JPMorgan Chase execs knew two years ago that its London traders
were flirting with too much risk. WSJ: "Interviews with more than a dozen
current and former members of the bank's Chief Investment Office, the unit
responsible for the losses, indicate that discussions about reining in London
traders started as early as 2010. Certain directors were briefed then on a
foreign-exchange-options bet that went bad..."
Why wasn't action taken? Dimon. Bloomberg reports: "Dimon
treated the CIO differently from other JPMorgan departments, exempting it from
the rigorous scrutiny he applied to risk management in the investment bank,
according to two people who have worked at the highest executive levels of the
firm and have direct knowledge of the matter. When some of his most senior
advisers, including the heads of the investment bank, raised concerns about the
lack of transparency and quality of internal controls in the CIO, Dimon brushed
them off ... Dimon may have to account for his decisions as soon as tomorrow,
when he’s scheduled to testify about JPMorgan’s trading loss before a Senate
committee in Washington."
Glass-Steagall would "corral Jamie Dimon," argues Salon's Andrew
Leonard: "Watching banking lobbyists cut the Dodd-Frank bank reform bill to
shreds, with the vocal encouragement of Jamie Dimon, has been a profoundly
dispiriting experience for anyone who hoped that a great crisis would bring an
opportunity for real change, for a real realignment in the relationship between
Wall Street and Main Street ... If reinstating Glass-Steagall would weaken his
influence over public policy, that’s reason enough to do it."
No comments:
Post a Comment