Seth Chalnick

Jamie Dimon: The Man Who Could Save Wall Street

For all the hypocrisy one ever needs to swallow to draw any kind of conclusion about Jamie Dimon and his altruistic motives, check out his Op-Ed, published by the Wall Street Journal on June 29, 2009.

For easy reference, there is a link to it in a SA article I published, which is entitled, “A Letter to Jamie Dimon”, and which reproduces the response I logged in the comment section beneath the Op-Ed itself, along with a dozen or so equally outrageous comments filled with sarcasm and disbelief.

Falling Up: The New Business Model

Hi Reneeg,

In short, there are probably many reasons why banks are keeping properties off the market, though I’m not sure which is the most compelling. Actually I’m not sure anyone is… even the banks themselves.

Here are a few likely reasons:

-So they don’t flood the market with inventory thereby putting downward (spiraling) pressure on home prices.

-So they don’t publicly acknowledge the amount of non-performing assets, which would put downward pressure on their share prices (not to mention, call into question the stability of their very business model, and by extension, the world financial markets too).

-So that the public can "catch their breath" and confidence can be inspired to resume spending. (The government and banks are working together on this one.)

For more in-depth coverage of these questions and more importantly, the very importance of asking these types of questions… check out my SA article called, “Here’s a Statistic I Dare You to Challenge”.

Hope this helps,

sc

Banking Sector: Worst Is Yet to Come

dragonpaw, my friend, I am publishing a SA article dedicated to you :)

Banking Sector: Worst Is Yet to Come

I think Reggie does a good job of intertwining facts and informed opinion.

I rarely do this, but I'm going to cut and paste here a comment I made last night on another thread... which shows another whole perspective of why the worst is yet to come in the financial sector.

You can find the SA article posted by Zacks if you search for ("Mortgage Delinquencies Rising").

My comment addresses a two-fold question posted by another reader... paraphrased as follows: "what is there to worry about my 5yr rate re-set if the rates are lower these days?" and "are option arms really that bad if the rates are lower too?"

First, in your scenario, yes you are better off if rates stay low compared to what will happen when they inevitably climb, but there still exists a major problem for many folks who are making less income than they did at time of purchase or who took on additional debt since then.

When the rate switches to adjustable... about 50% of these loans also switch from i/o to p&i... the other 50% keep the i/o option for five more years. The ones that go p&i now, reset the amortization to 25 yrs... the ones that go p&i in five years will switch at that time to 20yr amortization.

On a loan size of $800k if the rate is the same now as it was at time of purchase, this creates a payment increase (or payment shock as the case may be) of approximately $1,000/mo.

This may be easily absorbed by many households, but the marginal ones will look for other options. They will try to refi, and they will get rejected. Then they will attempt to short sale and only 15% will succeed. The rest will ultimately walk away, thereby creating a downward spiral in home values for the next marginal household.

The option arms are worse because they pay (or accumulate) anywhere from 8% to 11% on their balance just for the option to pay less than interest only. Most of the folks who have these loans have not even been paying the i/o... they have been paying less than i/o. When the negative amortization reaches 115% or 125% (varies by lender) of the original balance, the loan implodes by becoming due. A recipe for disaster.

Meantime, the prime pool is three times larger than subprime and, as this article points out, the average loan size is also larger. The subprime problem loans have not been absorbed into the market yet. They have merely been put on hold. The bankerment has (successfully?) used smoke and mirrors until now… since at least the prime consumers have been paying their monthly payments, but when they start defaulting (and they already have started)... the banks will start to falter. This will create another credit crunch and it will accelerate the problem.

The imminent prime crash is going to make the subprime crash look like a little footnote in history.

A Letter to Jamie Dimon

Actually, "THofler" I can't stand regulation. But if you are going to call me a Nanny, and since Mr. Dimon goes on record as "welcoming unified regulation as a great place to start," then realize that Nanny Regulator implies influence of policy. Perhaps, Nanny Enforcer would be a better choice here, since I am only asking Chase to stick to agreements they already made. And if they are going to break agreements, then at least don’t be hypocritical about it.

You seem big on having people take responsibility for their actions. Why do you seem to make this judgment selectively? And speaking of taking responsibility and having a Nanny to preclude further borrowing… if Mr. Dimon's ideas are so great, then why can't he implement them without the help of congress?

Jamie Dimon Should Know: Protecting the Consumer Is Key

hypocrisy :)

Jamie Dimon Should Know: Protecting the Consumer Is Key

Excellent article. The op-ed you reference is the epitome of hypocracy. I give you credit for being so polite.