Jamie Dimon firing back

As current and future regulations continue to loom large over the banking sector, Dimon seemed to let out a bit of steam speaking at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland.

It's five years after the crisis, OK; we still have not fixed a lot of the things you are talking about. Part of the reason [is] we are trying to do too much too fast

Businesses can be opaque; they're complex, he said. You don't know how aircraft engines work, either.

So is it fair for Dimon to be agitated over the way the banking sector has been treated?

WSO Elite Modeling Package

  • 6 courses to mastery: Excel, Financial Statement, LBO, M&A, Valuation and DCF
  • Elite instructors from top BB investment banks and private equity megafunds
  • Includes Company DB + Video Library Access (1 year)

Comments (14)

Jan 23, 2013 - 3:04pm

No, it isn't. How has it been treated? Let's recount:

--A bailout to the tune of trillions of dollars and guarantees and near-zero % interest loans
--No prosecutions of anyone involved regardless of the fraud perpetrated (i.e. guys like Angelo Mozillo walking free)
--Dodd-Frank was lobbied to death and turned into a giant blob of crap, nowhere near the kind of shit that could have been passed (i.e. bringing back Glass-Steagall)

Jan 23, 2013 - 3:21pm

The more stable banks were forced to take the money to encourage smaller banks to do the same to save the banking system. And out of the trillions upon trillions of dollars the government has wasted in this lost decade, the ONLY profit made has been from the capital injection into the financial services industry.

I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.
Jan 23, 2013 - 3:33pm

rogersterling59:
The more stable banks were forced to take the money to encourage smaller banks to do the same to save the banking system. And out of the trillions upon trillions of dollars the government has wasted in this lost decade, the ONLY profit made has been from the capital injection into the financial services industry.

The stable banks that were forced? Give me a break. Goldman and Morgan Stanley can say wahtever they like to after the fact, but they were the next dominos to fall if they hadn't been bailed out.

Second off, of course a profit was made. When you rig the game and provide virtually unlimited 0.005% interest rate loans to the banks in question, how would they not make a profit?

Lastly, what difference does that make? Seriously? "Well, they almost blew up the global economy, but they paid back the bailout so we should be happy!" Be serious.

Jan 23, 2013 - 3:34pm

BTbanker:
Let's tone down the political soapbox rhetoric for a while.

Nothing political here.

One can either examine the crisis and bailouts honestly or they can live in a fantasy world and ignore evidence that goes against what they want to believe is true.

Note - that comment isn't directed at you as I'm pretty sure you've said you're anti-bailout.

Learn More

300+ video lessons across 6 modeling courses taught by elite practitioners at the top investment banks and private equity funds -- Excel Modeling -- Financial Statement Modeling -- M&A Modeling -- LBO Modeling -- DCF and Valuation Modeling -- ALL INCLUDED + 2 Huge Bonuses.

Learn more
Start Discussion

Total Avg Compensation

June 2021 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (9) $911
  • Vice President (35) $364
  • Associates (204) $233
  • 2nd Year Analyst (115) $151
  • Intern/Summer Associate (97) $145
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (27) $145
  • 1st Year Analyst (420) $131
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (338) $82