reference portfolio.

Synthetic CDOs were first created in the late 1990s as a way for large holders of commercial loans to protect their balance sheets without actually selling the loans and potentially harming client relationships. They have become increasingly popular because they tend to have shorter life spans than cash flow CDOs and there is no extended ramp-up period for earnings investment. Synthetic CDOs are also highly customizable between the underwriter and investors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 77680.html

The OP must have missed this one, sound similar? Oh wait a minute, Buffet is one of the "good" guys. LOL

Warren Buffett's conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc reported a smaller third-quarter profit on Friday after losing more than $2 billion on derivatives related to stock market performance.

Breaking News:
WSJ: 3 JPMorgan Execs Expected To Resign Following $2 Billion Loss

Oh, darn... Don't you hate it when the job-creators end up having to pay for using other people's money AT THE BANK to make bad bets?

I guess the morons at the Rightie-blogs haven't figured out the difference (when they go searching for anything to play 'they did it too') between a privately held investment firm (i.e., Buffett), and a BANK.. Dang, I hate it when that happens....

LadyJazzer wrote: Breaking News:
WSJ: 3 JPMorgan Execs Expected To Resign Following $2 Billion Loss

Oh, darn... Don't you hate it when the job-creators end up having to pay for using other people's money AT THE BANK to make bad bets?

I guess the morons at the Rightie-blogs haven't figured out the difference (when they go searching for anything to play 'they did it too') between a privately held investment firm (i.e., Buffett), and a BANK.. Dang, I hate it when that happens....

What's the matter... you're investment counselor make another 10,000 dollar bad decision for you.

Dang.. Well, he said it was probably worse than the $2 BILLION they first knew about...

JPMorgan Chase Has Lost $20 Billion On Its Bad Trade, Taking Into Account Share Price


All in a day's work... (And at least three heads are still going to roll....) Let's see, that's about $6.66 Billion/head....

Stockholders?...Hmmm? Wha....?