Silly subby, thinking that there's necessarily a direct correlation between stock price movement and news.

I knew as soon as they came out and said, "Oopsie! That 2 billion dollar loss was a real stupid move on our part! Yep, that was a real bone-headed move, all right!" that the 2 billion dollar loss posting was just the tip of the iceberg.

It's all been priced in...

Why wouldn't the stock go up? Won't they just take free money from the U.S. government to cover the losses? It's not like this will actually affect them.

The stock went up because it's a good investment. The head of their investment office has left the company as well as the person responsible for the largest losses. The head of the CIO even returned everything she was paid while in the position. (I've been a shareholder since 2009)

So take a look at where they currently sit at a P/E of 8 with the losses taken into consideration and it's a pretty nice looking stock. The investment errors won't be made again and might actually cause even more regulations to be put in place. So that's a one time loss that's been corrected and won't happen again (or at least not for a couple years when people stop paying attention again). There's no reason they won't be at 50/share in a year or two.

JP Morgan loves Mitt Romney.

Because People in power are Stupid: JP Morgan loves Mitt Romney.
[img.photobucket.com image 364x213]

He's one of them.

vpb: Because People in power are Stupid: JP Morgan loves Mitt Romney.
[img.photobucket.com image 364x213]

He's one of them.

Not at all a Romney fan but on this one I'll back his opinion.. Investors took the risk on this and not tax payers. As a JPM investor the risk was completely on me and this is true of any stock I purchase. We don't need additional regulation here.. I may choose to sell my stock because I think the leadership are retards or I can choose to keep the stock and hope the leadership changes things up. It's not up to the government to change the way I choose to risk my money. They repaid all the bailout money they received in 2008 (paid back in 09) so there was no risk involving tax dollars.

Yet they still will not start hiring :

"The fact is the economy isn't that bad for corporate America," Dimon said on a conference call with analysts. "Middle market companies and small business are okay. There's a lot of liquidity. Sales are showing modest growth."

xynix: vpb: Because People in power are Stupid: JP Morgan loves Mitt Romney.
[img.photobucket.com image 364x213]

He's one of them.

Not at all a Romney fan but on this one I'll back his opinion.. Investors took the risk on this and not tax payers. As a JPM investor the risk was completely on me and this is true of any stock I purchase. We don't need additional regulation here.. I may choose to sell my stock because I think the leadership are retards or I can choose to keep the stock and hope the leadership changes things up. It's not up to the government to change the way I choose to risk my money. They repaid all the bailout money they received in 2008 (paid back in 09) so there was no risk involving tax dollars.

Actually...

mahuika: xynix: vpb: Because People in power are Stupid: JP Morgan loves Mitt Romney.
[img.photobucket.com image 364x213]


Actually...

WTF.

Pump and dump, subby.

Where's my living wage regardless of employment status? Where?

Well the bigger the loss, the bigger the bailout.

mahuika: xynix: vpb: Because People in power are Stupid: JP Morgan loves Mitt Romney.
[img.photobucket.com image 364x213]

He's one of them.

Not at all a Romney fan but on this one I'll back his opinion.. Investors took the risk on this and not tax payers. As a JPM investor the risk was completely on me and this is true of any stock I purchase. We don't need additional regulation here.. I may choose to sell my stock because I think the leadership are retards or I can choose to keep the stock and hope the leadership changes things up. It's not up to the government to change the way I choose to risk my money. They repaid all the bailout money they received in 2008 (paid back in 09) so there was no risk involving tax dollars.

Actually...

I'm not an economist. Does your article imply that the losses will be paid for by the Govt? The $10 billion subsidy seems to take the form of govt guarantees against losses . . . but they're having losses now. I'm confused.

/Very much not an economist - honestly don't understand the issue.

Would throw the entire batch of everyone running the place out of the nearest window.

Because it isn't 9 billion.

Richard Freckle: It's all been priced in...

It's a write-off for them.

/not obscure (I hope)

Did they lose it in a couch? That must be one big damn couch!

tobcc: Yet they still will not start hiring :

When is this "you're making record profits with the staff level you have now, why don't you hire more?" thing going to die?

jumpyouf*ckers.jpg

Maybe investors were betting in the losses were $10 billion so $6 billion was a steal?

"We have put most of this problem behind us and we can now focus our full energy on what we do best - serving our clients and communities around the worldsingle-handedly making a mockery out of the entire western capitalist society," Dimon said in a statement.

Seriously is someone in the Ivy League schools telling people to go into banking because there would be no math?

HOT DOG HOT DOG HOT DIGGITY DOG!!!!!!

I'm all for hating banks.

But I don't understand why people are surprised by this, or why the story is "Chase lost 2 billion or 6 billion and that's bad!"

Any gambler will tell you that even if you're successful, you lose sometimes.

Banks are just gamblers.

paygun: tobcc: Yet they still will not start hiring :

When is this "you're making record profits with the staff level you have now, why don't you hire more?" thing going to die?

When this "The wealthy are the job creators so we need to cut their taxes because if they have more money they can afford to hire more people" thing dies?

If that company is willing to have a loss of $6 billion and still keep going in debt... that's the company *I* want to invest in.

mahuika: When this "The wealthy are the job creators so we need to cut their taxes because if they have more money they can afford to hire more people" thing dies?

It has to be one or the other, of course.

xynix: The stock went up because it's a good investment. The head of their investment office has left the company as well as the person responsible for the largest losses. The head of the CIO even returned everything she was paid while in the position. (I've been a shareholder since 2009)

Please. The machine is run by guys who have doctorates in mathematics from Cal Tech and MIT running a numbers gambit and calculating arbitrage odds. The actual bankers are nothing more than monkeys pressing a lever for a food pellet. They just switched out the old batch of monkeys for a new batch. The investment banking they learned in their MBA classrooms is long dead, or at least nothing more than window dressing for the main money making machine going on in the backroom. .

The fact that their still haven't completely got their arms around the totality of the loss speaks volumes. The "bankers" and higher ups still haven't the foggiest idea how much they're exposed.

Jump you farkers!

paygun: Because it isn't 9 billion.

Yet.

xynix: Not at all a Romney fan but on this one I'll back his opinion.. Investors took the risk on this and not tax payers. As a JPM investor the risk was completely on me and this is true of any stock I purchase. We don't need additional regulation here.. I may choose to sell my stock because I think the leadership are retards or I can choose to keep the stock and hope the leadership changes things up. It's not up to the government to change the way I choose to risk my money. They repaid all the bailout money they received in 2008 (paid back in 09) so there was no risk involving tax dollars.

Yeah, it's not like they're openly gambling with taxpayer funded FDIC insured assets or anything. Oh, wait.

Jamie Dimon has an incredibly challenging job. He earns every penny of his compensation, that's for sure.

/ducks

If a bank can still make 22.9 billion in revenue for one quarter while losing 6 billion without putting deposited dollars at risk is there a problem?

InmanRoshi: xynix: The stock went up because it's a good investment. The head of their investment office has left the company as well as the person responsible for the largest losses. The head of the CIO even returned everything she was paid while in the position. (I've been a shareholder since 2009)

Please. The machine is run by guys who have doctorates in mathematics from Cal Tech and MIT running a numbers gambit and calculating arbitrage odds. The actual bankers are nothing more than monkeys pressing a lever for a food pellet. They just switched out the old batch of monkeys for a new batch. The investment banking they learned in their MBA classrooms is long dead, or at least nothing more than window dressing for the main money making machine going on in the backroom. .

The fact that their still haven't completely got their arms around the totality of the loss speaks volumes. The "bankers" and higher ups still haven't the foggiest idea how much they're exposed.


Yeah and guess who keeps losing their money in dollar amounts like this?

You guessed it, all the 'math' wizzes and the programs they designed.

intelligent comment below: InmanRoshi: xynix: The stock went up because it's a good investment. The head of their investment office has left the company as well as the person responsible for the largest losses. The head of the CIO even returned everything she was paid while in the position. (I've been a shareholder since 2009)

Please. The machine is run by guys who have doctorates in mathematics from Cal Tech and MIT running a numbers gambit and calculating arbitrage odds. The actual bankers are nothing more than monkeys pressing a lever for a food pellet. They just switched out the old batch of monkeys for a new batch. The investment banking they learned in their MBA classrooms is long dead, or at least nothing more than window dressing for the main money making machine going on in the backroom. .

The fact that their still haven't completely got their arms around the totality of the loss speaks volumes. The "bankers" and higher ups still haven't the foggiest idea how much they're exposed.


Yeah and guess who keeps losing their money in dollar amounts like this?

You guessed it, all the 'math' wizzes and the programs they designed.

That makes me glad I'm not a Wall Street Banker.

flourier: If a bank can still make 22.9 billion in revenue for one quarter while losing 6 billion without putting deposited dollars at risk is there a problem?

Don't be bringing any kind of logic to this conversation...

draypresct: mahuika: xynix: vpb: Because People in power are Stupid: JP Morgan loves Mitt Romney.
[img.photobucket.com image 364x213]

He's one of them.

Not at all a Romney fan but on this one I'll back his opinion.. Investors took the risk on this and not tax payers. As a JPM investor the risk was completely on me and this is true of any stock I purchase. We don't need additional regulation here.. I may choose to sell my stock because I think the leadership are retards or I can choose to keep the stock and hope the leadership changes things up. It's not up to the government to change the way I choose to risk my money. They repaid all the bailout money they received in 2008 (paid back in 09) so there was no risk involving tax dollars.

Actually...

I'm not an economist. Does your article imply that the losses will be paid for by the Govt? The $10 billion subsidy seems to take the form of govt guarantees against losses . . . but they're having losses now. I'm confused.

/Very much not an economist - honestly don't understand the issue.

If Romney's elected -he'll forgive the debt.

intelligent comment below: InmanRoshi: xynix: The stock went up because it's a good investment. The head of their investment office has left the company as well as the person responsible for the largest losses. The head of the CIO even returned everything she was paid while in the position. (I've been a shareholder since 2009)

Please. The machine is run by guys who have doctorates in mathematics from Cal Tech and MIT running a numbers gambit and calculating arbitrage odds. The actual bankers are nothing more than monkeys pressing a lever for a food pellet. They just switched out the old batch of monkeys for a new batch. The investment banking they learned in their MBA classrooms is long dead, or at least nothing more than window dressing for the main money making machine going on in the backroom. .

The fact that their still haven't completely got their arms around the totality of the loss speaks volumes. The "bankers" and higher ups still haven't the foggiest idea how much they're exposed.


Yeah and guess who keeps losing their money in dollar amounts like this?

You guessed it, all the 'math' wizzes and the programs they designed.

They're not betting with their money.

Because People in power are Stupid: draypresct: mahuika: xynix: vpb: Because People in power are Stupid: JP Morgan loves Mitt Romney.
[img.photobucket.com image 364x213]

He's one of them.

Not at all a Romney fan but on this one I'll back his opinion.. Investors took the risk on this and not tax payers. As a JPM investor the risk was completely on me and this is true of any stock I purchase. We don't need additional regulation here.. I may choose to sell my stock because I think the leadership are retards or I can choose to keep the stock and hope the leadership changes things up. It's not up to the government to change the way I choose to risk my money. They repaid all the bailout money they received in 2008 (paid back in 09) so there was no risk involving tax dollars.

Actually...

I'm not an economist. Does your article imply that the losses will be paid for by the Govt? The $10 billion subsidy seems to take the form of govt guarantees against losses . . . but they're having losses now. I'm confused.

/Very much not an economist - honestly don't understand the issue.

If Romney's elected -he'll forgive the debt.

And if Condoleezza Rice is the VP, she'll match it with a subsidy to the Israeli air force.

InmanRoshi: Yeah, it's not like they're openly gambling with taxpayer funded FDIC insured assets or anything. Oh, wait.


"The FDIC doesn't receive any tax dollars; instead it's funded by the premiums paid by banks and thrifts for insurance coverage on deposits. Its deposit insurance fund is really just an accounting entry with the Treasury Department" per Bankrate.com

But they do have the ability to "borrow" up to 500billion from the US Treasury or demand special assessments from banks like in 2009.

they have a trillion dollar balance sheet- $5b is a parking ticket. They're supposed to take risk & most of the time it works out for them.

InmanRoshi: They're not betting with their money.


That has nothing to do with what I said, or what you said. You tried claiming all the old school bankers were dinosaurs and the new kids on the block were all the math guys. But they are the ones crashing the ships and the smart firms are finally realizing that type of gambling is not healthy for the economy of any country.

Probably get really big raises.

intelligent comment below: paygun: Obviously I'm part of some conspiracy to discredit your ideas.


No you're just another in the long line of right wing libertarian apologists to spend your days trolling internet blogs and forums. Good luck discrediting my ideas though, maybe one day sometime in the future you might be successful. Here's to hope and change

I, for one, always find the comments below your name to be intelligent. Mr. Poopyhead LiberCon can get et by a dino!

Wangiss: Metaphor Overload!

Poor mathematicians.

edisk.fandm.edu


You're trying too hard for a reaction. Is your job to fill up this topic with off topic nonsense so the idea of huge financial losses by one company that has taken tax payer money and manipulated governments and investors for decades while nobody has ever gone to jail?

The last rumored number was 9 billion, so 6 is a nice improvement. Stocks move with expectations, which usually lead actual hard data points.

Frankly I have no idea why people are mad at this. It's really weird. The CEO is getting called in front of flippin' congress because his company lost some money?

His company lost some of it's own money

It's not like this is nearly $6 Billion of farking government-backed loans that it negligently pissed away. This is almost $6 billion of its own prop-trading cash that it negligently pissed away. Laugh at JPMC for being idiots with bad risk-management systems if you want, but don't act like it's a national farking emergency.

This is almost as retarded as holding congressional hearings with baseball players.

intelligent comment below: Wangiss: And if Condoleezza Rice is the VP, she'll match it with a subsidy to the Israeli air force.


Israel? wtf does she care about Israel?

I'll tell you when you're older.