Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: Wall Street's reputation teetering after JP Morgan Chase stint’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 21 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

I know what to do. Let's have the Fed shovel money into JP Morgan while we slash medicare. Sound fair to me!

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Trust cannot and will not be fully restored until there are some regulatory firewalls and safety valves are in place.

Yes, banks like JP Morgan can absorb a shock of this size. But what about other banks?

We cannot depend on banks to self-regulate. This should be obvious by now. A modernized version of Glass–Steagall is needed. Period.

We keep fooling ourselves into thinking that we have entered a new era of banking and economic enlightenment. It is simply a lie each generation falls into because we want to believe we can do what we want without consequence.

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Marxist: Why is it “ok” if the federal government loses billions of other people’s money (Solindra scam, GSA scandal, fast and furious debacle, secret service prostitution melt down, TSA wastes and on and on) but we go nuts if Wall Street has a problem? I am not saying J.P Morgan is innocent but why do we demand justice with them and not with the sins of the government? And by the way, didn’t Obama bailout out J.P Morgan? Why are we not angry about the billions of taxpayer funds that were wasted? I wish we could be as demanding of purity with our government as we are with Wall Street!

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

I don't see anything at all wrong with going back to regulating banks.
The only "winners" in bank deregulation have been the banks, NOT consumers.

BUT - the bigger issue here is for shareholders, especially large pension fund shareholders to become more involved in "self-regulating" banks and other large companies via their votes which was intended in the first place.

Banks (or any business) MUST be allowed to fail in order for shareholders to begin doing their "due diligence". Up to now that hasn't happened.

Hank Pym
SLC, UT

@ Fitness Freak

"I don't see anything at all wrong with going back to regulating banks. The only "winners" in bank deregulation have been the banks, NOT consumers."

Again, repeal Gramm-Leach-Billey & Reinstitute Glass-Stegall.

Jim Cramer (CNBC) at one point put (JPMC CEO) Dimon on a pedestal... Now that is a fate worse than a Corleone kiss of death.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

Why do we need to regulate things further? What investment is 100% secure?

To "Fitness Freak" what deregulation are you talking about? In the past 30 years when banks have been "deregulated" it actually added regulations to the specific portions of investment banks being deregulated.

Did you know that the Banking Industry is more regulated than the healthcare industry? Did you know that those are the two most regulated industries and coincidentially are the same industries that politicians complain about the most? Could there be a relationship between regulation and how big of a problem an industry is accorind to politicians?

CLM
Draper, UT

The problem with reinstating Glass-Stegall (or even the Volcker Rule designed to stop speculative trades) is that global economy has grown exponentially since the 1930s when the Glass-Stegall act was put into place. The huge scale and complexity of 21st century world economy as well as financial sectors such as Wall Street means that simply separating investment banking from commercial banking will give only an appearance of lowered risks and could obscure underlying risks in the system.

The derivatives market has become almost impossible to detangle. It's useless to tell commercial banks they can be involved only in non-speculative derivatives. The derivatives market is now so big and complicated that it is near impossible to ascertain a derivative's default risk.

A huge problem with no easy answers. As another poster lamented elsewhere, "Thanks again, Leviathan!"

Owl
Salt Lake City, UT

Too late. Their reputation exploded three years ago and is no longer teetering, it has crashed. Ivy League geniuses, too smart to fail, Wall Street whizkids, "ethical business practices" and other labels faded long ago.

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

"Redshirt" When Glass-Steagall act was repealed it allowed banks to become "too big to fail" thus, the TARP bailouts. Having so much of the liquidity concentrated in so few hands caused politicians (both parties)to become beholden to the cries of the banking industry.

IF banks would have been allowed to fail; I would probably agree with you. But they weren't.

I do agree that there are MANY regulations in the banking industry, but they obviously aren't working, or aren't enforced.

Maybe the answer is fewer regulations, but MORE enforcement?

Mark B
Eureka, CA

If asked which industry will be the site of the next disaster, financial or otherwise, I would need just one clue - Which industry is spending the most on Congress, lobbying for votes to give it LESS regulation? Whatever Dimon says to Congress, his industry's lobbyists will be delivering the REAL message, "let us alone, and there will be money in it for you." You can bet every one of those Tea Party "reformers" will be listening, because it takes money to keep your seat.

SEY
Sandy, UT

I'm afraid that any attempts at banking reform will be about as effective as "The Little Dutch Boy" who plugged the leak in the dike with his thumb. Problem is, the leaks are global (as CLM pointed out) and too-big-to-plug. The derivates virus has infected banks and investments on just about every continent (at least in the Western world). The extent of the coming damage is beyond the ability of most of us to predict or comprehend. Simply stated, it's too late to fix it. All we can do is hang on as the flood waters rush in.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Fitness Freak" the irony is that prior to the 1940's banks had fewer regulations than they do now, yet none became "too big". It wasn't until the government regulated bad business practices to banks that they began to be problematic, things like subprime loans and derivatives.

The idea of "too big to fail" is just a scare tactic. If one of the mega banks collapsed, it would be painful, and take a few years to settle out. The problem is that the government is afraid to allow us to feel the impact of failure. Think of it like an old growth forest. Eventually the trees are so old and diseased that they are a hazard to the rest of the forest. Rather than proping up and trying to save the old tree, it is better for the forest as a whole if they come down and allow the younger more vibrant trees to take over.

You have stated what the biggest problem is these days. We have a very huge lack of enforcement of federal laws by the federal government, from banking to immigration.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

They have nothing to fear....

JPMorgan now "owns" Utah Senator Mike Lee.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

DNews, you're losing credibility if you can't tell the difference between "deep-seated" and "deep-seeded." Did you fire all your proofreaders in the latest purge?

The Skeptical Chymist
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Twin Lights said: "A modernized version of Glass–Steagall is needed. Period." I could not agree more!! We were safe from financial meltdowns that endangered the financial health of the country for over 60 years because of the Glass-Steagall Act. Its unwise repeal in 1999 through the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act allowed the banks to gamble with their depositors money. They were able to reap their private profits, but because they were too big to fail, we had to collectively take the losses. The country still has not recovered. I am categorically against this system of privatizing the profits while socializing the losses. Banks are too important to the health of the economy to be allowed to gamble with their depositors money.

The real problem is that the campaign finance system lets the banks buy Congressmen and Senators. It has happened with both Democrats and Republicans, and the Republican hero of the moment, Mitt Romney, even wants to repeal the totally insufficient Dodd-Frank Act. We need more stringent, not fewer regulations of the financial sector!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments