JPMorgan Chase has sued the former manager of Bruno Iskil, the “London Whale” who executed the “Fail Whale trades” that cost the company as much as $7 billion. Javier Martin-Artajo was the direct supervisor to Iskil in the Chief Investment Office in London.
|By: David Dayen Thursday November 1, 2012 5:58 am|
|By: David Dayen Friday October 12, 2012 8:10 am|
JPMorgan Chase, feeling little ill effects from the federal attempts at investigation of their business practices, announced a major earnings jump of 34%. Part of this comes from the fact that the previous earnings report included most of the losses from the Fail Whale trades (which have increased to $6.25 billion, as per this earnings report), so this comes off a low bottom. But in the earnings call, CEO Jamie Dimon attributed the strength to increased consumer lending, and he added that the housing market has “turned the corner.”
|By: David Dayen Thursday October 11, 2012 9:19 am|
JPMorgan Chase clearly wants to sell out its former traders and confine the blame to them. I never look a gift prosecution of corrupt bankers in the mouth, but the law stipulates that the top executives, including Jamie Dimon, are responsible for any fraudulent valuations delivered to shareholders. Period. Sarbanes-Oxley makes this incredibly simple. But JPMorgan has tossed the government a few bad (and small) minnows, and the government has so far taken the bait.
|By: David Dayen Friday October 5, 2012 10:40 am|
A financial firm or any other defendant doesn’t allow a tolling agreement out of the goodness of its heart. It comes out of a negotiated process. The prosecutor gets to stop the clock on the statute of limitations but must give up something in return. Maybe they’re given the opportunity to stop Schneiderman from filing a case at all, or maybe they’ve moved immediately to the settlement phase. Or maybe Schneiderman got the tolling agreement in exchange for agreeing not to prosecute or name any individuals in the cases. A tolling agreement isn’t free, in other words. And it would be good to know the cost of this.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday October 3, 2012 9:28 am|
Much thanks to FT Alphaville for highlighting my storyabout Eric Schneiderman’s lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase over Bear Stearns’ dodgy mortgage-backed securities deals. As I have stressed, nothing in this case indicates there’s been much new investigation at all, or participation from the federal task force. It borrows liberally from a lawsuit by mortgage bond insurer Ambac, which was filed by Karla Sanchez, a former litigator who now works in Schneiderman’s office as the Deputy AG for Economic Justice.
|By: David Dayen Tuesday October 2, 2012 11:35 am|
the lawsuit against Bear Stearns on securitization fraud put together by Eric Schneiderman’s office is that it’s rooted in reality. My issues are primarily with timing and scope. There’s no reason this case couldn’t have been filed in 2011. There’s literally nothing in the case that advances what we knew from these other cases in any meaningful way. If the New York AG’s office wanted to pursue a parallel proceeding, they had every ability to do it in 2011, before the foreclosure fraud settlement. Now they’ve given up claims they could have pursued.
|By: David Dayen Tuesday October 2, 2012 6:10 am|
The delay in bringing the case cost tens of billions of potential exposure for JPMorgan Chase. And more than anything, the lack of federal participation in the suit shows that the federal agencies involved in the task force are simply disinterested in prosecution, forcing Schneiderman to cobble together an off-the-shelf suit from other sources to make it look like this move against the banks represents anything real. The timing, one month before voters go to the polls in the Presidential election, is similarly obvious.
|By: masaccio Friday August 24, 2012 3:55 pm|
Politicians don’t talk about real issues in campaigns. Interest rate swaps? Screwed savers? Who the heck cares? Too complicated, you people wouldn’t understand.
|By: David Dayen Thursday August 23, 2012 7:30 pm|
I’d be a bit surprised to see Neil Barofsky grace the airwaves of CNBC again. But I have good news for CNBC. I have another exciting guest opportunity for them.
|By: masaccio Tuesday July 17, 2012 3:30 pm|
Goldman Sachs released its income and expense data for the second quarter of 2012. Revenues are up 4% from the first quarter, but down 17% over the same period last year, and for the first six months of 2012, they are down 13% over the same period last year. Compensation is a different story. For the first six months, compensation is 44% of revenues (p.4), compared with 42.4% for all of 2011.So shareholders get 3.5% of the revenues and insiders get 44%? Really? Whose money is at risk, again?