|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 15 2013 10:38 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 05:23 ControlMonkey wrote:
I remember getting a pay rise and moving past a threshold in the low income tax offset and actually getting a small net pay cut as a result. I can't speak for your country but this shouldn't happen, and wouldn't in mine. If you make more money, you get taxed at a higher rate only on the additional income above the threshold. That is unless you are talking about some special program and not raw income taxes.
But doesn't this happen in the US from the graph that JohhnyBNoHo showed. Passing certain income thresholds make you lose benefits that lower your disposble income. Which is bad by the way.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
those 'bumps' you see are not due to tax on income but loss of various forms of assistance that are tied to recipient income below a certain level.
it's pretty bad. the most brutal case happens in public housing though, where if a man is working he cannot stay(with his family). so they would have people raiding the welfare slum blocks looking for men to chase out.
the american welfare system was designe dfrom the start to be a sort of pitiful moral punishment.
|
![[image loading]](http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2011/12/16/marginal_tax_rates_and_the_poor/1324061150834.png.CROP.original-original.png)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/12/16/marginal_tax_rates_and_the_poor.html
There's a lot of weird issues with the US tax code, but the primary driver would appear to be the way Medicaid receives and pays out funds. There's also a couple arbitrary cutoffs in the US tax/spending code that also should be smoothed out, as JBNH has already posted in his graph.
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S6Gx6RCpyY4/ULFIkRAzu-I/AAAAAAAAAT0/YTzHr4bvJLE/s640/marginal-tax_2.PNG)
That said, the effect of marginal rates reaching infinity at some parts of income doesn't seem to unduly bother people all that much from trying to increase their income; the behavioral effect is overstated.
|
A scathing report released by a Senate panel Thursday shows the financial crisis never really abated: The forces that delivered it -- a toxic combination of reckless speculation, balance sheet manipulation and outright disdain for regulators -- remained fully at work inside the biggest bank of them all, JPMorgan Chase, as recently as last spring.
The 300-page report, which unfolds in tones worthy of an indictment, says JPMorgan executives brazenly misled and bullied their regulators, going so far as to call them "stupid."
This, the report concludes, explains how a bet engineered by a trader called the London Whale for his enormous, market-moving positions burgeoned into losses reaching $6.2 billion. Chief executive Jamie Dimon initially dismissed the Whale losses as a “tempest in a teapot.”
"In contrast to JPMorgan Chase’s reputation for best-in-class risk management, the whale trades exposed a bank culture in which risk limit breaches were routinely disregarded, risk metrics were frequently criticized or downplayed, and risk evaluation models were targeted by bank personnel seeking to produce artificially lower capital requirements," the report concludes.
The top in-house regulator at JPMorgan, from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, told the Senate subcommittee that it was "very common" for the bank to push back on examiner filings and recommendations. The regulator recalled one instance in which bank executives yelled at OCC examiners and derided them as “stupid.”
"The bank's initial claims that its risk managers and regulators were fully informed and engaged ... were fictions irreconcilable with the bank’s obligation to provide material information to its investors in an accurate manner," says the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The report traces responsibility for JPMorgan’s trading fiasco to its highest offices, all the way to CEO Dimon.
Source
|
On March 15 2013 11:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A scathing report released by a Senate panel Thursday shows the financial crisis never really abated: The forces that delivered it -- a toxic combination of reckless speculation, balance sheet manipulation and outright disdain for regulators -- remained fully at work inside the biggest bank of them all, JPMorgan Chase, as recently as last spring.
The 300-page report, which unfolds in tones worthy of an indictment, says JPMorgan executives brazenly misled and bullied their regulators, going so far as to call them "stupid."
This, the report concludes, explains how a bet engineered by a trader called the London Whale for his enormous, market-moving positions burgeoned into losses reaching $6.2 billion. Chief executive Jamie Dimon initially dismissed the Whale losses as a “tempest in a teapot.”
"In contrast to JPMorgan Chase’s reputation for best-in-class risk management, the whale trades exposed a bank culture in which risk limit breaches were routinely disregarded, risk metrics were frequently criticized or downplayed, and risk evaluation models were targeted by bank personnel seeking to produce artificially lower capital requirements," the report concludes.
The top in-house regulator at JPMorgan, from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, told the Senate subcommittee that it was "very common" for the bank to push back on examiner filings and recommendations. The regulator recalled one instance in which bank executives yelled at OCC examiners and derided them as “stupid.”
"The bank's initial claims that its risk managers and regulators were fully informed and engaged ... were fictions irreconcilable with the bank’s obligation to provide material information to its investors in an accurate manner," says the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The report traces responsibility for JPMorgan’s trading fiasco to its highest offices, all the way to CEO Dimon. Source
Of course big banks and firms are going to gamble when money is cheap and you have a government bail out waiting for you if you fail. You're not going to get rid of financial turmoil by doubling down on the policies that cause it.
|
On March 15 2013 10:38 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 05:23 ControlMonkey wrote:
I remember getting a pay rise and moving past a threshold in the low income tax offset and actually getting a small net pay cut as a result. I can't speak for your country but this shouldn't happen, and wouldn't in mine. If you make more money, you get taxed at a higher rate only on the additional income above the threshold. That is unless you are talking about some special program and not raw income taxes.
A while ago the government, instead of raising the tax free threshold or lowering the rates on low income earners, they decided to introduce a horribly complicated offset system. That is what caused my net pay to drop. It was a small pay rise, and the total annual net pay cut was less than $50.
I believe that scheme is gone or going soon.
|
On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 05:24 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 13:10 KwarK wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. We did that in the UK. Unfortunately slashing the public sector with spending cuts while reducing the disposable income of those on benefits caused the economy to suddenly contract. The recession turned into a double dip recession, then into a triple dip recession. Unemployment rose, investment fell during the instability and government spending actually rose as people fell onto the safety net. The estimates for debt repayment were first pushed backwards, then scrapped and a new estimate for when the budget would be balanced was created, then that was scrapped and they stopped making estimates because it was making them look like they had no clue what they were doing. Canada also went through a period of severe austerity a few years back. It was very painful at the time, but I don't think anyone today would argue that it hasn't paid great dividends. It's particularly interesting because it was done by a centre-left government. Here are a couple of articles about it, in case you're interested. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04/the-public-choice-of-spending-cuts.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/13/paul-martin-budget-deficit-trailblazerI have sympathy for people in other countries that are now facing some very tough choices. I'm very grateful that we in Canada don't face those same choices -- although our current government is back to running deficits, which I am not happy about. Anyway, it's not a happy thing to have to cut government programs at a time when the global economy is in the tank. There's never really a "good" time to do it. It takes a certain amount of political courage to tell people a truth that they don't want to hear. My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US.
You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK?
Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be.
|
On March 15 2013 10:51 oneofthem wrote:
the american welfare system was designe dfrom the start to be a sort of pitiful moral punishment.
c.f. elizabethan workhouse.
|
On March 15 2013 11:42 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 11:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A scathing report released by a Senate panel Thursday shows the financial crisis never really abated: The forces that delivered it -- a toxic combination of reckless speculation, balance sheet manipulation and outright disdain for regulators -- remained fully at work inside the biggest bank of them all, JPMorgan Chase, as recently as last spring.
The 300-page report, which unfolds in tones worthy of an indictment, says JPMorgan executives brazenly misled and bullied their regulators, going so far as to call them "stupid."
This, the report concludes, explains how a bet engineered by a trader called the London Whale for his enormous, market-moving positions burgeoned into losses reaching $6.2 billion. Chief executive Jamie Dimon initially dismissed the Whale losses as a “tempest in a teapot.”
"In contrast to JPMorgan Chase’s reputation for best-in-class risk management, the whale trades exposed a bank culture in which risk limit breaches were routinely disregarded, risk metrics were frequently criticized or downplayed, and risk evaluation models were targeted by bank personnel seeking to produce artificially lower capital requirements," the report concludes.
The top in-house regulator at JPMorgan, from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, told the Senate subcommittee that it was "very common" for the bank to push back on examiner filings and recommendations. The regulator recalled one instance in which bank executives yelled at OCC examiners and derided them as “stupid.”
"The bank's initial claims that its risk managers and regulators were fully informed and engaged ... were fictions irreconcilable with the bank’s obligation to provide material information to its investors in an accurate manner," says the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The report traces responsibility for JPMorgan’s trading fiasco to its highest offices, all the way to CEO Dimon. Source Of course big banks and firms are going to gamble when money is cheap and you have a government bail out waiting for you if you fail. You're not going to get rid of financial turmoil by doubling down on the policies that cause it.
They're going to gamble as long as the law allows it. Nature of capitalism and blindly following profit cause it, and regulations and regulators are tasked with stopping it.
|
United States44072 Posts
On March 15 2013 11:47 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 07:40 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 07:28 ziggurat wrote:On March 15 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2013 05:24 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 13:10 KwarK wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. We did that in the UK. Unfortunately slashing the public sector with spending cuts while reducing the disposable income of those on benefits caused the economy to suddenly contract. The recession turned into a double dip recession, then into a triple dip recession. Unemployment rose, investment fell during the instability and government spending actually rose as people fell onto the safety net. The estimates for debt repayment were first pushed backwards, then scrapped and a new estimate for when the budget would be balanced was created, then that was scrapped and they stopped making estimates because it was making them look like they had no clue what they were doing. Canada also went through a period of severe austerity a few years back. It was very painful at the time, but I don't think anyone today would argue that it hasn't paid great dividends. It's particularly interesting because it was done by a centre-left government. Here are a couple of articles about it, in case you're interested. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04/the-public-choice-of-spending-cuts.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/13/paul-martin-budget-deficit-trailblazerI have sympathy for people in other countries that are now facing some very tough choices. I'm very grateful that we in Canada don't face those same choices -- although our current government is back to running deficits, which I am not happy about. Anyway, it's not a happy thing to have to cut government programs at a time when the global economy is in the tank. There's never really a "good" time to do it. It takes a certain amount of political courage to tell people a truth that they don't want to hear. My point is that slashing the budget to repay the deficit based upon assumptions of economic growth is a fiction because the two numbers are connected. You can't take large sums of money out of the economy without experiencing economic contraction and if the shock is sudden enough you'll actually end up spending as much as you did before trying to repair the damage you caused. We're borrowing more, not less, in the UK since the beginning of austerity. My points were that (1) the economic contraction that you've described in the UK is due more to the crappy global economy than it is to austerity measures; and in any event (2) you shouldn't generalize the UK experience to every other country. Other countries in similar positions which didn't commit to harsh austerity measures came out of the recession years ago and are now experiencing growth. They're also part of the same global economy so 1 can be disregarded as nonsensical. Obviously all countries are different but I'm making a general point that austerity in the UK caused rapid economic contraction and the result of that in the UK was that the debt actually increased. If you can provide reasons why that example doesn't apply elsewhere then feel free to bring them up, otherwise the UK experience is relevant to the decision facing the US. You've been talking a lot in generalities, but I'm curious to hear some details. What other countries in similar positions are you talking about? What time period exactly are you referring to? And what exactly were the austerity measures that were so ineffective in the UK? Generally speaking, you don't seem very concerned about massive deficits and you sound like you're happy for your country to continue racking them up. Tackling enormous debts is certainly a painful process for any country. Unfortunately, the longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be.
The longer you wait, the more painful it will ultimately be is an unproven statement. If waiting allows economic growth at a rate that is greater than the increase in the size of the debt then the longer you wait, the less painful it will be.
The full list of austerity measures can be found here. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme
|
On March 15 2013 14:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 11:42 OsoVega wrote:On March 15 2013 11:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A scathing report released by a Senate panel Thursday shows the financial crisis never really abated: The forces that delivered it -- a toxic combination of reckless speculation, balance sheet manipulation and outright disdain for regulators -- remained fully at work inside the biggest bank of them all, JPMorgan Chase, as recently as last spring.
The 300-page report, which unfolds in tones worthy of an indictment, says JPMorgan executives brazenly misled and bullied their regulators, going so far as to call them "stupid."
This, the report concludes, explains how a bet engineered by a trader called the London Whale for his enormous, market-moving positions burgeoned into losses reaching $6.2 billion. Chief executive Jamie Dimon initially dismissed the Whale losses as a “tempest in a teapot.”
"In contrast to JPMorgan Chase’s reputation for best-in-class risk management, the whale trades exposed a bank culture in which risk limit breaches were routinely disregarded, risk metrics were frequently criticized or downplayed, and risk evaluation models were targeted by bank personnel seeking to produce artificially lower capital requirements," the report concludes.
The top in-house regulator at JPMorgan, from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, told the Senate subcommittee that it was "very common" for the bank to push back on examiner filings and recommendations. The regulator recalled one instance in which bank executives yelled at OCC examiners and derided them as “stupid.”
"The bank's initial claims that its risk managers and regulators were fully informed and engaged ... were fictions irreconcilable with the bank’s obligation to provide material information to its investors in an accurate manner," says the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The report traces responsibility for JPMorgan’s trading fiasco to its highest offices, all the way to CEO Dimon. Source Of course big banks and firms are going to gamble when money is cheap and you have a government bail out waiting for you if you fail. You're not going to get rid of financial turmoil by doubling down on the policies that cause it. They're going to gamble as long as the law allows it. Nature of capitalism and blindly following profit cause it, and regulations and regulators are tasked with stopping it.
Especially when most of the expansion to your economy is coming not in actual production but in finance. We can note in passing that this has been the indicator of the end phase of what Arrighi calls "systemic cycles of accumulation" centered around Venice, Genoa, Amsterdam, London, chronologically (currently New York).
|
On March 15 2013 14:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 11:42 OsoVega wrote:On March 15 2013 11:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A scathing report released by a Senate panel Thursday shows the financial crisis never really abated: The forces that delivered it -- a toxic combination of reckless speculation, balance sheet manipulation and outright disdain for regulators -- remained fully at work inside the biggest bank of them all, JPMorgan Chase, as recently as last spring.
The 300-page report, which unfolds in tones worthy of an indictment, says JPMorgan executives brazenly misled and bullied their regulators, going so far as to call them "stupid."
This, the report concludes, explains how a bet engineered by a trader called the London Whale for his enormous, market-moving positions burgeoned into losses reaching $6.2 billion. Chief executive Jamie Dimon initially dismissed the Whale losses as a “tempest in a teapot.”
"In contrast to JPMorgan Chase’s reputation for best-in-class risk management, the whale trades exposed a bank culture in which risk limit breaches were routinely disregarded, risk metrics were frequently criticized or downplayed, and risk evaluation models were targeted by bank personnel seeking to produce artificially lower capital requirements," the report concludes.
The top in-house regulator at JPMorgan, from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, told the Senate subcommittee that it was "very common" for the bank to push back on examiner filings and recommendations. The regulator recalled one instance in which bank executives yelled at OCC examiners and derided them as “stupid.”
"The bank's initial claims that its risk managers and regulators were fully informed and engaged ... were fictions irreconcilable with the bank’s obligation to provide material information to its investors in an accurate manner," says the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The report traces responsibility for JPMorgan’s trading fiasco to its highest offices, all the way to CEO Dimon. Source Of course big banks and firms are going to gamble when money is cheap and you have a government bail out waiting for you if you fail. You're not going to get rid of financial turmoil by doubling down on the policies that cause it. They're going to gamble as long as the law allows it. Nature of capitalism and blindly following profit cause it, and regulations and regulators are tasked with stopping it.
It's also their job to "gamble" hence the never ending battle to define good gambling vs bad gambling.
|
On March 15 2013 14:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 14:09 aksfjh wrote:On March 15 2013 11:42 OsoVega wrote:On March 15 2013 11:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A scathing report released by a Senate panel Thursday shows the financial crisis never really abated: The forces that delivered it -- a toxic combination of reckless speculation, balance sheet manipulation and outright disdain for regulators -- remained fully at work inside the biggest bank of them all, JPMorgan Chase, as recently as last spring.
The 300-page report, which unfolds in tones worthy of an indictment, says JPMorgan executives brazenly misled and bullied their regulators, going so far as to call them "stupid."
This, the report concludes, explains how a bet engineered by a trader called the London Whale for his enormous, market-moving positions burgeoned into losses reaching $6.2 billion. Chief executive Jamie Dimon initially dismissed the Whale losses as a “tempest in a teapot.”
"In contrast to JPMorgan Chase’s reputation for best-in-class risk management, the whale trades exposed a bank culture in which risk limit breaches were routinely disregarded, risk metrics were frequently criticized or downplayed, and risk evaluation models were targeted by bank personnel seeking to produce artificially lower capital requirements," the report concludes.
The top in-house regulator at JPMorgan, from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, told the Senate subcommittee that it was "very common" for the bank to push back on examiner filings and recommendations. The regulator recalled one instance in which bank executives yelled at OCC examiners and derided them as “stupid.”
"The bank's initial claims that its risk managers and regulators were fully informed and engaged ... were fictions irreconcilable with the bank’s obligation to provide material information to its investors in an accurate manner," says the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The report traces responsibility for JPMorgan’s trading fiasco to its highest offices, all the way to CEO Dimon. Source Of course big banks and firms are going to gamble when money is cheap and you have a government bail out waiting for you if you fail. You're not going to get rid of financial turmoil by doubling down on the policies that cause it. They're going to gamble as long as the law allows it. Nature of capitalism and blindly following profit cause it, and regulations and regulators are tasked with stopping it. It's also their job to "gamble" hence the never ending battle to define good gambling vs bad gambling.
we should just legalize gambling so people can actually gamble instead of gambling with civilization. i think that's the reason that gambling is illegal in US. to encourage people to play the stock market
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not so much gambling as it is 'meta' transactions. insider information, connections, high frequency trading, stuff that rely on algorithms and volume instead of looking at good businesses and opportunities to invest in.
|
On March 15 2013 14:45 oneofthem wrote:
it's not so much gambling as it is 'meta' transactions. high frequency trading, stuff that rely on algorithms and volume instead of looking at good businesses and opportunities to invest in.
wish our physicists could just, like, work on physics or smth for a change
edit: cmon guys. if that's not skynet idk what is
|
On March 15 2013 14:39 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 14:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 15 2013 14:09 aksfjh wrote:On March 15 2013 11:42 OsoVega wrote:On March 15 2013 11:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A scathing report released by a Senate panel Thursday shows the financial crisis never really abated: The forces that delivered it -- a toxic combination of reckless speculation, balance sheet manipulation and outright disdain for regulators -- remained fully at work inside the biggest bank of them all, JPMorgan Chase, as recently as last spring.
The 300-page report, which unfolds in tones worthy of an indictment, says JPMorgan executives brazenly misled and bullied their regulators, going so far as to call them "stupid."
This, the report concludes, explains how a bet engineered by a trader called the London Whale for his enormous, market-moving positions burgeoned into losses reaching $6.2 billion. Chief executive Jamie Dimon initially dismissed the Whale losses as a “tempest in a teapot.”
"In contrast to JPMorgan Chase’s reputation for best-in-class risk management, the whale trades exposed a bank culture in which risk limit breaches were routinely disregarded, risk metrics were frequently criticized or downplayed, and risk evaluation models were targeted by bank personnel seeking to produce artificially lower capital requirements," the report concludes.
The top in-house regulator at JPMorgan, from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, told the Senate subcommittee that it was "very common" for the bank to push back on examiner filings and recommendations. The regulator recalled one instance in which bank executives yelled at OCC examiners and derided them as “stupid.”
"The bank's initial claims that its risk managers and regulators were fully informed and engaged ... were fictions irreconcilable with the bank’s obligation to provide material information to its investors in an accurate manner," says the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The report traces responsibility for JPMorgan’s trading fiasco to its highest offices, all the way to CEO Dimon. Source Of course big banks and firms are going to gamble when money is cheap and you have a government bail out waiting for you if you fail. You're not going to get rid of financial turmoil by doubling down on the policies that cause it. They're going to gamble as long as the law allows it. Nature of capitalism and blindly following profit cause it, and regulations and regulators are tasked with stopping it. It's also their job to "gamble" hence the never ending battle to define good gambling vs bad gambling. we should just legalize gambling so people can actually gamble instead of gambling with civilization. i think that's the reason that gambling is illegal in US. to encourage people to play the stock market
Yeah but all of life's a gamble
|
On March 15 2013 14:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 14:39 sam!zdat wrote:On March 15 2013 14:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 15 2013 14:09 aksfjh wrote:On March 15 2013 11:42 OsoVega wrote:On March 15 2013 11:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A scathing report released by a Senate panel Thursday shows the financial crisis never really abated: The forces that delivered it -- a toxic combination of reckless speculation, balance sheet manipulation and outright disdain for regulators -- remained fully at work inside the biggest bank of them all, JPMorgan Chase, as recently as last spring.
The 300-page report, which unfolds in tones worthy of an indictment, says JPMorgan executives brazenly misled and bullied their regulators, going so far as to call them "stupid."
This, the report concludes, explains how a bet engineered by a trader called the London Whale for his enormous, market-moving positions burgeoned into losses reaching $6.2 billion. Chief executive Jamie Dimon initially dismissed the Whale losses as a “tempest in a teapot.”
"In contrast to JPMorgan Chase’s reputation for best-in-class risk management, the whale trades exposed a bank culture in which risk limit breaches were routinely disregarded, risk metrics were frequently criticized or downplayed, and risk evaluation models were targeted by bank personnel seeking to produce artificially lower capital requirements," the report concludes.
The top in-house regulator at JPMorgan, from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, told the Senate subcommittee that it was "very common" for the bank to push back on examiner filings and recommendations. The regulator recalled one instance in which bank executives yelled at OCC examiners and derided them as “stupid.”
"The bank's initial claims that its risk managers and regulators were fully informed and engaged ... were fictions irreconcilable with the bank’s obligation to provide material information to its investors in an accurate manner," says the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The report traces responsibility for JPMorgan’s trading fiasco to its highest offices, all the way to CEO Dimon. Source Of course big banks and firms are going to gamble when money is cheap and you have a government bail out waiting for you if you fail. You're not going to get rid of financial turmoil by doubling down on the policies that cause it. They're going to gamble as long as the law allows it. Nature of capitalism and blindly following profit cause it, and regulations and regulators are tasked with stopping it. It's also their job to "gamble" hence the never ending battle to define good gambling vs bad gambling. we should just legalize gambling so people can actually gamble instead of gambling with civilization. i think that's the reason that gambling is illegal in US. to encourage people to play the stock market Yeah but all of life's a gamble
what a horrible ideology, i hope you're content with it though
|
High frequency trading is the worst. How long is 5 milliseconds really?
|
On March 15 2013 14:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 11:42 OsoVega wrote:On March 15 2013 11:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A scathing report released by a Senate panel Thursday shows the financial crisis never really abated: The forces that delivered it -- a toxic combination of reckless speculation, balance sheet manipulation and outright disdain for regulators -- remained fully at work inside the biggest bank of them all, JPMorgan Chase, as recently as last spring.
The 300-page report, which unfolds in tones worthy of an indictment, says JPMorgan executives brazenly misled and bullied their regulators, going so far as to call them "stupid."
This, the report concludes, explains how a bet engineered by a trader called the London Whale for his enormous, market-moving positions burgeoned into losses reaching $6.2 billion. Chief executive Jamie Dimon initially dismissed the Whale losses as a “tempest in a teapot.”
"In contrast to JPMorgan Chase’s reputation for best-in-class risk management, the whale trades exposed a bank culture in which risk limit breaches were routinely disregarded, risk metrics were frequently criticized or downplayed, and risk evaluation models were targeted by bank personnel seeking to produce artificially lower capital requirements," the report concludes.
The top in-house regulator at JPMorgan, from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, told the Senate subcommittee that it was "very common" for the bank to push back on examiner filings and recommendations. The regulator recalled one instance in which bank executives yelled at OCC examiners and derided them as “stupid.”
"The bank's initial claims that its risk managers and regulators were fully informed and engaged ... were fictions irreconcilable with the bank’s obligation to provide material information to its investors in an accurate manner," says the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The report traces responsibility for JPMorgan’s trading fiasco to its highest offices, all the way to CEO Dimon. Source Of course big banks and firms are going to gamble when money is cheap and you have a government bail out waiting for you if you fail. You're not going to get rid of financial turmoil by doubling down on the policies that cause it. They're going to gamble as long as the law allows it. Nature of capitalism and blindly following profit cause it, and regulations and regulators are tasked with stopping it.
Explain to me how it is profitable to gamble in a free market. Also, if it is a winning strategy (which it might be if you're using a stupid, non-contextual definition of the word gamble), what's wrong with that?
|
United States44072 Posts
On March 15 2013 16:16 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 14:09 aksfjh wrote:On March 15 2013 11:42 OsoVega wrote:On March 15 2013 11:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A scathing report released by a Senate panel Thursday shows the financial crisis never really abated: The forces that delivered it -- a toxic combination of reckless speculation, balance sheet manipulation and outright disdain for regulators -- remained fully at work inside the biggest bank of them all, JPMorgan Chase, as recently as last spring.
The 300-page report, which unfolds in tones worthy of an indictment, says JPMorgan executives brazenly misled and bullied their regulators, going so far as to call them "stupid."
This, the report concludes, explains how a bet engineered by a trader called the London Whale for his enormous, market-moving positions burgeoned into losses reaching $6.2 billion. Chief executive Jamie Dimon initially dismissed the Whale losses as a “tempest in a teapot.”
"In contrast to JPMorgan Chase’s reputation for best-in-class risk management, the whale trades exposed a bank culture in which risk limit breaches were routinely disregarded, risk metrics were frequently criticized or downplayed, and risk evaluation models were targeted by bank personnel seeking to produce artificially lower capital requirements," the report concludes.
The top in-house regulator at JPMorgan, from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, told the Senate subcommittee that it was "very common" for the bank to push back on examiner filings and recommendations. The regulator recalled one instance in which bank executives yelled at OCC examiners and derided them as “stupid.”
"The bank's initial claims that its risk managers and regulators were fully informed and engaged ... were fictions irreconcilable with the bank’s obligation to provide material information to its investors in an accurate manner," says the report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The report traces responsibility for JPMorgan’s trading fiasco to its highest offices, all the way to CEO Dimon. Source Of course big banks and firms are going to gamble when money is cheap and you have a government bail out waiting for you if you fail. You're not going to get rid of financial turmoil by doubling down on the policies that cause it. They're going to gamble as long as the law allows it. Nature of capitalism and blindly following profit cause it, and regulations and regulators are tasked with stopping it. Explain to me how it is profitable to gamble in a free market. Also, if it is a winning strategy (which it might be if you're using a stupid, non-contextual definition of the word gamble), what's wrong with that?
Because they're too big to fail so they can't lose. Other people lose but when you take a narrow view and just look at the bank then it's a very profitable gamble to take. It's not good for the system but it's very good for the bank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
