I'm sure happy I was sitting on the sidelines in cash. After Hours yesterday they let CNBC know that they lost more than 2 Billion Dollars.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:JPM

quote Originally posted by California Kid: After Hours yesterday they let CNBC know that they lost more than 2 Billion Dollars.

... with a strong hint that there may be billions more to come.

Oh great. Another too big to fail bank in trouble, taking chances with money for their profit with the american tax payer as it's backstop if it fails.

Clearly, private business knows best and government must get out of the way.

I believe that banks and the stock market should be regulated tightly to help focus banks on their primary reason of existence: take deposits and prudently lend the funds out to others who can use them better to add value in a market economy. We already have race tracks and lotteries for gambling.

[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-12-2012).]

quote Originally posted by jetman: Oh great. Another too big to fail bank in trouble, taking chances with money for their profit with the american tax payer as it's backstop if it fails.

Funny how the government is bad and they shouldn't have to pay taxes, but when the poo hits the fan it's OK for others to bail them out.

It called capitalism when there are profits and socialism when there are losses. With all the staunch anti-socialists on this forum, there should be a huge outrage in this thread. I'm waiting...

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Funny how the government is bad and they shouldn't have to pay taxes, but when the poo hits the fan it's OK for others to bail them out.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: Clearly, private business knows best and government must get out of the way. I believe that banks and the stock market should be regulated tightly to help focus banks on their primary reason of existence: take deposits and prudently lend the funds out to others who can use them better to add value in a market economy. We already have race tracks and lotteries for gambling.

I'm not sure I agree with this position though, I don't know exactly what happened in this situation. What I do know is the stock market and investing is a gamble for anyone that does it. Always has been. If you want security, then go with US Savings Bonds or something more secure. Even those aren't 100% certain but are good as long as the US Treasury/Government are viable. I'm sure my own 401K took a hit yesterday from this. But, that's the risk I took. We all want our investments to grow, if we're bold enough to take greater risks, then we should be prepared to accept greater losses. I don't know that anything illegal was done, I'm sure there will be plenty of investigation and if something illegal was done, then someone needs to go to jail. But, I don't think government knows more or that the taxpayer should be held accountable for such losses. Too big to fail is pure

I'll agree that there should be constant surveilance of banks and investment institutions because that human characteristic, Greed is always there but, it's present in business, government, religion and all other factors of life.

------------------
Ron
The key thing is to wake up breathing! All the rest can be fixed. (Except Stupid - You can't fix that)
Always remember these words of wisdom.

"The Lord must truly love fools, for he made them in abundance."

I think that as long as the banks (or any company) are in a position to hold society hostage for their losses, society (through the government) has a right to tell them how they can run their business. The US government is a construct of checks and balances for a reason and business needs them, too (for exactly the same reasons).

Yes, governments have a great track record in Efficiency and Fiscal Accountability, that we should let them tell us all how to invest, lend, borrow, and spend.








Even before the economic meltdown, these are pretty accurate figures for 3 of the most Government regulated lenders in America. It's gotten worse since 2008.

quote There has been a series of Congressional hearings and there are two which point to some serious trouble at our never ending financial black holes, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and the FHA. Firstly, Fannie & Freddie might require even more money, even though they have received $96 Billion in bail out cash. Total losses to date from these two is $196 billion. Their books are still bleeding red as foreclosures rise and homeowners — even the highest-quality borrowers — fall behind on their mortgage payments. Several crucial positions remain vacant, and Mr. DeMarco said the agencies are worried about losing workers because of the uncertainties surrounding their fate. Right now, 3.1 percent of Freddie Mac loans are seriously delinquent, and Fannie’s seriously delinquency rates is an even higher 4.2 percent, Mr. DeMarco testified. And as unemployment nears 10 percent and homeowners struggle to persuade lenders to refinance their mortgages, delinquency rates are rising. Fannie and Freddie now manage a stable of nearly 100,000 foreclosed properties, whose numbers are almost certain to grow. On to the FHA. They already have $54 billion in losses they cannot absorb.

And just one more word--or 2--or 3:
Solyndra's solar
power solutions offer strong return on investment and make great business sense

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Yes, governments have a great track record in Efficiency and Fiscal Accountability, that we should let them tell us all how to invest, lend, borrow, and spend.

IMO, the government should regulate businesses, not own or run them.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: Clearly, private business knows best and government must get out of the way.

I was with 'ya till the thought. Was that the sarcasm you were practicing on, ?
What's the problem ? If you want to risk your money on the blackjack table I support that right. I will even stand up to gooberment in support of it.
In light of our recent/current recession, gooberment introduced the Dodd-Frank law. Which was supposed to prevent this exact type of thing along with a whole host of other controls. In addition, the Consumer Protection Agency was created. Clearly, gooberment knows best [/sarcasm], . The gooberment has financial police watching financial police watching other financial police.
Again, what is the problem ? The customers loss of the money ? The stock market being drug down ? So what ? Investment is a risk and it is a gamble. Caveat 'emptor, let the buyer beware.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: I believe that banks and the stock market should be regulated tightly to help focus banks on their primary reason of existence: take deposits and prudently lend the funds out to others who can use them better to add value in a market economy. We already have race tracks and lotteries for gambling.

I don't care that you might be gay, I don't care that you might be a socialist, I don't care that you might be a minority, but, I will correct you on a bank's primary reason for existence. It's to make money. By providing a service. First and foremost, that service is to have a secure place where we can store our personal money. We have no laws which dictate that we must deposit money in banks so that they can be lent out to others who can better use them to add value in a market economy. Why should a bank be able to use my money to lend to others that the bank feels a need to ?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Why should a bank be able to use my money to lend to others that the bank feels a need to ?

quote A bank is a financial institution and a financial intermediary that accepts deposits and channels those deposits into lending activities, either directly or through capital markets. A bank connects customers that have capital deficits to customers with capital surpluses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I don't care that you might be gay, I don't care that you might be a socialist, I don't care that you might be a minority ...

yellowstone, the above was no dig at your character, no assumption on my part. It was merely a reference to "that no matter to how one believes".
It sounded good when I wrote it, It don't look so good dispalyed, but I think it is an apt statement of my thoughts/feelings.
Sorry if it came off offensive.

Since I'm neither gay, socialist or a minority I didn't feel like you were talking to or about me. On the other hand, I live in Miami and I'm not Latino so maybe I am a minority...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami#Demographics

quote Originally posted by cliffw: yellowstone, the above was no dig at your character, no assumption on my part. It was merely a reference to "that no matter to how one believes". It sounded good when I wrote it, It don't look so good dispalyed, but I think it is an apt statement of my thoughts/feelings. Sorry if it came off offensive.

I prefer govt stay out of my life, out of my investments, out of my deposits and out of my medical care. I'm perfectly capable of both assessing possible risk and accepting any loss I may incur because of any poor risk assesment on my part. I don't need a Nanny to
"protect" me from myself, tho I do understand that some few do indeed need one to guide them thru every single facet of financial undertaking. We generally call those people "fiscal morons" and no amount of govt regulation, sound, unbiased financial advise, or congressional oversight can save them from themselves. I won't gloat over their failures, but neither will I feel one bit of sympathy for them, as in this modern age, there is simply too much free, openly available information at their fingertips for anyone to make horribly apparent bad investments without fully realizing from the get-go that there is a huge risk factor behind those seemingly huge return possibilities. All investments can lose money--even mine. It's solely up to me to decide if the risk is outweighed by the "glowing" prospectus presented before me.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-12-2012).]

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: I think that as long as the banks (or any company) are in a position to hold society hostage for their losses, society (through the government) has a right to tell them how they can run their business. The US government is a construct of checks and balances for a reason and business needs them, too (for exactly the same reasons).

OK, nobody told anyone to invest in the Stock Market. At any point anyone in there can take their money and leave.



Nannystate bs.

Brad

That is true but banks HAVE turned to government/society/the taxpayer to bail them out arguing that letting them fail would be a disaster for everyone. So the threat is real and the danger clear and present.

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: OK, nobody told anyone to invest in the Stock Market. At any point anyone in there can take their money and leave. Nannystate bs. Brad

[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-13-2012).]

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: OK, nobody told anyone to invest in the Stock Market. At any point anyone in there can take their money and leave.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: That is true but banks HAVE turned to government/society/the taxpayer to bail them out arguing that letting them fail would be a disaster for everyone. So the threat is real and the danger clear and present.

An argument I reject. Many taxpayers in society disagree with the bailouts. I even think that gooberment made the case of being too big to fail, not the banks.
We have a yet another federal bureaucracy called the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) which protects private citizen's (including businesses) deposits for up to $250,000.00 per person. How is a failing bank a real "clear and present" danger ?

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-12-2012).]

I think governments have a roll as the lender of last resort. The “Financial Crisis” resulted when panic locked up the credit markets. The government was the only entity that could put liquidity back into the markets.

IMO, things would have been much worse if the government had not acted. George Bush who didn’t want to become the next Herbert Hoover, said: “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”

How we got into this situation where we are all owned by lenders is another subject. But we are and must deal with that reality.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: An argument I reject. Many taxpayers in society disagree with the bailouts. I even think that gooberment made the case of being too big to fail, not the banks.

quote In 1970, Stewart McKinney ran for the U.S. House and won. He served in the House as a moderate Republican until his death in Washington, DC. He is widely known for the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1986, which provides federal money for shelter programs. McKinney served on the Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee[1] and is credited with coining the phrase "too big to fail" in connection with large banks.[2] In Congress, he served on the House Select Committee on Assassinations. During this time, he also served as a director of Bridgeport Hospital.

In the latest of thw "too big to fail" episodes, Bernake of the Federal Reserve made the case that Bear Stearns (March 2008) was too big to fail, and should be lent $30 billion from the NYFed in order to prevent failure,:
"Chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, defended the bailout by stating that a Bear Stearns' bankruptcy would have affected the real economy[24] and could have caused a "chaotic unwinding" of investments across the US markets.[20]"


btw Sparks, the loans are actually known as Non-recourse loans not loans of last recourse.

The Bear Stearns bailout mostly passed under the radar of most Americans, but the first big bailout aftwerwards was AIG. This bailout for also orchestrated and implemented by the Federal Reserve. The Fed operates under a small number of congressional mandates, and with the Fed and US Treasury joined at the hip, there is very little difference in the 2 monies when discussing the two agencies. Among those Congressional mandates is a requirement to provide suffecient liquidity (cash floow) and credit to fund ALL asset related contingencies, and that includes policy holder benefits in the insurance sector. Whether AIG requested the bailout is moot--the Fed deemed their approaching failure as unacceptable, and knew such a failure would wreak havoc on every insurer in the US, and thus, every pension fund, every 401K, and every mutual fund of millions of everyday working Americans, blue collar and otherwise, as all pensions are invested in at least some part, with a portion of those investments being targeted into the Insurance Sector. People tend to say their pension is secure because their pension fund manager says it is, but those premiums don't just sit in a lockbox somewhere--they are invested. Those monies are "there" ONLY as long as the investments remain intact, and anyone who thinks differently is fooling themselves, or knows nothing about insurance, pensions, or investments. On top of that, had AIG went down the tubes, being the largest insurere by assets in the world, it would have taken down dozens of other smaller insurance companies as well. NY Life, The Met, The Hartford, just to name a few. The life insurance, home insurance, health insurance, and auto insurance claims paid out in 2009-2010-2011 would be very much in doubt had AIG failed, even tho the policy holders had dutifully paid in their monthly or annual premiums in full and on time. It is for these reasons, I was very much in favor of AIG's bailout. It's failure would have adversely affected many millions of ordinary hardworking blue colar workers and home owners in the US and elsewhere--I could care less about those holding stock in the company--they knew and accepted the risk when they bought the stock.
(I did not, do not, and have never owned any AIG stock)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..._International_Group

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-13-2012).]

quote In 1970, Stewart McKinney ran for the U.S. House and won. He served in the House as a moderate Republican until his death in Washington, DC. He is widely known for the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1986, which provides federal money for shelter programs. McKinney served on the Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee[1] and is credited with coining the phrase "too big to fail" in connection with large banks.[2] In Congress, he served on the House Select Committee on Assassinations. During this time, he also served as a director of Bridgeport Hospital.

I would think, since it mentioned that he served till his death, that his phrase was regurgitated for the present crisis. I think it was regurgitated by politicians, as I said, and not by the banks.
I an curious about the cite I emboldened above, [2]. Why did he coin the phrase ?

There could possibly be another angle to JP Morgan's reported loss, I've read where this 2 Billion loss only represents a 1.5 % decline in their worth. Frankly, it's very easy to lose that percentage on any given day in the Stock Market, especially in these times. Some people think that JP Morgan purposely made it look really bad, so they could drive their stock down hard, and buy it back cheap, and make a ton of money very quickly.

No matter how you slice it, the Stock Market is a real nasty Poker Game, you shouldn't be in it, if you can't afford to take some losses at times. I can't tell you how many times the Market has done totally to opposite of what I thought (based on many media sources), on a give day. There's a lot of times that it makes absolutely no sense at all.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I would think, since it mentioned that he served till his death, that his phrase was regurgitated for the present crisis. I think it was regurgitated by politicians, as I said, and not by the banks. I an curious about the cite I emboldened above, [2]. Why did he coin the phrase ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...cKinney_(politician)

I did a Who coined Too Big To Fail search.

quote Originally posted by California Kid: No matter how you slice it, the Stock Market is a real nasty Poker Game, you shouldn't be in it, if you can't afford to take some losses at times. I can't tell you how many times the Market has done totally to opposite of what I thought (based on many media sources), on a give day. There's a lot of times that it makes absolutely no sense at all.

So what about retirement funds investing in it? It was/is touted as the way of the future to secure pensions...

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: So what about retirement funds investing in it? It was/is touted as the way of the future to secure pensions...

That all really depends on who you've got managing your funds. I can tell you I've got a couple 401K's managed by two different firms, and all they've done is loss money for me over the last 20 years, today the accounts are worth no more than I put into them. Here shortly (now that I'm 62 and can pull without penalty), I'm going to transfer into my ETrade account, and manage myself. It's a risk I'm willing to take, as I can watch it daily now, which you know they don't do. Buy and hold just doesn't seem to work very well in today's economy.

[This message has been edited by California Kid (edited 05-13-2012).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I did a Who coined Too Big To Fail search.

I had not thought of that, thanks.
The reference cite, [2], is an interesting read. Even referring to another phrase you love.

quote Louis Brandeis' essays, collected in book form and published in 1914 under the title, “Other People’s Money — and How the Bankers Use It,” ...

Ironically, his book helped drum up support for the Federal Reserve System, which I am not too fond of, mainly because it can not be audited.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: So what about retirement funds investing in it? It was/is touted as the way of the future to secure pensions...

As California Kid mentions, it depends on who is managing the funds and what kinds of investment risks they take. It was never touted that retirement funds need to invest in the stock market. Also, retirement fund investing companies usually spread the risk between many different types of investments so as to not have all of one's eggs in one basket. Merely earning interest on one's retirement contributions is better than Social Security. In many ways.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-13-2012).]

quote Originally posted by California Kid: There could possibly be another angle to JP Morgan's reported loss, I've read where this 2 Billion loss only represents a 1.5 % decline in their worth. Frankly, it's very easy to lose that percentage on any given day in the Stock Market, especially in these times. Some people think that JP Morgan purposely made it look really bad, so they could drive their stock down hard, and buy it back cheap, and make a ton of money very quickly. No matter how you slice it, the Stock Market is a real nasty Poker Game, you shouldn't be in it, if you can't afford to take some losses at times. I can't tell you how many times the Market has done totally to opposite of what I thought (based on many media sources), on a give day. There's a lot of times that it makes absolutely no sense at all.

It's not the size of the loss, it is how, in a single trade, that it was lost that has caused the stir. In a derivitve trade (bet). And, altho $2-3B is a relatively small loss to a company the size of JPM/C the subsequent loss of stock value because of the news may reach tens of billions--it's already suffered a vaulation loss of about $13+ billion as Fitch has questioned JPM's credit worthiness.

http://www.forbes.com/sites...n-lost-17-5-billion/

quote Originally posted by cliffw: As California Kid mentions, it depends on who is managing the funds and what kinds of investment risks they take. It was never touted that retirement funds need to invest in the stock market. Also, retirement fund investing companies usually spread the risk between many different types of investments so as to not have all of one's eggs in on basket. Merely earning interest on one's retirement contributions is better than Social Security. In many ways.

That and many people, once they move closer to retirement start moving their money into less risky areas, like bonds or CD's. I'm not sure of California Kid's situation though and every person is different.

Brad

Don, what you posted is the reason I didn't buy into the dips on Friday, there could be a bigger shock way this coming week. Given that fact that it's affected most Stocks, I feel it's better to hold off just a bit before trying to play again.

Brad, I don't have enough to "comfortably" retire at this point (age 62), however I've made some really nice gains in the past two years Day Trading my slush fund. My plan is that over the next couple years, I just might be able to do what I want. Quit my GM job in January and I'm ahead of the game so far, if it doesn't work out I can always go back to working for an employer.

quote Originally posted by California Kid: I can tell you I've got a couple 401K's managed by two different firms, and all they've done is loss money for me over the last 20 years, today the accounts are worth no more than I put into them. .

That's an unusually long time for an investment to show zero or negative growth, especially if you contrast it against the broad indexes. Those 2 decades include 2 specifically high growth periods--the tech period of the 90s and the energy/housing growth periods of the early to mid 2000s. I find it hard to believe even a marginally managed fund of any kind performed that poorly in those 2 periods, tho I can certainly understand they, along with every other investment, may have given back those gains beginning in 2007 and beyond.
You say zero gain for the past 20 years. What year (years) exactly did you get into these 2 funds?
Has that held true over the course of each of those 20 years, or is it only true in the last 5-6 years?

I've seen a few things transpire in the last few years I don't particulalry like (other than the obvious recession and slow recovery)

1. Fund managers' reluctance to engage in any risk whatsoever.
Part of that, is because of investor fears going back to 2009-10's sell off, but the biggest part is because of the media's reporting of how many lost money during the recession.

2. The govt's role in risk assesment. Risk, is a double edge sword. Just as in loans, the higher the risk entailed in any loan, the higher the possible return due to higher interest rates assigned a less credit worthy borrower. In past times, individual investors could make a ton of money by investing in a higher rate of return equity, albeit at a much higher risk of loss. NOW, with govt and the SEC looking hard at such risk, it is going to be much harder going forward to make a lot of return in a very short period of time on stocks in a long position. Where a 6% return wasn't at all uncommon in the past, the more realistic outlook now is going to be 2-4% and that will be considered a good return, and I'm not sure that this isn't part of a longer term trend to attempt to more evenly spread wealth out among the US population.

We aren't there "yet" but I forsee the day in the not so distant future when this will become policy or even law--thru regulation.

By limiting the amt of risk anyone might be exposed to, the govt is also limiting the amt of return any given individual investor (you and I types) might get in a short period of time, and thus limit the number of new millionares created each year. With an eye on govt oversight, I can see where fund managers would be (and currently are) hesitant to place an investor's funds into risky equities, regardless of that investor's risk appitite and acceptance. I believe in the near future, we will see more and more payouts being in a very extended period of time--decades instead of years or even months.

I believe CalifKid has the right idea. Take full control of his portfolio, engage in whatever risk he finds palatable and hopefully do dilligent research beforehand.

Later, (if I have time) I'll expound a little on how fund managers and Financial Advisors make money off their investors, and it is NOT as clear cut as it may seem. Some of the things I see happening right now could lead one to believe, that there isn't a whle lot of incentative for a manager to make their clients a lot of money--or even show any performance over and above preventing loss.

JPMorgan's Dimon gets his $23 million pay package

quote Even as he apologized for a $2 billion trading loss, shareholders approved JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon's $23 million pay package Tuesday at the bank's annual meeting.

Well, he said he was sorry! That's how these things work for everybody, right? You screw up, you say "sorry" and all is good...

And the manager directly responsible? Her boss said of her performance: ‘In hindsight, the new strategy was flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed and poorly monitored. The portfolio has proved to be riskier, more volatile and less effective as an economic hedge than we thought. There are many errors, sloppiness and bad judgment."

quote Drew is in line to receive $14.7 million severance in the form of stock, $2.6 million in pension benefits and almost $10 million in deferred compensation, [...] The company's board of directors could award additional severance pay.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/0...res/index.htm?iid=EL

[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-15-2012).]

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: Well, he said he was sorry! That's how these things work for everybody, right? You screw up, you say "sorry" and all is good...

Well, in my house, we do mistakes, we do second chances, we do real. We also do "I'm sorry". All is good depending on if it was a mistake (as reported to be a bad decision) and if the "I am sorry" is not just some lame excuse.
He wasn't apologizing to me.

Well, he has been a good ceo and his management has made a ton of $$ for both JPM and it's investors, and most likely will in the forseeable future as well.



You know, keep in mind, though there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed, JPMorgan being a good example, Jamie Dimon, the CEO there, I don't think should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio.

So, in your job, if you managed a unit that was, in your boss's opinion, badly executing a flawed strategy, resulting in a multi-billion dollar loss, causing your boss to have to apologize in public and to shareholders and wiping billions off the value of your company, you would get a multi-million dollar severance payment when you then had to leave the company?

SNAFU, IMO!

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Jamie Dimon, the CEO there, I don't think should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio.

He actually has done a very good job. I have no doubt he is dumbfounded at the outcome and takes it personal. Even though I had no need to be apologized to, for him losing two billion dollars, he apologized. Nobams never apologized for the half billion dollar Solyndra loan debacle nor the other green "pick the winner" losers.