Seeking Alpha

Jamie Dimon is threatening to leave JPMorgan (JPM) if stripped of the Chairman role, sources say.

Jamie Dimon is threatening to leave JPMorgan (JPM) if stripped of the Chairman role, sources say.
Comments (82)
  • Everybody wins!
    11 May 2013, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • How about reading between the lines. Maybe BB and him will leave together?


    A planned exit to the doors before we all know what will be happening? After all he was a pawn for the Fed !
    11 May 2013, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • That's just a foolish comment. Dimon may have a massive ego but he is the best of the "big bank" leaders and unless you are short JPM, there is absolutely NO WAY you want him to leave. As #Continental Kid said below, you'd probably see a 10% sell off immediately upon the news being released.


    As someone once said, "be careful what you wish for because you may get it".
    11 May 2013, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • What an ego-maniac.
    11 May 2013, 05:09 PM Reply Like
  • The Honorable Jon Corzine threatened to leave MF Global if he was not allowed to invest heavily in Euro Debt. The Board allowed it, and the rest is history.


    What is it with these guys and the kindergarten mentality of: It's my way or I'm taking my ball and going home. ?
    12 May 2013, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • You too seem to have made an egotistical statement sir. Wimps do not make for good leaders. Stay strong in your opinion, that may be your only trade in greatness.
    12 May 2013, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • say what you will but if Dimon leaves ...JPM trades 45 bucks a share or lower....
    11 May 2013, 05:12 PM Reply Like
  • How sad. What a negative critique of Dimon and his managerial skills. A basic managerial skill is developing a bench of high caliber talent to run the organization. CK, by your recognition of the market reaction (45 bucks lower) this is a clear statement of how poorly Dimon has managed JPM. Yet you want him to continue?
    12 May 2013, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • You would have to had paid zero attention to what happened in make your statement.....JPM...did not need bailing out ...but was forced to take the that all banks would look equally prevent bank runs on C and BAC....some how Dimon kept his head about credit risks when other banks failed.....the market pays a premium for his leadership....if he leaves the vacuum will knock JPM down 4 to 5 points in a matter of days....if he stays possibilty of 50 or higher as uncertainty is resolved......we will watch and see....
    12 May 2013, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • Ah, Jamie, we hardly knew ye.


    Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.
    11 May 2013, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • You have no clue. Dimon is the best banking CEO in the country...even with the past year figured in...
    11 May 2013, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • That's true. ego issues might have been a problem with the other bank's CEO's who leveraged to buy mortgage junk and saw nothing of the risks. Dimon made sure to reduce JPM's exposure to subprime, even when other banks were reporting massive gains from it. What kind of foolish shareholders would say we hardly knew ye??
    12 May 2013, 06:54 AM Reply Like
  • Anyone foolish enough to say "we hardky knew ye" about Jamie Dimon leaving is obviously NOT a shareholder. Short perhaps, or maybe just a left wing political stooge, but not a true shareholder. No shareholder, myself included, wants Dimon to leave JPM. The fact that he's attraced so many policial enemies show you just how good he truly is.
    12 May 2013, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • If Jamie Dimon is the best banking CEO in America, then it is a sad state of affairs, to say the least.


    He has shown the ability to throw his people under the bus to keep himself clean.


    When is the last time "the best" has taken one for the team?


    High-character guy.
    12 May 2013, 09:34 AM Reply Like
  • If Dimon is good, then why the concern about his leaving? Apparently he has not developed a bench to manage the firm. Are you suggesting that JPM relies on one person for continued success? If so, why is that a positive for the organization?
    12 May 2013, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • Wow. This thread is full of truly stupid comments.


    The presence of a great leader does not mean that they have not developed a "bench to manage the firm".


    Steve Jobs had a great bench of talent, but his death certainly hurt AAPL. Warren Buffet has been recruiting top talent for years but he will be hard to replace. Dimon - unique among mega bank CEOs - managed to position and steer JPM through the financial crisis. He is a unique bank CEO for a number of reasons.


    I don't think JPM needs Jamie Dimon to succeed, but they are certainly better off with him.
    12 May 2013, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • You beat me to the punch with your comment. When I retired from Chase Manhattan Bank after 36 years, the next day they were probably saying, Tony who? We can all be replaced. There was one Bank official with 45 yrs. of service, he died on the job,yes he was replaced. I'll said it again, don't let the door hit you in th butt on the way out.
    13 May 2013, 03:44 AM Reply Like
  • Jamie Dimon is JPM. He embodies the firm and, while the trading loss was substantial, the firm was and is solidly profitable, and will remain so under his leadership. Sadly, in an era nearly completely void of solid, strong corporate leadership, Mr. Dimon may be forced to yield to social and political pressure completely unrelated to his ability to lead. As an investor in the company his departure would almost certainly negatively impacted.


    In an environment of 7.5% unemployment, with some 47mm on food stamps, and 47mm more awaiting government administered health care, one scarcely can imagine that JPM, its investors. and even corporate America in total - is better served without him.
    11 May 2013, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • This of course would be the response expected of a megalomaniac. For if in fact Mr. Dimon does indeed suffer from this type of personality disorder it would be: all about Jamie and only Jamie. A healthy personality, while stung initially by the effective rebuke, would adapt and then focus on better executing his or her more limited responsibility for the good of the organization and self. After all, the CEO would still be primarily responsible for the success of the organization and would benefit financially if the leadership restructuring contributed to the overall success of the organization. Ironically, Mr. Dimon's refusal to accept a diminished role, if true, should serve as a sufficient reason for the board to let him go. Even megalomaniacs can be replaced. Moreover, for the long term health of the organization, it is probably a safe bet that megalomaniacs should be replaced.
    11 May 2013, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • After repeated references to megalomaniacs, it's still hard to argue with success. We're also watching the mythology of "too big to fail" repeated and repeated and... These are days of a trend toward Boards of Directors showing more muscle, and they aren't necessarily better equipped to run successful mega-corporations. It is hard to argue with success. If Jamie Dimon does in fact move on, most JPM investors will be moving on, too, while the new powers are tested, devaluing the stock significantly. You think Ford doesn't shudder to think of Mulally's retirement? as usual, jmho.
    11 May 2013, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • Commander Spock is throwing a temper tantrum right now because Captain Kirk did not lose his unwinnable game. Dimon is out styling everyone on an epic level.


    The Bruno Iksil thing was a disaster and Dimon did exactly what a leader is suppose to do; he kept the ship a float and fixed the problem. Most people get medals for this not court martials and punishments. Jamie Dimon is justified in leaving because these people are acting like a bunch of *not politically correct word*. Unexpected @!#$ happened and he fixed it.


    If his board mutinies Jamie Dimon should resign because that type of behavior from teammates is unacceptable and impairs the person's ability to lead. If you cannot trust the people behind you (and they do not trust you), then you sure as hell won't be prepared for what is in front of you. If JPM's investors and board won't protect their boss then they do not deserve him. He cannot lead them. I do not understand how people do not understand this.


    If Dimon resigns it is bad for JPM shareholders (I am one), JPM, and virtually everyone.
    11 May 2013, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • I'm curious how all these "Dimon is a megalomaniac" posters would react if they had been doing a job for many years and their boss came in and told them they were taking 50% of their responsibility away one day? As I mentioned above, Dimon may have a massive ego, but he is without question the best big bank leader in the country and to think he wouldn't get snatched up almost immediately by some competitor is foolishly naive. My personal opinion is that only JPM shorts (or foolhardy idiots) want this to actually happen.


    Also, the last time I checked, just because you have an ego doesn't make you some kind of personal failure. If that was the case, pretty much every CEO in the country would have to get fired.
    11 May 2013, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • What is more arrogant?


    1. A CEO of the largest bank and most successful bank in the world that may leave as interference from outsiders who don't have half of the experience and knowledge becomes a ridiculous distraction


    2. Or people commenting on his job performance who have absolutely no clue about banking, running a large corporation or much of anything
    11 May 2013, 11:59 PM Reply Like
  • This comment is well thought out and articulated. It does however leave out one important fact. Any corporate executive - CEO especially - has difficulty moving backward. Human nature simply does not make this an easy thing to do. Ask any high performing executive, at virtually any level, if this is easy- especially when money is not an issue. To a man, all will tell you that is not about the workload, but rather the mental capacity to overcome the feeling of the vote of no confidence from supervisors in the organization and the feeling of loss (ESP for strong-willed leaders like Jamie Dimon).
    12 May 2013, 12:04 AM Reply Like
  • My kids gave me a vote of no confidence quite often. Then they came back several years later and told me I was right about a lot of things. Confidence votes need to come from people that know what they are talking about and have the most skin in the game. That is stockholders and board members. If they don't have confidence then Jamie should leave. Everyone else is relatively irrelevant.


    Supervisors don't report to the board and to a person never will. Any successor will come from the outside.


    In the final analysis Jame brought Bank One out of the ditch and guided JPMC through the biggest financial crisis since the 1930's and they came out stronger than most if not all other banks. If that does not carry the day then people have lost focus on what is important and it is about form not substance. But again that is up to the stockholders to decide what they want.


    They have a huge challenge if they change leaders. And that is they will not find anyone better to run that organization.
    12 May 2013, 12:46 AM Reply Like
  • Jamie Dimon is not a megalomaniac. After all, it's not bragging if you can do it, right? Dimon has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the best bank CEO is America, if not the world. Of course the London Whale loss was a big one, but it was nothing more than a speed bump compared to the meltdown suffered by other banks just a few years ago - a near depression that Dimon navigated JPM through without missing a beat.


    Dimon has done a trememndous job at JPM and has consistently delivered enormous profits to the company, provided jobs for tens of thousands of people, and created incredible value for shareholders - even in the quarter in which they wrote off the London Whale loss! His leadership is exactly what we seem to be missing in Washington DC these days, which is perhaps the reason he has so many policial enemies.


    And besides, given what's in the news today about IRS political intervention and the mstakes made in Benghazi, who are our politicians to be pointing fingers atanyone? IMHO, if one wants to see some REAL megalomanics, one needs only look south of Wall Street down in Washington DC.
    12 May 2013, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • Correct. If they strip Dimon of a portion of his current role he wants to leave he would be hired by a huge bank or banking enterprise (like Blackstone) for a very high profile job within the day. Would be stupid decision by JPM.
    12 May 2013, 11:17 PM Reply Like
  • No corporation should be beholden to an individual, and must have a succession plan prepared.
    11 May 2013, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • Spot on! As I read the ongoing lavish praise for Dimon, it becomes apparent to me that JPM must be weak if it 'needs' Dimon so badly.
    12 May 2013, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • AAPL and Steve Jobs ring a bell...?..I guess you are a much better manger of world finances at your firm.....where was that you work...?
    12 May 2013, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • That does not mean we should manufacture a crisis at JPM and throw out the best bank CEO in the world.
    12 May 2013, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • Strikes me that the politicians who claim that no corporation should be beholden to any individual ought to eat their own cooking and adopt term limits.


    Crickets is all I hear.
    13 May 2013, 12:25 AM Reply Like
  • I am not sure the final chapter on Dimon is yet written.


    There were guys like Jack Welch, Sandy Weill, and that guy from AIG who drove great companies into the ground--all the while they got folks to think they were the greatest managers ever to walk across the face of the earth. Turns out they took an entire economy down the drain, while they made themselevs filthy rich.


    Too many little things..and not so little, really, are starting to pop up under Dimon's watch. This guy could turn out to be just as evil as the guys which society previously lauded as having been 'great managers'. Dimon comes across as being very believable and sincere...the old Warren Buffet 'aw shucks', but then we have the London Whale, the commodity trading, the gold puke, the silver corner...and????? You don't just lose billions and get away with saying it was just small peanuts and i was too busy with other things.


    If i was the board and my management made a threat like Dimon has supposedly just made, i think his office would be empty on Monday. Nobody is THAT good.
    11 May 2013, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • lol.
    11 May 2013, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • Last time I checked the cost basis on my JPM stock, Dimon hasn't exactly "drove the business into the ground". Dimon leaving would be bad for shareholders. Period. Don't think so? Just wait.
    11 May 2013, 10:45 PM Reply Like
  • Peanuts.
    12 May 2013, 12:00 AM Reply Like
  • How silly. Perhaps even I could look good if I was handed free money from the Fed and leveraged it up by say 10 or 15 times. Simply buying government bonds at such a leverage would deliver similar results. By the way, how many lay-offs did JPM announce last week?
    12 May 2013, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Criticizing a business leader for bending the "system" to benefit their company is just plain ridiculous (maybe a better word would be "hypicritical"). There is a name for that kind of behavior. It's called CAPITALISM.


    Also, in case it comes as a completely surprise, it isn't the responsibility of ANY company in a free market to ensure full employment. Their responsibility is to create a profit for the shareholders by ANY legal and ethical means possible. I submit that Dimon has done a very good job of that over some very difficult economic stretches.
    12 May 2013, 07:33 PM Reply Like
  • The financial world has been shedding jobs since 2008 because government is bent on reducing their revenues so expenses need to come down and it's goodbye employees.


    This is how we create jobs in America. Where are all the green jobs by the way?
    13 May 2013, 12:28 AM Reply Like
  • If he's not happy being just the CEO, maybe he should resign and spend more time with his family. We gave him a pass on the London Whale but the price must be paid: give up the Chairmanship. Either accept the new role or move on.
    11 May 2013, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • Nooooooooo the rattle and the pram have been seperated. Take a running jump.
    11 May 2013, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • One of the greatest talents that executive have is convincing everyone that they have some special talent and that no one can replace them.
    11 May 2013, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • Shareholder democracy at work.
    11 May 2013, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • one of the big myths of corporate america is that of the irreplaceable CEO. to think this of a banker, no less, is laughable. don't take my word for it....listen to what charlie munger had to say about it:


    "you can't trust bankers to govern themselves....they're like heroin addicts."


    there is only one such name who ever deserved the description in modern times and that's steve jobs. even walt disney, who was the steve jobs of his time in terms of his imagination and vision, was replaceable. what did disney and jobs have in common? they built their companies from the ground up. what has dimon ever built? he's a hired more, no less.


    if i were a board member and dimon actually made such a childish threat i'd do my damndest to get him fired.
    11 May 2013, 07:30 PM Reply Like
  • Jamie's management style allows for small infractions but does not allow for major loss or incompetent events like the London whale and subjecting the bank to regulatory scrutiny.
    Someone has to pay with loss of compensation, their jobs or both (as was the case with the London loss).


    Lately there has been enough financial, managerial and regulatory issues and in general negative press which suggests the pristine environment shareholders have come to expect of the bank have become suspect.


    Jamie should accept the consequences and yield on the issue treating himself as he would have treated his subordinate/s for subjecting the bank to regulatory reviews and shareholder dissatisfaction. It is time to focus and fix what is going wrong. He has held both positions for some time and it is not clear he has been effective in his execution.The CEO position is enough responsibility for any one person.


    It is a reasonable request and outcome.


    11 May 2013, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • Maybe they have an opening at the National Bank of Greece? NBG needs new talent!
    11 May 2013, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • Great manager. I voted to keep both.
    11 May 2013, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • To replace Dimon needs a person with not less than the skills, Dimon have. If not, then the share price would fall for sure.


    I am still not clear why the Board members are so worried to have separate chairman for the Board when they supposedly work transparently. 
    I wish he remains as CEO anyway.
    11 May 2013, 08:21 PM Reply Like
  • JUMP !
    11 May 2013, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • I met Jamie at a town hall meeting, soon after he arrived, at JPM. He is a very dynamic individual, who quickly assess the situation. For example, two years after Chase and JPM merged, the respective Private Bank Divisions had not successfully merged, The failure to complete the integration timely cost the Firm millions.


    In addition, after installing his had-picked management team, it was discovered that the Private Bank had spent more than $50 million on the failed implementation of a multi-currency system. Needless to say, that management team was dismissed and the system was not implemented. It took less than 6 months to determine what needed to be done. Where the prior management team had been in the process for more than 4 years.


    To lose such a dedicated and dynamic individual would be a mistake as was the old Private Bank Management Team in its decision of the multi-currency. .
    11 May 2013, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • It's a slippery slope that you walk when you think that such a successful and dynamic individual would not have an ego. Accept it, for men who have great accomplishments, are in the public eye, and in demand for their opinions, as much as Jamie Diamond is; it is only reasonable. Compare the stock price of JPM to Citi, MS, BOA, and AIG. Only MS and BOA did not affect a reverse stock split to stay on the NYSE. And the price of BOA and MS is not close to their respective pre-2008 stock prices. Only JPM is near its pre-2008 stock and without a reverse stock split. Wake-up folks, was there a gamble? Yes, did it break the Bank? Not likely.
    11 May 2013, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • Stock will tank big time.
    11 May 2013, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • Not Gonna Happen.
    12 May 2013, 12:38 AM Reply Like
  • If Dimon is JPM, and "the best CEO in the country", how come he did not say a word when Madoff was clearly using JPM for the activities that ended in a life sentence (considering the age at which he was sentenced)?


    Dimon got away with this and not only is own honesty is never questioned, but the administration (the Treasury) and the FED won't make a move before consulting with him (and other big banks CEOs).


    Dimon is not only JPM's CEO, he his the US CEO.


    Has more power than the President.
    This is what the country has turned into: a plutocracy, lead from behind the scene by the richest and for the richest, with 2 puppets on the scene and under the lights: the President and Bernanke.
    The puppets must try to obey the country CEO without the 99% noticing.


    When a scandal makes too much noise, the bank (not the CEO) receives a small slap on the hand, and everything goes on as before.
    12 May 2013, 02:45 AM Reply Like
  • well put
    12 May 2013, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • I think the statement by Dimon is almost irrelevant-- he will be elected to the Chairmanship regardless, as it appears he has secured enough large shareholders. Given that knowledge, it's pretty easy to make such a bold statement.


    I'm pretty sure this subject was brought up for vote by a shareholder... so those who think there is something going on within the board to force Dimon out are just wrong. Proposals to separate Chairman and CEO roles have been fairly common occurrences the past few years, so it shouldn't be a surprise that such a vote was coming to JPM.


    As a practice our group on voting for separate people for CEO and Chairmanship roles as a rule-- for the simple reason that an independent Chairman is much more likely to provide proper checks and balances on the executive team. In the case if JPM, we actually did vote to split the two roles, even though we did not expect the vote to eventually pass.


    There's little doubt in my mind that Jamie Dimon is a great CEO. But by doing so, he becomes only a so-so Chairman precisely because he wants more control and less oversight. Now, that has indeed served investors well though the years... but JPM has earned some black eyes in terms of reputation as well.
    12 May 2013, 03:53 AM Reply Like
  • Many points are being made regarding this, but none of the reader comments are touching on the one obvious point: in an ideal shareholder world/corporate structure, the CEO and COB are separated. For those who don't know, the role of the COB, and the board itself, is to oversee and monitor the CEO. Now without a doubt the board culture over the last couple of decades has blurred the lines, but for years, whenever I get my proxy card, if there is an item about separating the two roles, I vote in favor. Even if stripped of the COB role, Jamie Dimon is STILL CEO. He is still in charge.
    Think about the US gov't, as corrupted as it may be. Our Founding Fathers created a framework of checks and balances for a reason, and the separation of CEO/COB is the same. No one would accept the POTUS demanding to be the Speaker of the House as well. Jamie Dimon may well be an excellent CEO, and the stock may drop if he quits, but JPM is TBTF and the gov't will never let anything happen to it. With a salary of $10s of millions per year, if being CEO isn't sufficient for him, then I am sure someone else will take the position.
    12 May 2013, 04:45 AM Reply Like
  • There is a larger problem with COB and CEO roles. With a strong COB the CEO becomes more of a COO. And in addition the COB takes on more liability as directing the bank and making decisions. No COB gets paid enough to take on that risk.


    The COB role is a mess in modern industry.
    13 May 2013, 12:36 AM Reply Like
  • anyone who reads Zerohedge knows this is all being done to pave the way for Matt Zames.
    12 May 2013, 06:57 AM Reply Like
  • I agree with the meglomaniac comments. If you are in the camp of just making money regardless of the personal and country damage this company has done for years then thats OK.


    But I dont follow that evil ethic.


    After all pornography and prostitution makes a lot of people wealthy but who wants to be part of that same with drugs filthy businesses should be shunned to let the good ethical honest businesses flourish


    My main horror is the fact that JPM use their own clients money to bet against their own clients and this was amazingly found to be LEGAL>\! Oh give us a break from bad business practice and put JPM out of business and start at the TOP!
    12 May 2013, 08:13 AM Reply Like
  • Screw dimon, he'll be a fine addition in the current administrations cabinet.
    12 May 2013, 08:57 AM Reply Like


    JPM has not been a good investment for the last 15 years.


    Much like T, GE, INTC, MSFT, and many other "DOW blue chips," the shares of JPM have been a flatline investment. Mr. Dimon had a great mentor, Mr. Weil... that does not mean he has done anything for JPM shareholders. I think he keeps both jobs and the stock does very little for the next 10 years. : )
    12 May 2013, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • Not if you bought JPM at $16 a share in 2009 or $28 a share in 2011 or $32 in 2012. To compare the performance over the last 15 years of ANY bank as "normal" is pretty much missing the point completely.
    12 May 2013, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • The people who argue against Dimon....would defend the IRS or Obama on any argument....after all the government hates Dimon...because... one he is very powerful...secondly he controls large amounts of money ......the government does not like competition...and hes smarter than them thirdly....thats why
    12 May 2013, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • Not at all. OK, 10 years then...I was just giving you the return since Mr. Dimon became the "leader" of the bank. Under his watch, shareholders have not made any money. That is not a great legacy. But go ahead buy it and see what happens. I could cherry pick dates on almost anything and say "I could have made money." I am in the business of looking at returns over long term cycles versus benchmarks. All emotions. JPM is too big, in my opinion. If back to even after all these years, I would jettison the shares.
    12 May 2013, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • Two points:


    Banking is the one place that government is committed to removing revenues from through hundreds of rules and regulations. No other industry has that headwind and if they did they would be struggling to show major gains.


    Secondly given the environment compare JPM's stock price to other competitors and draw conclusions. Throw in Indy Mac, Downey Savings, Bear, Lehman, BAC, C and a long list of others and relative performance is rather obvious. It is superior.
    13 May 2013, 12:33 AM Reply Like
  • Those comments supporting Mr. Dimon are na├»ve and delusional. It's pretty easy being a successful CEO of a too big to fail bank when the fed and the full taxing authority of the government have your back. As so many pundits have repeated, "in an environment of near zero interest rates, even a banker can figure out how to make money".
    12 May 2013, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • No one person is irreplaceable; if Dimon thinks so he would be fraught with delusions.
    12 May 2013, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • Would be good for a 10% pop.
    12 May 2013, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • I'm a gambling man. I'll give you 10-1 odds you are absolutely and completely wrong on that prediction. I say JPM drops $5 a share within the first 2 business days if Dimon leaves.
    12 May 2013, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • JPM is up 3% on the week (after having a horrid last 3 month), what is that telling you? Huh?
    13 May 2013, 04:08 AM Reply Like
  • The stock is up almost 40% in the last year. I guess if you pick-and-chose ANY time frame to fit your argument, you'll look like a genius. Put your money where your mouth is and go long JPM if and when the announcement is made that Dimon is leaving. We'll see where this ends up ahead then.
    13 May 2013, 02:36 PM Reply Like
  • So, Mr. Dimon, I have heard that you are threatening to leave JP Morgan if you are stripped of the Chairman role. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. There may be a job opening for you at Wells Fargo.
    12 May 2013, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • No thank you.
    12 May 2013, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • Please, there is not one company in the U.S. that could not survive without their current CEO. If it couldn't that in itself smacks of the real failure of the incumbent.


    If it wasn't for Bernanke, JPM would have folded along with GS, AIG, BA and the rest that caused the catastrophic unemployment that still lingers in the U.S.


    When they write checks paying back the misery of the unemployed, only then they can be anointed as saviors.


    JPM is no Morgan Guaranty Trust.
    12 May 2013, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • I don't think anyone here is saying JPM wouldn't survive if Dimon left. Obviously it would. However, it seems like people are trying to fix (or punish maybe?) something that isn't broken because they hate bankers of any ilk. Frankly, I consider that idiotic.
    12 May 2013, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • Lots of talent at WFC that will take the CEO job.
    13 May 2013, 04:13 AM Reply Like
  • @ Wis- Let's hope for a $10 drop. Everyone wins if JPM goes down to $32, because the shareholders will buy more, and people like me will start a new position. I was hoping for a drop below $30 last year to buy in. Missed a golden opportunity. When we have a correction JPM will go to the low $30s again and I will buy in. 6 months later it will be $42-$45 again! Great cyclical stock to ride up, sell and buy back near the bottom.
    12 May 2013, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • Truth. A trading vehicle...for generations.

    12 May 2013, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • Let him leave. Obviously he wants to govern himself and doesn't believe in checks and balances, pun intended. If he's COB, he'll continue to rob JPM blind. Anybody else would be gone on a 5 billion dollar bad gamble!
    13 May 2013, 12:06 AM Reply Like
  • Lets face it, anyone holding dual CEO/Chairman positions cannot do both jobs. A CEO doesn't have time for a 2nd job. We all know the Chairman title just allows them to maintain power. If someone wants to argue that he CAN do both jobs then I will just point to $5.5 billion trading loss that occurred under Dimon's watch.
    There is no question this should be split. But when you have all the power and the shareholders have none and you get to name your own paycheck - who would want to give that up? I wish I could LEGALLY STEAL from shareholders too.
    13 May 2013, 12:12 AM Reply Like
  • And the Chairman of the Board is suppose lead the watch dogging of the CEO. Having both rules is like being the judge and the foreman of the jury for the same trial.
    13 May 2013, 04:12 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)