Seeking Alpha

rg.williams

rg.williams
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View rg.williams' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The JPMorgan Apologists Of CNBC [View article]
    You really aren't listening very closely, are you? CNBC promotes the conservative Republican talking points throughout the day and evening ... how can you say they are a shill for the Democrats? Big business, big banks, celebrity CEOs --- yes; Democratic positions --- not so much.
    Sep 29, 2013. 02:26 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The replacement for Ben Bernanke as Fed chief looks increasingly to be down to Janet Yellen and Larry Summers, reports the WSJ. It marks a big catch-up for Summers as Yellen for months was thought to hold the front-runner spot by herself. Summers has been a member of the Obama administration so there's a comfort level within the White House, while Yellen has been a key Fed insider for years. [View news story]
    Fun minutes is not what I'm looking for from the Fed.
    Jul 24, 2013. 07:57 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • JPMorgan Chase And The London Whale: Understanding The Hedge That Wasn't [View article]
    In thinking about the JP Morgan Chase situation, three problems come to mind immediately.

    The first is the inability of the managements of these too-big-to-fail institutions to fully comprehend and monitor what is going on.

    The second is the inability of the regulators to fully comprehend what is going on in an entity the size of JP Morgan Chase.

    And third, and most importantly, these too-big-to-fail banks have short institutional memories. They quickly forget what led to their problems the last time it got tough for them. Eventually, they look to the US taxpayer for help when the going is tough (whether in the form of direct assistance or, what we have now, a near-zero interest rate environment to pad their profitability and capital levels at the expense of savers who need a return on their deposits).

    JPMC and its likes (the too-big-to-fail banks) shouldn’t be allowed to act like hedge funds (even though in the current instance the offending transactions look more like bets than hedges against risk).

    I keep seeing comments from various commentators on various websites to the effect that JPMC should be able to do what it likes with its “own” money. But this is either depositors' funds or shareholders’ money (retained earnings). What should really happen when JPMC has excess funds (i.e., those assets which aren't going be used to facilitate the growth of the nation's economy through lending activities) is the following: invest those excess funds temporarily in safe assets (US T-bills come to mind) until they can be deployed into loans or distribute the portion of those funds which are retained earnings to the shareholders who can then choose to invest in whatever asset classes they choose under their own decision regimens. If hedge fund investments are what they want, then let them make conscious decisions to invest in hedge funds, without any Federal (US taxpayer) guarantee of the investment.

    But here we are again with a too-big-to-fail bank losing $2+ billion of its “own” money — and under the leadership of CEO Dimon who is one of those most vocal against limiting the banks’ proprietary trading under proposed regulation/legislation. What did CEO Dimon learn about risk management from our most recent financial crisis? Nothing?

    The shareholders, bondholders and managers of these too-big-to-fail banks should pay the price for “mistakes” such as JP Morgan Chase’s recent fiasco. However, the US taxpayer remains on the hook just as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis.

    It’s time we revisit the separation of real banking activity and everything else that banks want to do. This might eliminate, or at least restrain, much of the burden that is now placed on US taxpayers to correct the “sloppy” and “stupid” decisions (CEO Dimon’s own adjectives) that have been made by the too-big-to-fail banks in the post-Glass-Steagall era.

    May 18, 2012. 09:23 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Jamie Dimon's Failure [View article]
    It’s not enough that one or a few heads roll at JP Morgan Chase. There needs to be a re-thinking about whether commercial banks can expand their “banking” activities to act like hedge funds.

    JPMC and its likes (the too-big-to-fail banks) shouldn’t be allowed to act like hedge funds (even though in the current instance the offending transactions look more lkie bets than hedges against risk).

    I keep seeing comments from various commentators on various websites to the effect that JPMC should be able to do what it likes with its “own” money. But this is shareholders’ money. What should really happen if JPMC has excess funds is the following: distribute those funds to the shareholders who can then choose to invest in whatever asset classes they choose under their own decision regimens. If hedge fund investments are what they want, then let them make conscious decisions to invest in hedge funds, without any Federal (US taxpayer) guarantee of the investment.

    Moreover, here we are again with a too-big-to-fail bank losing $2+ billion of its “own” money — and under the leadership of CEO Dimon who is one of those most vocal against limiting the banks’ proprietary trading under proposed regulation/legislation. What did CEO Dimon learn about risk management from our most recent financial crisis? Nothing?

    The shareholders, bondholders and managers of these too-big-to-fail banks should pay the price for “mistakes” such as JP Morgan Chase’s recent fiasco. However, the US taxpayer remains on the hook just as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis.

    It’s time we revisit the separation of real banking activity and everything else that banks want to do. This might eliminate, or at least restrain, much of the burden that is now placed on US taxpayers to correct the “sloppy” and “stupid” decisions (CEO Dimon’s own adjectives) that have been made by the to-big-to-fail banks in the post-Glass-Steagall era.
    May 14, 2012. 06:48 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • "Meet Matt Zames," tweets ZH of JPMorgan's new CIO. Zames, a Managing Director at JPM, is Chairman of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee - a group made up of Wall Street heavy hitters that, well, advises the Treasury on its borrowing needs. Zames began his career as a MBS trader at LTCM.  [View news story]
    It’s not enough that one or a few heads roll at JP Morgan Chase. There needs to be a re-thinking about whether commercial banks can expand their “banking” activities to act like hedge funds.

    JPMC and its likes (the too-big-to-fail banks) shouldn’t be allowed to act like hedge funds (even though in the current instance the offending transactions look more lkie bets than hedges against risk).

    I keep seeing comments from various commentators on various websites to the effect that JPMC should be able to do what it likes with its “own” money. But this is shareholders’ money. What should really happen if JPMC has excess funds is the following: distribute those funds to the shareholders who can then choose to invest in whatever asset classes they choose under their own decision regimens. If hedge fund investments are what they want, then let them make conscious decisions to invest in hedge funds, without any Federal (US taxpayer) guarantee of the investment.

    Moreover, here we are again with a too-big-to-fail bank losing $2+ billion of its “own” money — and under the leadership of CEO Dimon who is one of those most vocal against limiting the banks’ proprietary trading under proposed regulation/legislation. What did CEO Dimon learn about risk management from our most recent financial crisis? Nothing?

    The shareholders, bondholders and managers of these too-big-to-fail banks should pay the price for “mistakes” such as JP Morgan Chase’s recent fiasco. However, the US taxpayer remains on the hook just as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis.

    It’s time we revisit the separation of real banking activity and everything else that banks want to do. This might eliminate, or at least restrain, much of the burden that is now placed on US taxpayers to correct the “sloppy” and “stupid” decisions (CEO Dimon’s own adjectives) that have been made by the to-big-to-fail banks in the post-Glass-Steagall era..
    May 14, 2012. 03:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • JPMorgan Shareholders: Brace Yourselves For More Potential Losses, Government Scrutiny [View article]
    JP Morgan Chase and its likes (the too-big-to-fail banks) shouldn't be allowed to act like hedge funds (even though the offending transactions don't look much like hedges against risk).

    I keep seeing comments from various commentators on various websites to the effect that JPMC should be able to do what it likes with its "own" money. But truth be told, this is shareholders’ money. What should really happen if JPMC has excess funds is the following: distribute those funds to the shareholders who can then choose to invest in riskier asset classes under their own decision regimens. If hedge fund investments are what they want, then let them make conscious decisions to invest in hedge funds, without any Federal (US taxpayer) guarantee of the investment.

    It seems to me that banks have been granted "franchises" and given preferential treatment to serve the needs of the nation's economy and to facilitate the movement of funds between individuals/entities wanting to have a relatively safe haven for their excess liquidity (aka, depositors) and those needing to borrow those resources. Proprietary trading of the too-big-to-fail banks’ "own" funds has little place in this economic environment, especially after the debacle of the 2007-2008 financial crisis.

    Moreover, one would think after the fiasco of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the too-big-to-fail banks would have learned a lesson about risk management --- but, no, here we are again with JPMC losing $2+ billion of its "own" money --- and under the leadership of CEO Dimon who is one of those most vocal against limiting the banks' proprietary trading under proposed regulation/legislation. (As an aside, the too-big-to-fail banks of vintage 2007-2008, including JPMC, are now even bigger than they were at the beginning of the financial crisis.)

    The shareholders, bondholders and managements of these too-big-to-fail banks should pay the price for "mistakes" such as JP Morgan Chase's recent fiasco. However, the US taxpayer remains on the hook just as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis.

    It's time we revisit the separation of real banking activity and everything else that banks want to do. This might eliminate, or at least restrain, much of the burden that is now placed on US taxpayers to correct the " sloppy” and “stupid" decisions (CEO Dimon’s own adjectives) that have been made by the to-big-to-fail banks in the post-Glass-Steagall era.
    May 14, 2012. 10:26 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • First there was too-big-to-fail. Now there's too-big-to-manage? JPM's surprise $2.3B trading loss is raising questions about whether regulators were asleep at the wheel or are simply not able to keep pace with the complexity of global financial engineering. (regulators scramble on JPM)  [View news story]
    A month ago when this story started to surface, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon called it a "tempest in a teapot." Now he calls the trading strategy employed "sloppy” and “stupid." Which is it? Or, in fact, does CEO Dimon even know what goes on in his "too-big-to-fail" bank?

    Should CEO Dimon be escorted out of JPMC along with his "sloppy” and “stupid" traders and risk-management execs? I'll leave that to the shareholders and board of directors. But, at a minimum, CEO Dimon should resign from the NY Fed if not from JPMC as well.

    As for the regulators, they're the ones who were raising questions about the nature and size of the JPMC derivatives play. Apparently CEO Dimon decided he couldn't stonewall them any longer and now has come clean (sort of).

    One would think after the fiasco of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the too-big-to-fail (“TBTF”) banks would have learned a lesson about risk management --- but, no, here we are again with JP Morgan Chase losing $2+ billion of their "own" money --- and under the leadership of CEO Dimon who is one of those most vocal against limiting the banks' proprietary trading under proposed legislation. (As an aside, the TBTF banks of vintage 2007-2008, including JPMC, are now even bigger than they were at the beginning of the financial crisis.)

    The shareholders, bondholders and managements of these TBTF banks should pay the price for "mistakes" such as JP Morgan Chase's recent fiasco. However, the US taxpayer remains on the hook just as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis.

    Banks have been granted their "franchises" and given preferential treatment to serve the needs of the nation's economy and to facilitate the movement of funds between individuals/entities wanting to have a relatively safe haven for their excess liquidity (aka, depositors) and those needing to borrow those resources. Proprietary trading of the TBTF banks’ "own" funds has little place in this economic environment --- those funds should be distributed to the shareholders who can then choose to invest in riskier asset classes under their own decision regimens. If hedge fund investments are what they want, then let them make conscious decisions to invest in hedge funds, without any Federal (US taxpayer) guarantee of the investment.

    This approach would take much of the burden off US taxpayers to correct the " sloppy” and “stupid" decisions (CEO Dimon’s own adjectives) that have been made by the TBTF banks in the post-Glass-Steagall era.
    May 14, 2012. 03:30 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Three JPMorgan (JPM) execs connected to its $2B trading loss will leave the firm this week, according to the WSJ. Bruno Iksil - "The London Whale" - will be stripped of trading duties.  [View news story]
    Excuse me, but I think JPMC was one of those too-big-to-fail banks that took taxpayers' money in the 2008 financial bailout and they're still efffectively taking it because the Fed is keeping interest rates near zero, which benefits the big banks like JPMC. Also, your comment about Obama is totally off point and inane.
    May 13, 2012. 07:53 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Three JPMorgan (JPM) execs connected to its $2B trading loss will leave the firm this week, according to the WSJ. Bruno Iksil - "The London Whale" - will be stripped of trading duties.  [View news story]
    At a minimum, it makes sense for Dimon to resign from the NY Fed if not from JP Morgan Chase, as well.

    One would think after the fiasco of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the too-big-to-fail banks would have learned a lesson about risk management --- but, no, here we are again with JP Morgan Chase losing $2+ billion of their "own" money --- and under the leadership of CEO Dimon who is one of those most vocal about limiting the banks' proprietary trading under proposed legislation.

    The shareholders, bondholders and managements of these too-big-to-fail banks should pay the price for "mistakes" such as JP Morgan Chase's recent fiasco. However, the banks are in existence to serve the needs of the general economy and to facilitate the movement of funds between individuals/entities wanting to invest monies (aka, depositors) and those needing to borrow those resources. Proprietary trading of their "own" funds has little place --- those funds should be distributed to the shareholders who can then invest in riskier asset classes under their own decision regimen.

    This approach would take much of the burden off US taxpayers to correct the " sloppy” and “stupid" decisions that have been made by the too-big-to-fail banks in the post-Glass-Steagall era.
    May 13, 2012. 04:26 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • March Consumer Confidence: Built On A House Of Cards [View article]
    The consumer confidence numbers were disappointing this morning even though they were in the realm of those expected by the "experts." Also disappointing were the manufacturing activity data out of the Chicago, Dallas and Richmond Fed districts over the past couple of days and the retail sales numbers reported this morning. The only data that seemed reasonably favorable was the institutional investors' confidence number reported by State Street.

    Tomorrow we'll see durables goods orders followed by jobless claims and GDP data on Thursday and personal income/outlays and Chicago PMI numbers on Friday. If these data points leave us unsatisfied, I expect the markets to move toward the 3-5% correction we've been waiting for.
    Mar 27, 2012. 03:37 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boosted By Bernanke, Stocks Overlook Housing Data [View article]
    See my blog for some commentary on data expectations for the rest of the week and, most importantly, setting stop losses to protect your portfolio gains if the proverbial 3-5% market correction raises its ugly head in the next several trading sessions.
    Mar 26, 2012. 05:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Weighing The Week Ahead: Time To Worry About China? [View article]
    " I can assure you..." ---- I think that is true only of death and taxes.
    Mar 25, 2012. 01:55 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Weighing The Week Ahead: Time To Worry About China? [View article]
    Should we be all that concerned about the slowing economic growth in China? There are some "experts" who are now arguing that the US has decoupled (for the time being) from China and the Eurozone.

    Perhaps, the more interesting question is how the US equity markets will react to the continuing US economic recovery for the balance of 2012.
    Mar 25, 2012. 10:51 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Bold Enough To Call A Top? A Look At The Major Indices [View article]
    You're in the company of Joe Granville ---- see http://bit.ly/wwk1XE#o...
    Jan 28, 2012. 02:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Iconic Reagan-era economist Arthur Laffer pops up to provide guidance to Kansas lawmakers - telling them (no surprise) they should keep cutting taxes to find prosperity. Laffer unleashed: "If you tax people who work and you give money to people who don’t work; do I need to say the next sentence? Don’t be surprised if you find a lot of people not working."  [View news story]
    "This is not really debatable." Clearly, your statement is ridulous in and of itself - because I'm debating it.
    The people to whom you refer are the exception to the general proposition that the vast majority of us want to work and self-actualize our abilities.
    Jan 21, 2012. 09:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
65 Comments
91 Likes