No bank - including JPMorgan (JPM) - is too big to fail, Jamie Dimon writes in a Washington Post...


No bank - including JPMorgan (JPM) - is too big to fail, Jamie Dimon writes in a Washington Post op-ed this morning. "The term 'too big to fail' must be excised from our vocabulary,'" he says. Dimon's against artificially limiting the size of institutions, but says we need to develop a system that ensures even the biggest bank can be allowed to fail in a way that does not put taxpayers or the broader economy at risk.
From other sites
Comments (8)
  • frosty
    , contributor
    Comments (720) | Send Message
     
    And I thought Jamie was a smart guy. He should realize that 'too big to fail' is a common use expression for 'so big that the taxpayers have to bail it out or the nation or world will face very severe financial difficulties'. Someone please pass this on to Mr. Dimon.

     

    Such banks (like his) should be made so that such a consequence cannot happen again as happened in the early 30's and again in '08-'09. This can be accomplished either by breaking them apart into smaller pieces or by much more restrictive regulation - preferably both so that bank meltdowns won't recur.
    13 Nov 2009, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6356) | Send Message
     
    If we can't artificially limit the size of banks can't we at least have the bank grow organically rather than through merger?
    13 Nov 2009, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    The only thing we need to do is make reasonable capitalization and leverage rules. If these are right they protect the taxpayers, because its the bank owners that have to maintain the capital. Cheap money is what caused this problem: cheap money to unqualified home buyers and cheap money to banks for speculation.

     

    The government knows this, but the propaganda merchants do not want the taxpayers to know the truth. The government failed in its oversight, Greenspan (married to a major media personality) was only concerned about his legacy of growth and will do anything, with complicity from the drive-by-media, to keep the truth from being known.
    13 Nov 2009, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5123) | Send Message
     
    right now they have cheap money..who needs to loan when you can borrow at .25%...and buy treasuries and get a 3% return....by doing nothing...and nothing means loaning money
    13 Nov 2009, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (2649) | Send Message
     
    Too big to fail bad. . . but except my bank. His stockholders didn't do very well. Most of them thought he was doing old fashioned banking until the crisis and reality hit. Then he cut the dividend and the stock plunged to as low as $15.00. It is only when it became apparent that the government wasn't going to let Jamie's bank go down (a political decision only insiders were privy to) did the stock recover. Meanwhile all the suckers who had invested for a safe dividend had sold at a big loss. Thanks Jamie.
    13 Nov 2009, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5123) | Send Message
     
    It was a transfer of wealth...and now they have it...we as small investers knew they were trash and did not invest...we did not know the government behind closed doors was doing what they were doing...hence they get all the benefit of the uptick in the stock price..where we were to smart to invest in the trash....they are worth billions more now..we are not
    13 Nov 2009, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • elliotz
    , contributor
    Comments (251) | Send Message
     
    I do not think you read the op-ed. He is saying to big to fail should not exist period end of story. He just disagres with breaking up the banks into smaller pieaces as do I. Again your facts are wrong his stockholders fared much better then most in the downturn, especally those who like myself bought on the way down( my cost avg came down to 17.78 per share). JP was never in trouble and JP will come out the strongest bank when this credit crunch comes to and end. The credit crunch was the regulators and the goverments fault. They are they once who gave banks free reign but for some reason they do not want to admit this( i guess those seats in congress are to comftable for them and they sure as hell do not want to loose em).

     

    On Nov 13 09:40 AM zorrow wrote:

     

    > Too big to fail bad. . . but except my bank. His stockholders didn't
    > do very well. Most of them thought he was doing old fashioned banking
    > until the crisis and reality hit. Then he cut the dividend and the
    > stock plunged to as low as $15.00. It is only when it became apparent
    > that the government wasn't going to let Jamie's bank go down (a political
    > decision only insiders were privy to) did the stock recover. Meanwhile
    > all the suckers who had invested for a safe dividend had sold at
    > a big loss. Thanks Jamie.
    13 Nov 2009, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
     
    Translated:

     

    "Ok, you bailed us out this time, but please, please, please don't break us up. Next time you can really, really, really, let us go under as we should have this time. We pinky swear it!!"
    13 Nov 2009, 06:13 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs