Wealth tax plans make sense but proper regulation could also cut Bezos, Dimon, Cohen and Neumann down to sizeBillionaires are wailing that wealth tax proposals by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are attacks on free-market capitalism. Related: Michael Bloomberg: billionaire eyes centre lane in Democratic presidential race Continue reading...
Jamie Dimon and other big-earning CEOs are bankrolling the Republican assault on America. They must work to stop itIt started with Donald Trump’s racist tweets demanding that four Democratic congresswomen – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar – “go back” to the “crime-infested places from which they came”. Related: The moderate squad: swing-state Democrats wary of leftward path Continue reading...
President lashed out at Jamie Dimon on Twitter after the businessman said he was ‘smarter’ than TrumpDonald Trump called JP Morgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, a “nervous mess” on Thursday, the day after the banker said he could beat Trump in a presidential campaign and said he was “smarter than he is”.Trump slammed Dimon on Twitter the day after he criticized the president at a banking event. “The problem with banker Jamie Dimon running for President is that he doesn’t have the aptitude or ‘smarts’ & is a poor public speaker & nervous mess - otherwise he is wonderful,” Trump tweeted. “I’ve made a lot of bankers, and others, look much smarter than they are with my great economic policy!” Continue reading...
The Dodd-Frank Act is shedding some surprising light on Wall Street pay. New disclosures mandated by the crisis-era U.S. law show that the widest income disparities in finance don’t necessarily
JP Morgan just won an important victory in its quest to have an unprecedented $8 billion jury verdict thrown out without its hordes of lawyers having to do one single thing. Back in September, Jamie Dimon's bank was hit with an $8 billion jury verdict for, a judgment large enough to negatively impact the bank's EPS and dent its Tier 1 ratio. On the surface, that judgment might seem excessive. But the bank's treatment of the Hopper family was so absurdly outrageous, getting stuck with the largest jury award of 2017 appeared justifiable to many in retrospect. However, in what appears to be an attempt to stave off a laborious appeals process and exit quickly with their cash, the family of a former airline executive asked the judge to lower the punitive damages portion of the fine - what amounts to $6 billion of the $8 billion - to roughly $100 million. Lawyers for Stephen Hopper and Laura Wassmer asked a Dallas probate court to limit punitive damages to them and their father’s estate to about $70 million, down from a total of $6 billion awarded by the jury. Hopper and Wassmer also asked for $3.9 million for losses and attorneys’ fees. The widow, Jo Hopper, asked the court to lower her award to $14.4 million, according to a filing from her lawyers disclosed Friday. The final award could go even lower. JPMorgan is seeking to reverse the entire judgment. The legal saga started when Max Hopper, a former American Airlines executive, died suddenly in 2010. Hopper had no will when he passed, so his family hired JP Morgan to administer the estate. And so began an unbelievably infuriating process for Hopper's family, as the bank repeatedly refused to release Hopper's assets, taking years to perform basic due diligence that should've been completed in weeks. Because of the bank's negligence, stock options belonging to the Hopper's were allowed to expire worthless. JPMorgan was hired to administer the estate and the bank should have divided the assets and released them to Jo Hopper and her stepchildren, according to the lawsuit. Instead, her lawyers said in a statement, “the bank took years to release basic interests in art, home furnishings, jewelry, and notably, Mr. Hopper’s collection of 6,700 golf putters and 900 bottles of wine. Some of the interests in the assets were not released for more than five years.’’ The plaintiffs alleged that bank representatives failed to meet financial deadlines for assets under their control, stock options were allowed to expire, and Mrs. Hopper’s wishes to sell stock were ignored. Stephen Hopper and Laura Wassmer also claimed that the bank cut them out of decisions and kept them uninformed in order to curry favor with their stepmother. Jo Hopper initially sued the bank, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. JPMorgan paid legal fees to defend this out of the estate account, depleting it by more than $3 million, the plaintiffs’ said in court filings. Initially, the Texas probate court had awarded punitive damage awards of $2 billion each to Jo Hooper, the Hopper estate, Stephen Hopper and Laura Wassmer. JPMorgan has denied any wrongdoing and said it acted in good faith. "Clearly the award far exceeds any possible interpretation of Texas tort reform statutes,’" said Andrew Gray, spokesman for the bank.
agalma/Getty Images Does cultural background affect a leader’s decision making? There’s a lot of research on how leaders living in different cultures behave, but little on how cultural heritage shapes leaders — even though this would seem to be just as meaningful for business performance as other factors like experience and education. We sought to fill this gap. We conducted a study specifically focusing on whether the cultural values that CEOs inherit from their parents and grandparents affect their decision-making and their firms’ performance. Our sample consisted of 610 U.S. bank CEOs who were born in the U.S., which we separated into three groups: those whose parents were immigrants to the U.S., those whose grandparents were immigrants to the U.S., and those whose parents and grandparents were born in the U.S. (our control group). We chose this design as a way to isolate the effect of cultural heritage: while CEOs born to immigrant parents or grandparents are exposed to the same legal, social, and institutional influences as other CEOs, they’re likely to possess a distinct cultural heritage. Research has long shown that cultural values are deeply rooted and that immigrants to the U.S. show a degree of cultural distinctness over several generations. For instance, U.S. immigrants’ family living arrangements and beliefs of the role of women in society have been found to parallel those found in the home countries of their ancestors. The CEOs in our sample led 441 publicly-listed U.S. banks between 1994 and 2006. Among them, 293 were either children or grandchildren of immigrants, and we called them our second- and third-generation CEOs. We hand-collected data on the country of origin of a CEO’s ancestors from ancestry.com, the world’s largest genealogy database, which covers nearly 20 billion family histories. We traced a CEO’s ancestors by searching his or her name, birthplace, and birth year to identify parents, then used the same technique to identify the grandparents, and so on. Looking at a range of data sources — from census records to marriage certificates to passenger lists on immigration ships that sailed from Europe to the U.S.— we were able to map their family trees. We were able to accurately determine the ancestors going back six generations for these 610 U.S. bank CEOs. We identified the country that his or her ancestors immigrated from, and how many generations ago the ancestors moved to the U.S. For example, we found that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, is a third-generation descendant of Greek immigrants to the U.S. To make causal inferences about the effect of heritage, we had to make sure that cultural background was what drove executives’ decisions and firm performance — rather than other skills and characteristics that may have got them appointed to lead in the first place. So we relied on a setting where firms faced an unexpected competitive shock, one that directors could not have anticipated and selected specific CEOs to manage it, and one that forced CEOs to make complex, non-routine, and unstructured decisions — decisions where CEOs’ characteristics are likely to affect how they respond. The banking industry experienced a series of profound competitive shocks in the 1990s. The one we used was the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act (IBBEA) of 1994 that legalized interstate branching in some U.S. states, such as Michigan or North Carolina, which increased competitive pressures in these states but not in others. Our idea was that if the cultural heritage of a CEO matters to corporate outcomes, then we would observe systematic differences between firms led by second- and third- generation CEOs and firms led by the control group, following shocks to competition. And this is what we found. Our data showed that banks led by CEOs who are the children and grandchildren of immigrants were, on average, associated with superior performance — measured by bank Return on Assets — following higher industry competition from the deregulation of interstate branching. This superior firm performance was strongest for second-generation CEOs, and the effect weakened with each later generation. Intriguingly, the cultural heritage effects we uncovered were uniquely linked to the CEO and could not be detected for other senior executives. We replicated our analysis for the Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) of each bank and other members of the top management team, but we did not find a relationship between their cultural heritage and firm performance. This confirmed the role of the CEO as the most important decision-maker in a bank. While we could not rule out that the cultural heritage of non-CEO executives may shape decision-making in their particular areas of responsibility, our results indicated that, should such effects exist, they are not traceable in aggregate Return on Assets. Not all recent-descendants of immigrants outperformed under pressure. The effect varied by the country of origin of a CEO’s ancestors. Our findings implied that CEOs whose ancestors were from Germany, Italy, Poland and Russia were associated with better bank performance under competitive pressure. However, CEOs with British or Irish ancestors did not display different performance from the rest of the sample. These countries represented 90% of the foreign immigrants to the U.S. from our sample, as most immigrants who came to the U.S. in the 19th century came from Europe. But is it really different cultural values that explains our descendants-of-immigrants effect? We tried to answer this by identifying the cultural values that prevailed in these ancestral countries. In particular, we looked at how different countries compared on 16 cultural values developed by psychologists Geert Hofstede and Shalom Schwartz, the GLOBE Project, and the World Values Survey. These values include culturally prevalent attitudes towards individualism, long-term decision-making, and risk aversion. We found that some of these cultural values are statistically linked to better competitive performance, and some are associated with negative performance. For instance, we found that banks with stronger performance after this shock had CEOs whose parents and grandparents came from Germany, Italy, Poland and Russia — countries that rate highly on the cultural dimensions of restraint, long-term orientation, uncertainty avoidance, and harmony. By contrast, firms with weaker performance after the shock had CEOs whose ancestors came from countries that rated highly on individualism, performance orientation, importance of freedom, intellectual autonomy, importance of selflessness, and patriotism. These cultural values can mostly be distinguished into two categories: group-oriented vs. self-oriented cultures. When competition intensified, we found that banks led by CEOs whose parents or grandparents came from a group-oriented culture made more cautious but superior investment decisions. On average, these CEOs (1) engaged in fewer acquisitions, (2) realized higher acquisition announcement returns, (3) displayed lower bank risk, and (4) were more cost-efficient. Overall, our work is consistent with the view that the culture of a CEO’s ancestors influences his or her decision-making, firm policy choices, and ultimately the firm’s performance. We do not, however, interpret our findings as showing that particular cultures are superior to others. The strengths and weaknesses of all cultures are context dependent. More broadly, our findings show that cultural heritage matters and that it’s beneficial for companies to be diverse and to recruit talents from various backgrounds. At a time when the economic benefits of immigration are increasingly questioned, our study offers a glimpse of the positive and lasting contribution that people of immigrant heritage make in the business world.
It should come as no surprise that Jamie Dimon makes a lot of money; after all, one of the trademark statements by the CEO of the bank that was first handed Bear Stearns on a silver platter for pennies on the dollar and just a few months later was bailed out by the government, is "that's why I am richer than you." To underscore this, in 2015 Dimon, whose bank was forced to disclosure to clients and investors that it was caught rigging the FX market... ... officially became a billionaire, largely thanks to JPM's soaring stock price. “The odds are much, much lower for a bank CEO becoming a billionaire than a guy going to a hedge fund or private equity,” said Roy Smith, a professor at New York University Stern and a former Goldman partner who started on Wall Street in 1966. “The real lucre in this business has always been on the transactional side. The CEOs of Wall Street have to deal with litigation, regulation and the relatively short tenures you have at the top of the pile.” However, the odds soar when JPM, like every other bank, got a multi-billion bailout courtesy of US taxpayers after it - and its other bank peers - had taken on so much risk the entire system imploded. One wonders what Jamie's net worth would have been had Americans not collectively "decided" it is time to make Jamie the richest bank CEO currently to have a job. And while one can debate "what would have been" until one is blue in the face, there is no debating that last year Jamie Dimon went from stinking rich to stinking richer, by $28.3 million to be precise. None of the above is new. What may comes as news to some, however, is that Dimon makes 364 times the median JP Morgan employee who received $77,799 last year, including firm-paid benefits. In other words, in one day Jamie Dimon earned as much as a typical JPM employee made in one whole year. The only bank CEO who makes more relative to their employees is Citigroup chief Mike Corbat, whose 2017 take of $17.8 million was 369x the median employee at $48,249, according to the FT. As the FT breaks down, "Dimon’s total award of $28.3m included perks such as personal use of corporate aircraft ($73,921), personal use of cars ($29,848) and the cost of “residential and related security” ($48,259). But the bulk of his pay came in stock awards ($21.5m), bumped up after a year of record annual net income of $26.5bn, excluding the effects of the tax reform, on record revenues of $104bn." Third in line is Charlie Scharf of Bank of New York Mellon - Dimon's protégé, who raked in nearly $20 million after becoming BNYs CEO last July. Scharf's payout puts him at 354x the average BNY Mellon employee. The median ratio for all listed U.S. banks is 135x according to Autonomous. The disclosures of pay multiples, mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, finally came into effect for all listed US companies this year. Critics say such figures are a crude metric, telling investors very little about the composition of a company’s workforce or the particular ways in which it has identified the “median” worker. But advocates say the tool is necessary as a way to restrain pay for top executives, which has consistently outpaced gains for lower-ranked workers. -FT The pay ratio figures - mandated by the Dodd-Frank act, were arrived at by taking its top 10 most populous countries - which constitute approximately 97% of JPMorgan's employee headcount of 253,500. Salaries of employees hired during 2017 were annualized. As FT reports, JP Morgan began using so-called "performance share units" as part of variable pay for management following a 2015 challenge by investor advocacy groups calling for a stronger tie between compensation and performance. JP Morgan's three-person compensation committee led by former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond said "In determining Mr. Dimon’s compensation, the independent members of the Board took into account the Firm’s strong performance in 2017 and through the cycle, across four broad categories: Business Results; Risk, Controls & Conduct; Client/Customer Focus; and Teamwork & Leadership." Dimon has never sold a share of JP Morgan in his 14-year career at the bank. In fact, as FT reports, sometimes he buys more during dips, and famously purchased 500,000 JPM shares in February 2016, the so-called "Dimon Bottom", just before the Shanghai Accord, which sent global stocks soaring, and more than doubled the value of his $26.6 million investment. * * * Of course, being a shrewd investor with a remarkable sense of imminent central bank bailouts - or simply the recipient thereof - is not the only reason why Jamie makes tens of millions each year and is a billionaire. Here are some other reason why, from the bank which has paid hundreds of millions in legal settlements and criminal charges over the years: Misleading CDO Investments Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $153.6 million Settled on 6/21/2011 Case Details The SEC settled with JP Morgan after it was discovered that the company misled investors on the complexity of a number of CDOs that were being offered. Specifically, the firm failed to notify investors that it had taken short positions in more than half of the assets bundled in said CDOs. The company did not admit to any wrongdoing or deny the allegations, but it agreed to pay $18.6 million in disgorgement, $2 million in prejudgment interest, and $133 million as a penalty. It was also required that the company change how it reviews and approves certain mortgage securities. Anticompetitive Conduct in Municipal Bonds Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $228 million Settled on 7/7/2011 Case Details JP Morgan settled an anticompetitive case with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in which it was forced to admit wrongdoing and knowledge of its illegal actions. “By entering into illegal agreements to rig bids on certain investment contracts, JPMorgan and its former executives deprived municipalities of the competitive process to which they were entitled” said Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney of the case. The charges stemmed from actions the company took from 2001 to 2006. Foreclosure Abuses and “Robo-Signing” Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $5.29 billion Settled on 2/9/2012 Case Details This gargantuan settlement came as the DOJ fined the five largest mortgage servicers in the nation. The entire suit was for $25 billion and was centered around “robo-signing” affidavits in foreclosure proceedings, “deceptive practices in the offering of loan modifications; failures to offer non-foreclosure alternatives before foreclosing on borrowers with federally insured mortgages; and filing improper documentation in federal bankruptcy court.” All banks involved, including JP Morgan, have until 2/9/2015 to comply with the settlement [see also The Unofficial Dividend.com Guide to Being an Investor]. More Mortgage Misrepresentation Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $269.9 million Settled on 11/16/2012 Case Details Settled with the SEC, this case focused on JP Morgan misstating the delinquency status of mortgage loans that were collateral for residential mortgage-backed securities in which JP Morgan was the underwriter. It was found that investors lost $37 million on undisclosed delinquent loans. “Misrepresentations in connection with the creation and sale of mortgage securities contributed greatly to the tremendous losses suffered by investors once the U.S. housing market collapsed” said Robert Khuzami, Director of SEC’s Division of Enforcement. Improper Foreclosures Pt. 2 Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $1.8 billion Settled in 01/2013 Case Details Continuing from the 2/9/2012 fine, JP Morgan tacked on another $1.8 billion to its already massive fine of $5.29 billion, totaling just over $7 billion. Combined, it is the company’s largest fine ever up to that point. That record would not stand for long, as the latter half of 2013 had other plans for the financial blue chip. Electricity Trading Scandal Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $410 million Settled on 7/30/2013 Case Details This fine was brought on by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as it was discovered that JP Morgan was manipulating energy markets in California and the Midwest. In total, $125 million of unjust profits were returned and $285 million came as a civil penalty to be sent back to the U.S. Treasury. Illegal Credit Card Practices Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $389 million Settled on 9/19/2013 Case Details This fine was the result of JP Morgan deceiving customers into signing up for costly, unnecessary services when opening a new credit card. Broken down, $309 million of that figure was dedicated to repaying consumers, there was a $60 million civil penalty, and a separate $20 million penalty from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The London Whale Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $920 million Settled on 9/19/2013 Case Details One of the most infamous cases over the last few years is the “London Whale,” which refers to two former JP Morgan traders who committed fraud to cover up massive losses (approximately $6 billion) in a trading portfolio. “JPMorgan failed to keep watch over its traders as they overvalued a very complex portfolio to hide massive losses” said George S. Canellos, Co-Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. The SEC slapped JP Morgan with the fine and also forced the firm to admit to wrongdoing. The Fannie and Freddie Fines Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $5.1 billion Settled on 10/25/2013 Case Details The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) acted as a conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in this settlement. The fine included a $4 billion charge to address infractions of both state and federal laws while another $1.1 billion went to Fannie and Freddie themselves – $670 million to the former and $480 million to the latter. Yet another case that was based on mortgage-related securities at its core, which is something of a theme for the company. Institutional Mortgage Securities Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $4.5 billion Settled on 11/15/2013 Case Details No surprises here, yet another case where JP Morgan was accused of shelling out less-than-stable mortgages. This time, however, the focus was on 21 institutional investors as opposed to a mass of retail investors. The $4.5 billion settlement covers the losses incurred from instruments that were sold between 2005 and 2008. Shortly before this case settled, the company disclosed for the first time that it had $23 billion set aside for legal expenses and penalties. The Big One: Misleading “Toxic Mortgages” Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $13 billion Settled on 11/19/2013 Case Details In the largest fine (of any single company) in corporate history, JP Morgan settled for $13 billion in November of 2013. The charges stemmed from misleading investors on what regulators dubbed “toxic mortgages.” The settlement also dictated that the company had to admit wrongdoing in that it knowingly misled investors on the quality of these securities. This has been one of the few times in recent memory that the company has actually offered a “mea culpa.” Of the $13 billion, $9 billion will be used to settle federal and state civil claims while $4 billion will be used as relief to aid consumers harmed by the unlawful practice. Libor Rigging Scandal Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $108 million Settled on 12/4/2013 Case Details The alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) was one of the biggest European cases in recent memory. When the dust finally settled, it was found that a number of banks, including Citigroup (C ) and JP Morgan were involved. JP Morgan settled for $108 million as the investigation could not find any evidence that management had knowledge of the actions of the two traders who committed the act [see also The Ten Commandments of Dividend Investing]. Madoff Retribution Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $1.7 billion Settled on 1/6/2014 Case Details The Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme is one of the most infamous in the history of the investing world. After faking portfolio gains and eventually losing billions for his clients, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison (after pleading guilty) and had to forfeit $17.179 billion. His scheduled release from Federal prison is on 11/14/2139. The high profile case cost JP Morgan $1.7 billion along with an onslaught of negative press. Currency Manipulation Quick Stats JP Morgan fined $1.34 Billion Settled on 11/21/2014 Case Details JP Morgan joined the likes of UBS, Citigroup, and Royal Bank of Scotland in being fined for currency manipulation and collusion-like efforts on the part of the financial institutions. Investigations revealed instant messages between traders of the institutions showing plans to buy and sell currencies after market close in order to manipulate foreign exchanges in their favor. JP Morgan was fined $996 million by U.S. and U.K. regulators along with an additional $350 million dollar fine from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). And so on, and so on, and so on...
Bank chief received $28.3m last year, 364 times more than median worker
Seemingly following Andrew Ross Sorkin's suggestions, and echoing the virtue-signaling from Dick's Sporting Goods et al., megabank Citigroup is setting restrictions on the sale of firearms by its business customers. As a reminder, Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote in the NY Times that banks could control guns, if Washington won't. Liberty Blitzkrieg's Mike Krieger exclaimed that even in today’s world replete with plutocrat public relations masquerading as journalism, it’s rare to encounter an article simultaneously pandering, authoritarian, childish and dumb. Nevertheless, I found one, and it was unsurprisingly published in The New York Times. The title of the piece more or less says it all, How Banks Could Control Gun Sales if Washington Won’t, but let’s go ahead and examine some of the author’s suggestions in greater detail. For instance: Here’s an idea. What if the finance industry — credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard and American Express; credit card processors like First Data; and banks like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America? Collectively, they have more leverage over the gun industry than any lawmaker. And it wouldn’t be hard for them to take a stand. PayPal, Square, Stripe and Apple Pay announced years ago that they would not allow their services to be used for the sale of firearms. If Visa and Mastercard are unwilling to act on this issue, the credit card processors and banks that issue credit cards could try. Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, which issues credit cards and owns a payment processor, has talked about how he and his bank have “a moral obligation but also a deeply vested interest” in helping “solve pressing societal challenges.” This is your chance, Mr. Dimon. That was followed by Dick's Sporting Goods, who said they would no longer sell high-capacity magazines and that they would not sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws. “When we saw what happened in Parkland, we were so disturbed and upset,” CEO Edward Stack told NYT in an interview. “We love these kids and their rallying cry, ‘enough is enough.’ It got to us.” He added, “We’re going to take a stand and step up and tell people our view and, hopefully, bring people along into the conversation.” And now, according to The NY Times, Citigroup is stepping in the 2nd Amendment miasma. The new policy, announced Thursday, prohibits the sale of firearms to customers who have not passed a background check or who are younger than 21. It also bars the sale of bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. It would apply to clients who offer credit cards backed by Citigroup or borrow money, use banking services or raise capital through the company. The rules, which the company described as “common-sense measures,” echo similar restrictions established by some major retailers, like Walmart. But they also represent the boldest such move to emerge from the banking sector. Citigroup’s gun policy has “been a while coming,” its chief executive, Michael L. Corbat, told The New York Times Thursday. Mr. Corbat, who called himself “an avid outdoorsman and responsible gun owner,” acknowledged that “some will find our policy too strict while others will find it too lenient.” “We don’t pretend that these answers are perfect, but as we looked at the things we thought we could influence, we felt that, working with our clients, we could make a difference,” he said. “Banks serve a societal purpose - we believe our investors want us to do this and be responsible corporate citizens.” If business customers decline Citigroup’s restrictions, the bank said it would work with them to “transition their business away.” As Krieger so eloquently concluded previously, there simply isn’t overwhelming national support for more gun control. As such, if the mega banks that wrecked the economy a decade ago and consumed massive bailouts to survive, decided to use their power to shadow legislate it will not go over well. I can promise you that much.
Главный исполнительный директор JPMorgan Chase & Co. Джейми Даймон получает в 364 раза больше, чем сотрудники банка в среднем, сообщается в отчетности.
CNBC's Julia Boorstin reports on J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon's comments about the Facebook data scandal.
My end of week Beantown morning train reads: • Is The US Stock Market Overvalued? Depends on which Model You ask (Alpha Architect) • The Seven Biggest Lies Theranos Told. (Buzzfeed) • How Jamie Dimon came to rue his Bear Stearns deal (Financial Times) • Toys ‘R’ Us Is a How-Not-To Guide for the Retail Business (Bloomberg Gadfly) • Video Game Violence:… Read More The post 10 Friday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.
One month after Goldman announced its buyback desk had its "busiest week ever", when corporate stock repurchases saved the market from crashing in the aftermath of the February 5 VIXplosion which sent the market into a 10% correction in just days, companies remain one of, if not the biggest buyer of stock. UBS explained this rather simply with two charts: US equity outflows and implicit outflows from derivatives net selling drove the selloff... while corporations were the primary buyer, offsetting fund/futures selling. UBS described this simply as "Record selling offset by corporate bid" Fast forward to today, when according to Bank of America's flow desk, last week the bank's clients were big net buyers of US equities, purchasing $3.6bn in stock, following a week of selling. In terms of products, net buying was mostly via ETFs as single stocks saw net sales for the third week. Broken down by investors type, hedge funds were the sole net buyers, while Institutional clients and private clients were net sellers. But nobody was a bigger buyer of stock than the original sellers of stocks themselves, as it was the amount of corporate buybacks that was once again truly remarkable. As BofA notes, stock repurchases by corporate clients (i.e. corporations), not only remained elevated, above $1.5Bn for the third week, but also one of the "largest weekly buyback In our data history", led by Banks and Financials buying back their stock last week (just in case there is still confusion why Jamie Dimon was so confident to buy JPM stock at the "Dimon Bottom"). In total, YTD buybacks purchased via BofA's desk totaled nearly $11 billion (up +53% YoY), and the strongest start to a year since 2014. And, if JPM is right in its forecast that a record $842 billion in stock will be repurchased this year, $842BN will be repurchased this year, or just shy of $3 billion every single trading day... .... this is just the beginning as companies do everything in their power, and issue as much debt as they can (using the proceeds to fund buybacks) to prevent their stock from dropping.
Investors - such as Warren Buffett and anyone else who believes that "value investing" still exists in a time of centrally planned markets - may hate "irrational", "intrinsically worthless" cryptocurrencies, but traders - those who thrive on volatility and actually making money - are increasingly warming up to bitcoin et al. Case in point: hedge fund billionaire Alan Howard made "a sizeable personal investments in cryptocurrencies last year and plans to put more of his own money into digital assets and the blockchain technology behind them" Bloomberg reports. He is not alone as other partners at the macro hedge fund firm he co-founded - one of the world's biggest - Brevan Howard Asset Management, have independently made similar investments, Bloomberg's sources revealed although the investments are separate from the $9.1 billion hedge fund firm, as Brevan Howard does not trade cryptocurrencies for its clients. Bloomberg adds that Howard has already hired at least one person to work for him on initiatives in digital assets and plans to hire more. He could make private-equity style investments in blockchain companies and may participate in initial coin offerings. And judging by the recent slump in crypto prices he will have an attractive entry point. To be sure, Howard’s interest in cryptocurrencies contrasts with the outright hostility of many luminaries of finance, from Jamie Dimon to Warren Buffett. On the other hand, some "newer generation" advocates of cryptocurrencies have emerged, including former Fortress manager Mike Novogratz and billionaire investors Mark Cuban and Peter Thiel While Brevan Howard’s flagship hedge fund recorded its worst ever annual performance last year, largely as a result of a lack of volatility amid years of central-bank stimulus which have made it difficult for traders to make money - 2018 has been good for the fund which according to media reports is up in the double digits YTD now that volatility has finally returned if only to the stock market.
Authored by Joseph Young via CoinTelegraph.com, Decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum have strong advantages over centralized financial systems, primarily because of their ability to function and operate without a single point of failure, which hackers and bad actors can target. image courtesy of CoinTelegraph Transaction processing On Feb. 19, Jameson Lopp, the lead engineer at multi-signature Blockchain security firm BitGo, noted that during a holiday in the US, local banks closed down, failing to provide financial services to individuals and businesses that could be in urgent need of financial settlement services to process payments. Today is a holiday in America - the banks and markets are closed. Meanwhile Bitcoin soldiers on, with over $1B transmitted and $7B traded today. https://t.co/SDYCGHTcsa pic.twitter.com/HetG9kES7I — Jameson Lopp (@lopp) February 19, 2018 Meanwhile, Bitcoin, as a peer-to-peer (P2P) settlement system, was able to process over $1 bln worth of transactions, and more than $7 bln worth of Bitcoin was traded on a single day. Regardless of holidays and weekends, users of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies like Ether can freely transact on a peer-to-peer basis, through the utilization of wallets. Non-custodial cryptocurrency wallets enable users to remain in full control over their funds, by only allowing users to gain access to their private keys and no other centralized entity or platform. As such, Bitcoin wallets like Blockchain, Trezor and Ledger cannot refund transactions or recover user accounts once the private key is lost, encouraging users to be more financially aware and responsible. As emphasized by Bitcoin analyst and RT’s Keiser Report host Max Keiser on several occasions, financial freedom and independence provided by Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in the market are largely beneficial and crucial for individuals and businesses operating in regions wherein government entities control banks and financial institutions. Importance of financial freedom Last year, Saudi Arabian billionaire Prince al-Waleed Bin Talal was arrested by the government of Mohammed Bin Salman, who is expected to take control over Saudi Arabia and become its ruler, as the most powerful figure in the Middle East. The government of Salman initiated an anti-corruption purge, arresting 11 Saudi princes and 200 businessmen. At the time, The Wall Street Journal reported that the government of Saudi Arabia had asked $6 bln for the freedom of Bin Talal, who has garnered a net worth of over $25 bln from his investments in Twitter ($300 mln), CitiGroup ($550 mln), AOL, Apple, MCI, Motorola, Fox Broadcasting and many more. On the Keiser Report, Keiser criticized the previous remarks of Bin Talal, who had called Bitcoin “Enron in the making.” "It just doesn't make sense. This thing is not regulated, it's not under control, it's not under the supervision of any central bank. I just don't believe in this Bitcoin thing. I think it's just going to implode one day. I think this is Enron in the making,” said Bin Talal on CNBC’s Squawk Box. Criticizing Bin Talal, Keiser stated: “He said Bitcoin was no good because there is no central government and no central bank. And then a week later, the central bank and the central government rips out all of his net worth. If he had them in Bitcoin, he wouldn’t have that problem. He is like a poster child for why you should buy Bitcoin. Anyone who is thinking about should I buy Bitcoin, look at [Talal] sleeping on a mattress of a rich hotel under house arrest. Furthermore, he is overrated as a money manager.” In November 2017, the Saudi government cracked down on private bank accounts and froze the accounts of prices and businessmen. Keiser noted that could have been avoided if the wealth of these individuals were stored in a decentralized store of value, like Bitcoin. Potential of cryptocurrency in offshore banking The offshore banking industry, which is dominated by influential financial institutions like JPMorgan, is structured around large banks that are able to clear big sums of money in an efficient and secure manner. But, the transfer of millions to billions of dollars require significant manual labor including transaction verification, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) checks and payment clearing. Cryptocurrency-focused hedge fund Blocktower executive Ari Paul stated that cryptocurrencies have the ability to address the offshore banking industry that supersedes that of major banks: “Cryptocurrency is trying to be the offshore banking system, I think. At least some of the cryptocurrencies. Most of the financial luminaries, I think genuinely, don’t understand what it’s trying to be. Jamie Dimon is an exception. By all accounts, I know people who spoke to him about cryptocurrency four years ago before I was really in the space. He understands it. I think he sees it as a competitor against JPMorgan,” said Paul during an interview with Business Insider. Regarding transaction settlement, offshore banking, and financial freedom, centralized systems of banks fall significantly behind major cryptocurrencies, which can offer all three services with low costs and a robust infrastructure. Conclusively, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum have significant advantages over banks in a number of areas, including security, borderless transaction settlement, efficient payment clearance, and lack of dependence on centralized service providers or entities. Although the offshore banking industry is valued at $32 tln and the valuation of the cryptocurrency market remains below half a trillion, the above-mentioned advantages could allow cryptocurrencies to compete against banks across many sectors.
After Gary Cohn demonstratively resigned from the Trump administration last week in advance of Donald Trump's announcement of tariffs of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum, some analysts panicked that what was coming was nothing short of Smoot-Hawley 2.0. So far, it has turned out to be a tempest in Jamie Dimon's proverbial teapot, with Canada, Mexico and Australia already exempted, and most European allies working hard to obtain footnotes too. It is also worth noting that the announced tariffs cover only a very small share of US trade. The chart below from Goldman shows that the relevant steel and aluminum imports into the US constitute only 1.8% of total US goods imports and would raise the average US import tariff by 0.3%. The trading partners most affected are (potentially) Canada, Brazil, and South Africa; but even for Canada, the tariffs would only cover 2.9% of total goods exports. What is more notable, and explains the market's initial panicked reaction, is that the tariffs, coupled with wider talk of greater protection for industries, go against a broad historical trend towards more free trade. The average effective US tariff rate has declined from around 20% in the 1930s to only 1½% in recent times. It is the fact that Trump is going against this grain that has sparked global anger among trade partners, many of whom have vowed to retaliate to the US should they not be granted exemptions too. And while the threats have so far not been very specific, retaliation seems highly likely according to Goldman, which believes that tariffs on a number of US goods—including jeans, bourbon whiskey, and motorcycles—are likely. This is summarized in the Goldman table below, which lays out both who is most likely to retaliate and how severe the response is likely to be: It is what happens next that is most interesting. According to Goldman's Jan Hatzius, "the pure trade effects of the announced tariffs and the expected retaliation are likely to be very small. For example, using estimates from the literature we find that the announced tariffs will result in a 0.2% fall in US imports when Canada and Mexico are exempt, and 0.4% when they are included." But this, the Goldman economist notes, focuses narrowly on the trade effects and ignores the broader macro repercussions of protectionism. He adds that the macro costs would rise notably if the trade war escalates. A severe trade war—in which everyone imposes a tariff on everyone else—leads to higher world inflation, tighter monetary policy and slower growth. This drag is amplified if equity prices drop around the world: financial conditions provide an important channel for negative spillovers. Open economies with trade surpluses—such as the Euro area—are hit hardest in this scenario. Goldman envisions 4 scenarios of what could happen next, in terms of rising severity: US tariffs without retaliation. We round up the announced tariffs to 1% of total imports, partly because the Trump administration has already announced a few specific tariffs (e.g. on Canadian lumber) and partly because some further restrictions are likely even in a mild conflict scenario. We allow interest rate and the exchange rate to respond endogenously to the tariffs, but assume that equity prices remain unchanged. A US-focused trade war. We assume that the US tariffs lead to retaliation from trading partners and further US tariff increases. In this scenario we assume that tariffs on all trade to and from the US rise by 5pp. But we assume that trading partners do not put up tariffs between each other; for example, the EU and China both put up a tariff against US imports but do not erect trade barriers between each other. A global trade war. We assume that each country imposes a 5% tariff on everyone else. For example, the EU puts up a tariff against China in response to the US steel tariffs in an effort to prevent Chinese steel from flowing to Europe. A global trade war with a global equity sell-off. We assume that global equity markets drop by 10%, in addition to the global 5% tariff. Goldman's simulations of the impact of these 4 scenarios on the global economy are laid out below: Some further details on each scenario: First—so long as its trading partners do not retaliate—US import tariffs have small positive effects on US real GDP (scenario 1). The increase in import prices reduces imports, which boosts domestic production and hence GDP. The growth lift is enough to outweigh the negative effects from higher inflation, which leads to higher interest rates and a stronger dollar. If no retaliation is expected, the simulation highlights the US incentive for erecting tariffs. But it bears emphasizing that the effects are extremely small: US real GDP is around 0.01% stronger after one year and core inflation is 2bp higher. Second, everyone loses in a trade war (scenario 2). The effects are now negative for the US as the foreign tariffs slow US exports, inflation remains higher than in the no-tariff baseline, the Fed raises interest rates slightly more quickly in response and the dollar strengthens more. The retaliation of trading partners cushions the negative trade implications of the US tariffs, but growth is still lower due to higher interest rates. That said, the effects remain very small even for a 5% tariff on all trade from and to the US. The global cost of protectionism rises more notably if a severe trade war erupts, in which tariffs go up everywhere (scenario 3). Global inflation now rises somewhat more notably, which weighs on world consumer spending and forces central banks to raise interest rates. The dollar no longer appreciates in this scenario. Open economies and countries with trade surpluses are most adversely affected, especially Europe. This is consistent with our European team’s view that the Euro area has much to lose from a trade war. Third, the costs of a trade war rise further if risk asset markets fall (scenario 4). A drop in equity prices reinforces the negative effects of the trade war. As one would expect, the adverse market response has more severe consequences in countries with large equity markets, especially the US, and the dollar starts to weaken in this scenario. The chart below is a summary of the cascading effects of a global trade war. It decomposes the GDP effects in scenario 4 into the four transmission channels. Here's Goldman: We see that US tariffs (without retaliation) provide a small boost to the US, and are painful for Canada and Mexico given their large trade exposure to the US (dark blue bars). Retaliation hurts the US (making the net effect on output negative) but helps the trading partners, particularly Canada which has a trade deficit and large exposure to the US (light blue bars). An “all out” trade war (grey bars) is particularly painful for the surplus economies, including the Euro area, Japan and China. The 10% equity drop hurts everyone, but the DM economies more so than EM (green bars). Goldman concedes that for now its model of the world economy under trade war is "highly stylized", and as such it does not capture the microeconomic gains from free trade, including benefits for productive efficiency and productivity. Moreover, the estimated macro effects are subject to large uncertainties. On the one hand, our simulations might understate the true effects of a trade war because our model does not include adverse confidence, or financial stability effects. On the other hand, our model might overstate the effects of tariffs as we assume that the fiscal revenues from tariffs are not used to stimulate growth. Allowing governments to use the tariff revenues to expand government spending or cut taxes would cushion the tariff effects further. Nonetheless, Goldman can still conclude that the announced US tariffs and their expected retaliation "pose a modest risk to our optimistic outlook for the world economy. But the risk would rise sharply if a broad trade war erupted and financial conditions tightened in response." Incidentally, this is precisely what various Fed speakers said last week. Perversely, the adverse scenario may be precisely what Trump ordered: after all, with many forecasters predicting that Trump's fiscal stimulus will be the catalyst that sinks the market as it overheats the economy and forces the Fed to hike more than most expect, the one loophole would be a suddenly cautious Fed which decides that hiking rates is not so prudent if a major potential risk event is hiding just around the corner, keeping rates lower for longer and indefinitely delaying the worst-case scenario for markets. A risk event such as a global trade war.
Дональд Трамп объявил имя будущего министра финансов США: им станет Стивен Тёрнер Мнучин (Steven Terner Mnuchin). Для кого-то это явилось неожиданностью. Ведь среди претендентов на высокий пост называли исполнительного директора банка JPMorgan Джейми Даймона, члена палаты представителей Джеба Хенсарлинга... У Стивена Мнучина, однако, было важное преимущество: в предвыборной кампании Трампа он работал финансовым менеджером. Кроме того, что самое важное, Мнучин вышел из недр банка Голдман Сакс. Родился Тёрнер Мнучин в состоятельной еврейской семье. Окончил Йель и сразу пошел трудиться в Голдман Сакс, где большую часть своей жизни провёл его отец Роберт Мнучин, сделавший в банке карьеру (стал партнёром) и сколотивший хорошее состояние. Мнучин-младший провёл в стенах Голдман Сакс 17 лет – с 1985 по 2002 год. Работал на направлениях, обеспечивающих основную деятельность банка (контроль, надзор за операциями на рынках муниципальных облигаций, ипотечных бумаг, других рынках и т.п.). В 90-е годы получил статус партнёра банка, что считается большим достижением. Затем стал топ-менеджером Голдман Сакс по вопросам информационного обеспечения.
Напомню, что я - аналитик и подборка информации идет соответственно- аналитическая, предполагающее самостоятельное изучение материалов.сначала с вами вспомним как звучит официально:Википедия:9:32: Диспетчеры аэропорта Даллеса в Виргинии наблюдают «цель на первичном обзорном радаре, двигающуюся с высокой скоростью в восточном направлении», относя это к рейсу 77.9:33 до 9:34: Руководитель башни аэропорта Рейган сообщает центру Секретной Службы Белого дома, что «в вашу сторону летит самолёт, который не выходит с нами на связь.» имея в виду рейс 77. Белый дом готовится к эвакуации, когда башня сообщает, что рейс 77 повернул, и заходит на посадку в аэропорт Рейган.9:34: Командный центр ФАА передает штаб-квартире ФАА имеющуюся информацию о рейсе 93.9:37: Вице-президент Чейни направляется в подземный бункер по туннелю.9:37:46: Рейс 77 врезается в западное крыло здания Пентагона, отчего начинается сильный пожар. Это крыло Пентагона находится на ремонте, и большинство офисов в нём не заняты. Погибают все 64 человека на борту и 125 человек в здании.1 канал, Россия:В 8:46 первый самолет врезался в северную башню Всемирного торгового центра в Нью-Йорке. Мэр города и руководитель службы спасения немедленно выехали к башням-близнецам. "Подъехав к торговому центру, мы убедились, что все намного хуже, чем мы думали, - рассказывает мэр Нью-Йорка в 2001 году Рудольф Джулиани. - Мы пытались дозвониться до начальника полиции, начальника пожарного департамента, даже до Белого дома. Но сотовая связь почти не работала".В 9:03 в южную башню Всемирного торгового центра врезался второй самолет. После этого первым лицам США стало понятно, что это нападение на страну. Президенту Бушу доложили о втором самолете.В этот момент новость о втором самолете получили журналисты президентского пула. Встреча со школьниками подошла к концуПервый звонок Буша – вице-президенту Дику Чейни. Они обсудили, с какими словами президент должен обратиться к нации. Оба понимали, что это террористический акт и они обязаны об этом сказать.В то время как президент завершал свое обращение к нации, в Центре управления ПВО возникла новая кризисная ситуация. Был замечен самолет в 10 километрах к востоку от Белого дома. При угрозе нападения на Вашингтон Белый дом должен быть немедленно эвакуирован. "Я работал за своим столом, когда в кабинет ворвался один из руководителей охраны. Он приказал следовать за ним без каких-либо объяснений. Потом одной рукой схватил меня за ремень, а другой за плечо и буквально вынес меня из кабинета сначала в коридор, а потом в туннель, ведущий в подземный оперативный центр", - вспоминает Дик Чейни.Оперативный центр находится в бункере. Он предназначен для управления страной в случае начала ядерной войны. Отсюда Чейни мог руководить организацией обороны страны и подготовкой ответного удара. Задача №1 – нейтрализация рейса 77 American Airlines, взявшего курс на Вашингтон.В 9:37 третий угнанный самолет врезался в здание Пентагона. В это время министр обороны Дональд Рамсфелд находился в своем рабочем кабинете. Выйдя на улицу, чтобы оценить ситуацию, он увидел пламя, дым и раненых и бросился помогать пострадавшим. Почти полчаса его не могли найти. Но затем он вернулся в свой кабинет, чтобы связаться с президентом и вице-президентомА теперь обращаемся к всежим американским источникам, коим является ранее мною упоминаемая согласительная комиссия по альтернативному (официальной точке зрения) расследованию этой трагедии. Ранее она находила свидетелей, которые утверждали,что черные ящики от врезавшихся самолетов в ВТЦ, были найдены: Новые доказательства отрицают,что не были найдены черные ящики самолетов.Пожарные, работающие в Граунд Зеро, утверждают,что были найдены три из четырех черных ящиков, так как они находятся в коробках, которые практически не поддаются разрушению. Эта информация была предоставлена согласительной комиссии из 24 членов по 9/11.Сейчас эта же комиссия утверждает,что слова Дика Чейни расходятся с показаниями свидетелей:Point MC-3: The Claim about the Time of Dick Cheney’s Entry into the White House Bunker Поставим точку в MC-3: заявление относительно того времени, когда Дик Чейни находился в подземном бункере.The Official Account Официально:Vice President Dick Cheney took charge of the government’s response to the 9/11 attacks after he entered the PEOC (the Presidential Emergency Operations Center), a.k.a. “the bunker”. 9/11 Commission Report said1that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost 10:00 AM, which was at least 20 minutes after the violent event at the Pentagon that killed more than 100 people.Вице-президент США Дик Чейни взял на себя управление государством после того,как вошел в правительственный бункер и это произошло по его словам около 10:00 утра, через 20 минут после того, как в Пентагоне погибло более 100 человек.(1)The Best Evidence Лучшее доказательство:Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta told the 9/11 Commission that, after he joined Cheney and others in the bunker at approximately 9:20 AM, he listened to an ongoing conversation between Cheney and a young man, which took place when “the airplane was coming into the Pentagon.”2After the young man, having reported for the third time that the plane was coming closer, asked whether “the orders still stand,” Cheney emphatically said they did.However, testimony that Cheney was in the PEOC by 9:20 was reported not only by Mineta but also by Richard Clarke3 and White House photographer David Bohrer.4 Cheney himself, speaking on “Meet the Press” five days after 9/11, reported that he had entered the PEOC before the Pentagon was damaged.5The 9/11 Commission’s attempt to bury the exchange between Cheney and the young man confirms the importance of Mineta’s report of this conversation.Министр транспорта Норман Минета сообщил комиссии 9/11,что он присоединился к Чейни и к остальным в бункере уже в 9:20 и услышал разговор между ним и молодым человеком, когда "самолет направлялся в сторону Пентагона".(2)Когда молодой человек в третий раз запросил Чейни, так как самолет приближается и "все ждут приказа", Чейни решительно ответил, что "он обдумывает".Норман Минета не единственный свидетель, кто подтверждает нахождение Чейни в бункере уже в 9:20. Помимо него об этом говорят Ричард Кларк (3) и фотограф Белого дома Дэвид Борер (4)Сам же Чейни утверждает,что он вошел в бункер после того,как был атакован Пентагон.(5)References for Point MC-31. 9/11 Commission Report (2004), note 213, p. 464.2. “911 Commission: Trans. Sec. Norman Mineta Testimony.”3. Richard Clarke, Against all Enemies (New York: Free Press, 2004), pp. 2-5.4. See “9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings,” ABC News, September 11, 2002.5. “The Vice President Appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert,” MSNBC, September 16, 2001.Казалось бы- ну и что? Какое это имеет отношение к экономике? А самое прямое. Напомню,что во время 9/11 были объявлены банковские каникулы, после которых в течении недели рынок потерял более 1 триллиона капитализации:Эти атаки оказали значительное экономическое воздействие на американский и мировой рынки. ФРС временно сократил контакты с банками из-за нарушений коммуникационного оборудования в финансовом районе Нижнего Манхэттена. Обратная связь и контроль над денежной массой, включая мгновенную ликвидность банков, была восстановлена в течение нескольких часов. Нью-Йоркская фондовая биржа (NYSE), Американская фондовая биржа и NASDAQ не открылись 11 сентября и оставались закрытыми до 17 сентября. Объекты NYSE и её центры обработки данных не пострадали, но члены биржи, клиенты и другие биржи потеряли с ней связь из-за разрушений телефонного узла около ВТЦ. Когда 17 сентября биржи открылись, после самого долгого периода бездействия со времён Великой депрессии в 1929 году, Индекс Доу-Джонса («DJIA») потерял 684 пункта, или 7,1 %, до 8920, это было самым большим его падением в течение одного дня. К концу недели DJIA упал на 1369,7 пунктов (14,3 %), это было самым большим недельным падением в истории. Американские акции потеряли 1,2 триллиона долл. в течение недели.Стоит обратить внимание на слова Билла Гросса "The Good Times Are Over, The Time For Risk Taking Has Passed" о том, что :"институциональные инвесторы финансовой экономики такие как, фонды денежного рынка, страховые, пенсионные, банковские и даже потребительские балансы больше не могут обеспечить уровень доходности, необходимых для оправдания своих будущих обязательств и их стало невозможно достичь. Доход по депозитам слишкам мал,чтобы покрыть обязательства. В связи с чем доход по многим классам активов станет отрицательным. По мере снижения ливидности можно будет наблюдать, как ряды рискованных активов будут пополняться , напоминая всем известную игру с музыкальными стульями. И то, что 2015 год или ближайшие 12 месяцев- это время принятия рисков, можно судить по тому,что активов с положительным денежным потоком становится все меньше".Далее мы с вами наблюдаем любопытные вещи, происходящие в крупнейших финансовых учреждениях США.Зерохедж. Is Citi The Next AIG? Citi - это новый AIG? Напомню, что в Сити работает Саммерс. Тот самый, который организовал в свое время провалившийся фонд Гарварда в России, планировавшийся для того,чтобы организовать то,что сейчас происходит на Украине. Стоит вспомнить о том,что война довольно затратное, а зачастую убыточное мероприятие. И не исключено,что пополнение баланса деривативами как-то связано с тем,что происходит на Украине- Украина банкрот, но , например, Обама подписал закон о поддержке Укрианы на 400 миллионов, к тому же он(Обама) довольно плотно работал с Саммерсом и только общественность заставила отклонить его кандидатуру на пост председателя ФРС, удовольствовашись кандидатурой Фишера на "вторых ролях", хотя Фишер от этого не испытывает никаких страданий.Мы обнаружили,что Citigroup, ранее пролоббировавшая деривативы за счет FDIC, увеличили деривативы на своем балансе в третьем квартале до $70.2 трлн, опередив в этом даже JPM!Ну раз завели дело о JPM, то давайте поговорим о нем. Этот мегабанк уже довольно давно испытывает давление от регуляторов в том плане, что у них Джейми Даймон одновременно является и генеральным директором и председателем совета директоров. Но, как нам сообщает Зерохедж, основная опасность исходит от конкурента гиганта- Голдман Сакс, чьи люди как раз и работают в регуляторе. Кого заинтересовало, могут подробнее прочитать в оригинале:Зерохедж Goldman's Modest Proposal: It May Be Time To Break Up JPMorgan Скромное предложение от Голдмана: может, пришло время разбить JPMorganЕще в 2008 году, после падения фондовых рынков, Голдман избавился от двух своих конкурентов: от Bear и Lehman, когда ФРС отказалась спасать эти банки. Теперь, волне возможно, пришла очередь и для JPM.Голдман: недавно было озвучено ФРС,что капитал JPM необходимо поднять до 11,5%,что на 100%-200% выше, чем у всех остальных, то, может быть имеет смысл говорить о целесообразности разделения акционерного капитала, учитывая,что он сейчас является отрицательным. Распад может создать стоимость ниже на 20% и его можно разделить на: (1) трастовый банк, инвестиционный банк и бизнес по управлению активами и (2) все остальное (то есть более традиционный банковский бизнес). Разделение банка будет способствовать росту акционерного капитала.Вы мне скажете: а при чем тут Дик Чейни? Прямое отношение, конечно, он уже не имеет, просто надо иметь в виду,что США действуют всегда шаблонно, поэтому, например, не исключен вот какой вариант:прогнозирует Байрон Уин из Blackstone Group LP:По словам Уина, в этом году по настоящему проявят себя киберпреступники, которые становятся более ловкими, чем полиция.«Хакеры захватят частные и корпоративные счета одного крупнейшего банка, а Федеральная резервная система закроет это учреждение на пять дней для проверки его счетов»А хакеры- ,понятно, кто- Федеральное бюро расследований США расследует кражу данных из американского банка JP Morgan Chase. Она произошла в середине августа, сообщило агентство Bloomberg со ссылкой на двух сотрудников, имеющих отношение к следствию. По данным агентства, под подозрение попали российские хакеры. Они украли петабайты закрытой информации настолько умело, что эксперты подозревают — хакеры действуют при поддержке российских властей. ФБР расследует, является ли взлом JP Morgan местью российских властей за санкции США из-за конфликта вокруг Украины.или :Блумберг:"элитные российские хакеры взломали биржу Nasdaq и заложили туда цифровую бомбу".Я , надеюсь, что понятно. В условиях, когда ставки находятся на нуле и практически все активы показывают отрицательное значение, то есть идут убытки по причине невозможности капитал воспроизводить, происходит органический рост - за счет поглощения конкурентов. В США давно поглощены мелкие банки, настала очередь крупного финансового капитала выяснять, кто будет сидеть на стуле. В свою очередь, Россия только вступила в данный этап , когда крупные банки выживают за счет разорения мелких, в чем немало способствует ЦБ РФ. Во всяком случае, мы наблюдаем назревание явно революционной ситуации:"верхи не могут, низы не хотят". Вернее: верхи разбираются, для кого стул лишний, а когда разберутся, то назначат мальчика для битья, коим,скорее всего, будет российская элита,этакий хакерский Бен Ладен. Хотя проблемы финансового капитала США должны решаться несколько иными решениями, но американская элита иначе не может- виноват в их проблемах всегда кто-то другой, вот они и решают их, как могут- за чужой счет. И если это кто-то другой согласен его оплачивать- то тем более.
Глава банка JP Morgan Джейми Даймон благодарит конгресс за принятие бюджета. "Этим утром я собираюсь отправить Полу Райану и Патти Мюррей сообщение по электронной почте со словами "Спасибо вам, спасибо вам, спасибо вам, и пусть Господь благословит вас", – заявил Даймон в среду, обращаясь к республиканским конгрессменам и сенаторам из Демократической партии, которым удалось прийти к бюджетному соглашению. По его мнению, бюджетное соглашение - это "большой прорыв", так как повторной временной приостановки работы правительства не произойдет. Напомним, что Конгресс США, не дожидаясь крайнего срока, принял бюджет и предотвратил еще одну временную приостановку работы американского правительства. После продолжительных дебатов демократы и республиканцы все же достигли договоренности и приняли бюджет на 2014 финансовый год. Соглашение предусматривает сокращение госрасходов в течение двух лет на $63 млрд. Причем большая часть секвестра придется на текущий 2014 финансовый год, который в Америке начинается 1 октября.