Seeking Alpha

The SEC has said that JPMorgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC) and Morgan Stanley (MS), as well as...

The SEC has said that JPMorgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC) and Morgan Stanley (MS), as well as Citigroup (C), don't have to hold votes at their annual meetings on motions that would require them to consider "extraordinary transactions," including being broken up. The proposals came from labor and religious groups, with a motion from the AFL-CIO, for example, saying that JPM's $6B whaling loss had shown that it had become too big to manage.
Comments (10)
  • This is not good. All shareholder proposals should be put to a vote. Most of them are voted down by a large majority and the way things are now, voting is so rigged in director's and management's favor that in most instances they control. The best vote any of us have is to sell and vote with our feet.
    14 Mar 2013, 06:46 AM Reply Like
  • I agree 100%.
    14 Mar 2013, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • No one man should wield the amount of power that these directors have. It will always end with corruption, as history has show us time and time again. But we give them that power with our quiet assent of their actions. We can remove ourselves from their crimes through the corporate anonymity, as we silently reap the benefits of their bad behavior, or we can take the higher ground and remove ourselves and our approval of their actions by investing elsewhere.
    14 Mar 2013, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • This is good news!
    14 Mar 2013, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • Well, as Jamie Diamon put it to one analyst who was questioning his decisions: "That's why I'm richer than you." The point is that that is the sentiment. In other words, "You don't like it FO!"


    Mayo: I think what I hear UBS saying in the presentation is that if I’m an affluent customer I’ll feel a lot better going to UBS if they have 13.5 (percent) capital ratio than another big bank with a 10 percent ratio. Do you agree with that?


    Dimon: You would go to UBS and not JPMorgan?


    Mayo: I didn’t say that. That’s their argument.


    Dimon: That’s why I’m richer than you.


    Source: Forbes (03-03-2013)
    15 Mar 2013, 05:32 AM Reply Like
  • My comment is: Who would you want to run your business? Jamie Dimon or our congress people? I rest my case.
    15 Mar 2013, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • Gussieboy - Are those are only choices? In a planet full of ambitious, hardworking intelligent people, that's it? I don't think so.


    Here is the report by Gretchen Morganstern from the LA Times:


    "JPMorgan Chase. The financial system, thanks to dissembling traders and bumbling regulators, is at greater risk than you know."


    As the massive fraud keeps coming to the forefront, we still have the delusional cheerleaders who still come on board with the thinking that as long as you can "show" a profit, it doesn't matter what kind of crash you are pushing up the road.
    17 Mar 2013, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • EGalindo, you site Gretchen Morganstern? She is one of the most inept people who writes about Wall Street. She has been a bumbling idiot for for as long as I remember. Say 35 years or so. She just doesn't get it. Thanks for your comment. Gussieboy.
    18 Mar 2013, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • How about Matt Taibbi? I suppose he is an idiot, too? Please, if you have something intelligent to say or some proof that her article is unfounded, by all means cite it. We are supposed to be adults here. Otherwise save the name-calling for the schoolyard.
    19 Mar 2013, 08:33 AM Reply Like
  • Ref:


    "The Senate report found, among other things, that JPMorgan reported inaccurate information, misleading investors and regulators to cover up their growing losses. The report says the bank "used those more favorable prices" in order to avoid reporting losses."
    19 Mar 2013, 08:50 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)