This is basically a perfect example of how "capitalism" in the US is not capitalism anymore. No corporation should be insulated from the financial downside of its incompetence. In the real world, Chase should have gone under or at least lost a hundred billion in market cap, but instead they are in cahoots with government regulators to limit their downside and protect their upside from what is their fault.<p>This is not capitalism! And it's painful to see how this hybrid growth-corporatist model trump true innovation and economic progress. It's an insult to free market economics and democracy at the same time.<p>Rant over. One addendum: jail time isn't the answer. Putting an executive in a minimum security prison for 5 years just lets another one take his place. CEOs aren't afraid of jail time, they're afraid of losing money. If you let banks <i>fail</i> who deserve it then creative destruction will ensure stronger, better and safer banks in the future. Capitalism can't survive without profit <i>and</i> loss working hand in hand.
The fact that this has been going on sickens me. The entire US infrastructure is corrupt (actually probably the entire world's infrastructure). There was the article a few weeks ago about how the Federal Reserve was in bed with the likes of Goldman Sachs, and a whistleblower came out and still nothing was done.<p>But what do we do as a generation of people that don't want this? The closest thing to come was Occupy Wall Street, but that fizzled out. Is there a way to organize ourselves and vote in blocks to get rid of these current politicians and elect a new generation that hopefully isn't as corrupt? Yes, I know, it's a pipe dream.
i remember hearing about the settlement on the radio and was like Great! At least some investors will get compensated for being scammed... then I read this:<p>"Couple this with the fact that the bank's share price soared six percent on news of the settlement, adding more than $12 billion in value to shareholders, and one could argue Chase actually made money from the deal. What's more, to defray the cost of this and other fines, Chase last year laid off 7,500 lower-level employees. Meanwhile, per-employee compensation for everyone else rose four percent, to $122,653. But no one made out better than Dimon. The board awarded a 74 percent raise to the man who oversaw the biggest regulatory penalty ever, upping his compensation package to about $20 million."<p>Just amazing
I hate the idea of giving these banks special treatment to keep them solvent, but if that's really necessary, fine. But there's no reason we can't lock up all the executives and fine them personally.
<i>”The kid-gloves approach that the DOJ and the SEC take with Wall Street is as inexplicable as it is indefensible,” says Dennis Kelleher</i><p>Well said. Here's hoping this will result in some civil suits against individuals at Citi, if not actual jail time.
Unfortunately, we can't do anything to fix the past. It is clear that there was a cover up. The number of banking execs that have gone to jail can be rounded down to zero.<p>I wish our politicians / president would grow a pair and do what is best for the American public and break up the big banks and remove them from political donations / lobbying.
It's not as bad as it could be. JPMorgan spent 9 billion dollars to keep her off the witness stand. But it seems that they never seriously tried to kill her.<p>Note well: I am <i>not</i> advocating murder! It's just that, since things didn't go that way, things aren't yet as bad as the most cynical of us assume they are.
Is there any way Holder and the people that orchestrated the cover up can be charged with corruption and negligence?<p>I'm all for criminal consequences for the bank executives, but it sounds like we also need criminal consequences for coverups by the DOJ.
Someone other than the current politicians need to be in office for this to result in any serious consequences for the banks. The banks have bought the politicians in the U.S.
I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to the DoJ's argument regarding criminal convictions of the banks. The concept of corporate criminal conduct is somewhat problematic, and the collateral consequences of conviction can be dire for innocent third parties.<p>But there is absolutely no justification for their sheer and utter lack of diligence in pursuing criminal cases against individuals. Holder, Breuer, Bharara and those who worked with them ought to be ashamed of themselves.
I happened to click (TV remote) into the latter part of an interview with her on Amy Goodman's program, "Democracy Now".<p>One of the local PBS stations has started carrying that program, recently. After a few recent, similar surprises with it -- each one keeping me glued to it despite the late hour, until the end -- I've made a mental note to start catching it regularly.<p>As I've said before with respect to this fiasco and the Administration as well and Congress' response, as a mantra:<p>No jail? You fail.<p>I recall an interview with one of the lead investigator's/prosecutors during the 1980's Savings and Loan (aka S&L) scandal. Someone really in a position to know. He expressed similar disappointment, and more so <i>he described in detail how things could have been done differently</i>.<p>I also recall comments around or shortly after the peak of the recent crisis, from Sheila Bair as well as Elizabeth Warren. Particularly from Bair -- as I recall it, roughly: Too big to fail be damned. She/they were ready to take those banks into receivership, if the political leadership would only give the go ahead. And no common account holder/investor need lose their shirt as a result of that process.<p>Market panic might have been another matter. But I think, now, that that would have been a lesser cost than the one we will now end up, as a society -- or rather, multiple societies -- paying.<p>As far as I'm concerned, no statute of limitation should apply to the crimes surrounding these events. Particularly to the perversion of justice that has initially gotten these blackguards off the hook.<p>Law is a social convention, and they have so flouted social convention, that I for my part no longer deign to extend it to them. Like barbarians they acted? Well, let them so be treated.
I really wouldn't want to be in Holder's shoes. I really wonder how he managed to get to this. I don't understand what kind of discussions holder and dimon had, but all I can really understand is that they're only human.<p>After all, all of this boiled to 2 sides negotiating like in a classic political game, and one side won, and I don't know if the good side really won...<p>I just pity Holder for mismanaging this. Or maybe there are more horrific details we haven't heard of yet. I don't know which one is the more frightening. One only thing, it's now more than 6 years that all of this happened, and it doesn't seem really over.
Summary from ZeroHedge:<p><a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-07/why-matt-taibbi-thinks-woman-jpmorgans-worst-nightmare" rel="nofollow">http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-07/why-matt-taibbi-thi...</a>
You can see 'em on video on Democracy Now! - "Bank Whistleblower Alayne Fleischmann & Matt Taibbi on How JPMorgan Chase Helped Wreck the Economy"<p><a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/7/matt_taibbi_and_bank_whistleblower_on" rel="nofollow">http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/7/matt_taibbi_and_bank_w...</a>
To me it seems like the bug in the system is the arrangement between the prosecutor and Chase to fake prosecuting criminal charges after settling the civil suit. That's willful deception of the American people and should be illegal. If you fix this it seems like this would end satisfactorily.
Slightly off-topic, but I missed this from last week: the author of this piece, Matt Taibbi, has departed with First Look media. I wonder if he is back at Rolling Stone for good, or just sold this piece to them.<p>There are two interesting notes on the matter. One, the notice of departure [0], and then a longer piece on "The Inside Story Of Matt Taibbi's Departure From First Look Media" [1].<p>The second links contains some interesting snippets:<p>"Taibbi’s dispute with his bosses instead centered on differences in management style and the extent to which First Look would influence the organizational and corporate aspects of his role as editor-in-chief. Those conflicts were rooted in a larger and more fundamental culture clash that has plagued the project from the start: A collision between the First Look executives, who by and large come from a highly structured Silicon Valley corporate environment, and the fiercely independent journalists who view corporate cultures and management-speak with disdain."<p>It also notes that The Intercept had similar problems while launching.<p>I also found it interesting that this is the first time I have actually heard what Taibbi was trying to do with First Look: "His vision was a hard-hitting, satirical magazine in the style of the old Spy that would employ Taibbi’s facility for merciless ridicule, humor, and parody to attack Wall Street and the corporate world."<p>[0] <a href="https://firstlook.org/2014/10/28/important-announcement/" rel="nofollow">https://firstlook.org/2014/10/28/important-announcement/</a><p>[1] <a href="https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/30/inside-story-matt-taibbis-departure-first-look-media/" rel="nofollow">https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/30/inside-story-m...</a><p>Edit: Happened upon some additional details about the conflict at NYMag [2]:<p>"Over the last year, however, the center of gravity of the organization has shifted, as Omidyar and his Silicon Valley braintrust have exerted control over budgets and vacillated over the journalistic mission. Over the summer, Omidyar appointed a longtime confidante, John Temple — a former newspaper editor who previously led an Omidyar-financed civic journalism venture in Hawaii — to be the president for audience and products, putting him in a position above Eric Bates, the former Rolling Stone editor who was brought on as a First Look editorial director, who is close to Taibbi."<p>[2] <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/matt-taibbi-disappears-from-omidyars-first-look.html" rel="nofollow">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/matt-taibbi-dis...</a>