Domestic terrorists don’t wear pinstripes


Is it just me that is absolutely gobsmacked by this!?

Further evidence, of the lack of consistency and glaring inequalities. OK, we know that Regulators and Legislators see fit to ignore the scale of the crimes perpetrated by these banksters BUT for how much longer can any right-minded citizen stand idly by?

More (costly) regulation won’t change this culture but, CONSTRUCTIVE TRANSPARENCY can. And, in the process, reduce the risks associated with such behaviours.

Political and Financial leaders know that they are playing a very high stakes game and that there is a growing threat that ALL that they hold dear will, as a result of both their actions and inaction, come under threat. Would this go some way to explain the rate at which civil liberties are being stripped away across the Western world? I sincerely hope that such questions or suggestions don’t qualify me as a “domestic terrorist” because, as a mere citizen, anything could happen…

JPMorgan Chase has been sanctioned by US regulators for failures in its risk management operations after it lost more than $6.2 billion on a single credit derivatives trade. The sanctions follow the disclosure of significant losses in a large synthetic credit portfolio that was managed by the CIO. The botched bet – made by UK big fish Bruno Iksil – had managed to wipe out $51 billion in shareholder value before alarm bells started to ring at the bank’s head office in New York. Among other things, the Fed identified deficiencies in risk management oversight, modelling assumptions, audit and finance reporting and escalation to senior management. The OCC further found that the bank’s BSA (bank Secrecy Act) compliance programme had “critical deficiencies” with respect to suspicious activity reporting, monitoring transactions, conducting customer due diligence and risk assessment, and implementing adequate systems of internal controls and independent testing. Despite the criticism, JPMorgan Chase escaped with nothing more than a rap on the knuckles. No fines were levied by the watchdogs and the bank didn’t admit or deny wrongdoing in consenting to the regulatory orders

.

More Skin in the Game in 2013:: Nassim Taleb [Project Syndicate]


Without sound foundations the global financial sector are little more than licensed “cowboy builders”!

The ancients understood that the builder always knows more about the risks than the client, and can hide sources of fragility and improve his profitability by cutting corners. The foundation is the best place to hide risk. The builder can also fool the inspector; the person hiding risk has a large informational advantage over the one who has to find it.

More Skin in the Game in 2013 by Nassim Nicholas Taleb – Project Syndicate

Shed no tears for Dimon: ‘Life Goes on’ After ‘Whale’ Loss


Dimon: 'Life Goes on' After 'Whale' LossJPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon apologized again to shareholders Wednesday for the London Whale trading losses but said “life goes on” for the bank and its clients.

JPMorgan sustained losses of more than $6 billion last year as a result of a bad bet related to credit derivatives. The bet was so large that the trader said to be responsible earned the nickname “the London Whale.”

Regulators have ordered the bank to improve its money laundering prevention, risk management and internal auditing practices. And the bank’s board cut Dimon’s pay in half to $11.5 million, including a $10 million bonus.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s here!:: Edelman Trust Barometer 2013


Here it is, the moment that Banks and Financial Services companies have been waiting for. The 2013 Trust Barometer has been released. But, it is NOT good news! Sorry to say that it is an inglorious hat trick.

Edelman Trust 2013

Yep, sorry to say that Banks and FS are bottom of the heap AGAIN. For the third straight year …

Following is the full Presentation but commentary on past reports here:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Andy Haldane:: Have we solved ‘too big to fail’?


If you still care about the role of Central Banks (you should, although it may not change much!) a guy like Andy Haldane is ALWAYS worth listening to. Here is his latest contribution…

As with systemic surcharges, the issue here is not to so much the bail-in principle, but its application in practice. Bail-in, whether of big banks, sovereigns or companies, faces an acute time-consistency problem. Policymakers face a trade-off between placing losses on a narrow set of tax-payers today (bail-in) or spreading that risk across a wider set of tax-payers today and tomorrow (bail-out).

A risk-averse, tax-smoothing government may tend towards the latter path – and historically has almost always done so, most notably in response to the present financial crisis. Next time may of course be different…

Have we solved ‘too big to fail’? | vox.

AH appeared in front of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards (video) in November 2012. At the time I was prompted to explain my views on the subject of "ring-fencing"…

Read more of this post