Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Thanks for your post. So interesting it is that California would vote to support the 230 million expense when they are essentially broke. Who are the 22 states in this situation? My particular state, Illinois, is also overspent because of our former Gov.'s spending habits, I understand. There is much buried in the stimulus documents that many don't know about. I'm all about win-win situations.
I'm sure everyone remembers the big push for JPM to convert the Washington Mutual employees accounts to the JPM brand recently. Who would have been the biggest former employee shareholder? None other than KK, I imagine. How could this be verified? Maybe that's why KK never said the J word. Geez is everyone in bed with JPM?
Now here is something I have learned over the years about state mandates, particularly in the area of OB and perinatal issues. If a state mandates a practice, even something simple like Hepatitis B vaccines at birth,then they have to come up with the cash backing to make it happen. Hospitals will automatically respond to mandates by saying "great idea. We can't afford it." That's why it is difficult to differentiate between which states seriously support the concept you mentioned and which states just aren't at the level to consider. Perhaps some states had the foresight to apply for funding from the recent Obama stimulus program for initiatives such as this. Many states are just plain broke and had to prioritize differently in terms of seeking funding. What often happens in the health care arena is that a state will "recommend" or "endorse" or "support" a practice as beneficial to patients rather than develop a state mandate. Over a period of years, many hospitals just go ahead with the new practice because it is the right thing to do and they find a way to afford it or it brings them more patients. After 10-15 years, there are only a meager few hospitals who can't afford it and a state will mandate the practice because the economic exposure is much less. I offer this insight just to give the bigger view of the system and how difficult it is to draw conclusions about state mandate. IMO of course.
It's a very big picture kind of thing. Under the mattress stuff but OK.
I think it means if you don't like it...flip. jmo
Mr. Long, I haven't been with this stock long enough to have an astounding answer to your well thought out question. A simple answer from my experience as a nurse for many years is that countries other than the US are more progressive when it comes to cord blood, stem cells, and the like. A couple reasons. The FDA is here to protect our best interests. They are very conservative when it comes to risk using new therapies such as cord blood so progress is very slow. Safe but slow. Another reason is the fact that we are "privatized" in terms of health care. No matter which side of the fence you sit on, the basic facts are that it takes a bunch of money to go forward with a product that has a research component. No one has that kind of money in our environment. Other countries with national health care plans are well funded for research. Thus it is more straightforward to work with them and "cut through the chase." All IMHO of course.
hmmmm I hate it when messages are misconstrued. Germane an intense word. I like it!
hEY friends...check out post 178578. My soothsayer predictions are cheap or free...then again you get what you pay for. hahaha
[/quote]I think Kerry K could be our BFF.
I can't imagine this could be true! lolol
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10721846/1/majors-banks-masked-risk-levels-report.html
I finally stuck my toe in the water with my meager investment when the pps stayed above .01 for several days. So "no news" days can be good to recruit investors as well.
Wow. Street.com not on board with the news. Some say they bash stocks so as to get a good pps for themselves. IDK. Like the buyout rumors comment. Guess meeting today will add perspective.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10721869/2/cell-therapeutics-closer-to-the-brink.html
I totally agree with you jimmy. Everyone is tired of all the ups and downs of this case but unfortunately that's how the legal system works. My response to each of these setbacks is to become I would say determined but it is probably more like stubborn to be beat down by the legal system and throw in the towel. I try very hard to be a "glass is half full" kind of person, so I view the recent filings by Rosen and WMI as the equivalent of a kickaxx ruling. We must be very close to something BIG to inspire such anger and passion in those responses. Anyway, I hope I'm right but I'm sure we all acknowledge this has been a very long ride.
Yep, sounds like the key character mentioned on this board every day.
Mr. Dimon Goes to Washington
By ROBIN SIDEL And DAMIAN PALETTA
Associated Press
J.P. Morgan's James Dimon, center, with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (left) and Morgan Stanley Chairman John Mack (right) during a January Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearing on Capitol Hill.
As Congress prepares to push finance regulation to the front burner, plenty of bank executives—stung by Washington's Wall Street bashing—are keeping a low profile.
James Dimon, chairman and chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., isn't one of them. Buoyed by J.P. Morgan's relative good health, he's spent the past year launching his own campaign to stave off government proposals that would rein in profits, boost consumer protections and impose new fees.
Mr. Dimon's bank shelled out more for lobbying efforts last year—$6.2 million—than any of its peers, and the CEO has lately been a regular presence in the halls of Congress. He preaches about how new regulations could force J.P. Morgan to further crimp credit-card lending and raise fees for consumers. One move aimed at banks he's characterized as "un-American."
His stance represents a turnaround from the early days of the financial crisis, when he emerged as one of Washington's biggest boosters. A lifelong Democrat, he rallied his Wall Street rivals to support Bush administration rescue efforts. He embraced the Troubled Asset Relief Program, citing a patriotic duty to accept $25 billion in government bailout cash.
But when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called a top J.P. Morgan executive to ask for the bank's support in creating a new consumer-protection agency, the executive—former Commerce Secretary William Daley—said no, according to people familiar with the conversation. His boss believed that sufficient consumer safeguards were already on the books.
At a recent White House lunch with President Barack Obama and a handful of other executives, Mr. Dimon, 54 years old, complained to the president that the administration's anti-bank rhetoric "isn't helpful," because it demoralizes businesses and employees, according to a person familiar with his comments.
Dimon's Own Words: Letter to Shareholders
"It is critical that the reforms actually provide the important safeguards without unnecessarily disrupting the health of the overall financial system."
Read Mr. Dimon's letter to shareholders, sent March 26, 2010.
Opinion
A Unified Bank Regulator Is a Good Start
-Jamie Dimon, June 29,2009
Mr. Dimon's disdain for the process has been crescendoing for some time. Last spring, he showed his irritation over the Treasury's requirement that banks raise fresh funds before they quit TARP. Speaking at a June hospitality industry conference in New York, Mr. Dimon read aloud a fictitious letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. "Dear Timmy, we are happy to be able to pay back the $25 billion you lent us. We hope you enjoyed the experience as much as we did."
For Mr. Dimon and his less vocal competitors, the proposed legislation would usher in the most sweeping overhaul of financial rules since the 1930s. The measure could push banks to shed certain assets to become smaller and more risk-averse. Upon passage, the country's largest banks would immediately feel a tightened grip from state and federal regulators in almost all areas of their businesses.
In a recent interview on the 48th floor of J.P. Morgan's newly redone minimalist Park Avenue headquarters, Mr. Dimon showed little sign of backing down. "The incessant broad-based vilification of the banking industry isn't fair and it is damaging," Mr. Dimon said. "Punishing whole industries, whether you were reckless or not, just isn't the way to do things."
A number of political insiders say they've grown weary of Mr. Dimon's protestations, viewing him as just another elite New York banker out to protect his turf. Some note that the bank profited handsomely during the financial crisis, when it scooped up securities firm Bear Stearns Cos. Inc. and Washington Mutual Inc.'s failed banking operations at bargain prices.
Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat and senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, said J.P. Morgan benefits from its "ability to create awe and fear and a belief that the world will end if they are not pampered."
Unlike most big Wall Street banks, J.P. Morgan made it through the crisis relatively unscathed, providing its chief with a platform of sorts to make his case. The U.S.'s second-largest bank, as measured by assets, it didn't need a federal rescue like Bank of America Corp. or Citigroup Inc. It has largely dodged the opprobrium aimed at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. It wasn't heavily involved in the subprime-mortgage business.
Mr. Dimon has said he is trying to be constructive in dealing with Washington, hoping that his feedback can help lawmakers. And he isn't fighting all of their proposals. He agrees, for instance, with the notion that banks shouldn't be considered too big to fail and supports the idea that regulators should have the ability to wind down a failing institution.
People close to Mr. Dimon say that he still supports the Obama administration, but has felt blindsided by some aspects of the overhaul.
J.P. Morgan, which earned $11.73 billion last year, estimates that the credit-card law enacted in February will cost as much as $750 million annually in lost revenue and implementation costs. The bank also stands to lose $500 million from new restrictions on checking-account overdraft fees.
Under the current Senate bill, J.P. Morgan could face billions more in fees and losses from high-profit businesses. The bank would have to contribute to a fund that would cover the future collapse of other financial firms, pay more fees to bank regulators, potentially sell or spin off trading divisions and hold more cash in reserve to support certain complex financial instruments.
The bill also would overturn existing rules and let state attorneys general sue banks over consumer-protection practices.
There's an element of pique in Mr. Dimon's new-found activism. According to people who know him, he bristles when lawmakers lump J.P. Morgan with the likes of banks that have stumbled. And he hates being compared with Goldman Chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who has been criticized for having a deaf ear to populist, anti-bank sentiment.
Said Mr. Dimon: "If people don't agree with us or don't believe us on issues, that's their prerogative. But just because we're a bank does not mean we're wrong."
Wow. Great find/DD. Another piece to the puzzle maybe.
I think if the numbers aren't good then EC won't push to hire Solomon. They aren't fools. That's why Solomon started working on Feb 15th and was hired whatever that word was pro nuncta something.
I thought those docs were on fire, catz. Trying to figure out if there is relationship to bond question tomorrow. What do you think?
No problem. Actually I was looking for something else. Everyone ties Obama and Dimon but actually Blagojevich and Dimon could be a potential match as conspiracy theories go. When the FBI exposed the underlings such as Stuart Levine, the rumor in Illinois was that the trail of corruption led all the way to the Governor (Blagovejich) but more importantly "beyond." What has happened as each new crook is exposed is they start talking about corruption above their level. Former Governor's trial coming up. Slow news day, what can I say?
I don't know who this writer is but at least JD isn't everyone's favorite banker.
Posted by Zach Carter at 5:29 am
April 2, 2010 1 COMMENT Jamie Dimon’s Assault on the Economy
The latest letter from J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to his company’s shareholders is a deliberate effort to obfuscate his own bank’s rapaciousness and deflect attention from the enormous sums it has spent lobbying against financial reform. But despite the bank’s record of predatory excess, Dimon’s revisionist economic history carries significant—and unwarranted— political influence with the Obama administration.
Throughout the letter, Dimon portrays himself and his company as an unfairly ridiculed public servant. In Dimon’s version of the financial crisis, J.P. Morgan is a patriotic institution, one which came to its country’s aid during its darkest economic hour, agreeing to acquire failing investment bank Bear Stearns when no other megabank was willing, and providing financing to state and local governments to help them weather the recession.
Nowhwere does Dimon acknowledge his company’s massive subprime mortgage operation, the ghastly practices of their credit card business, or their outright defrauding of local governments during the years leading up to the Great Financial Crash of 2008. Instead, he bemoans how his bank and its too-big-to-fail brethren have been “demonized” in the aftermath of the bailout that saved them all.
Dimon never explicitly states what he means by “demonized,” so it’s not clear exactly what kinds of criticisms he thinks are unfair. My own criticism of the company is simple: Like other large financial institutions, J.P. Morgan derives an extraordinary amount of its “shareholder value” from devouring other productive elements of the economy. There are three major examples of this behavoir, and I’ll start with the subprime mortgage business, since that particular form of predation brought the global economy to the brink of collapse.
Between, 2005 and 2007, J.P. Morgan issued at least $30 billion in subprime mortgages, according to the Center for Public Integrity. In 2007, the bank was issuing over $3 billion in new subprime loans every quarter. The company ended up weathering billions in supbrime losses, but the red ink would have been more prevalent had Dimon and his cohorts not recognized the risk inherent in the subprime business and started selling off their loans as soon as they had issued them. In essence, J.P. Morgan knew its subprime operations were setting families up to fail—but it could still make a lot of money by extending the loans, and then selling them off to other investors.
As a result, when a subprime borrower proved unable to pay back the predatory terms of her mortgage contract, it was no longer J.P. Morgan’s problem—another investor had to eat the losses, while J.P. Morgan paid out big bonuses to its executives. Between 2005 and 2008, Dimon alone took home over $115 million, much of it stripped directly out of neighborhoods around the country.
Not only was J.P. Morgan a major player in the subprime mortgage market, it ran one of the most influential lobbying operations in Washington. Dimon used this lobbying team to protect his booming subprime mortgage business. When state regulators tried to crack down on predatory subprime lending, J.P. Morgan pressured regulators at the federal level to step in and defend his bank. Ulitmately, J.P. Morgan joined six other banking behemoths and the top bank regulatory agency in the country, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, in a lawsuit to defang state regulators. The gambit worked until 2009, when the Supreme Court ultimately overruled the banks. But by then the subprime horse was well past the barn door.
J.P. Morgan’s other major act of consumer predation came in the form of credit card lending– retroactively raising rates on debt consumers had already accumulated and gouging them with undisclosed fees. In 2009, Congress finally approved legislation that would end several of these unfair and deceptive practices, and in November, J.P. Morgan said that it expected to lose between $500 million and $750 million as a result of the new law. The company’s entire credit card division would book a loss for the year— Dimon literally did not know how to turn a profit on the credit card business without resorting to predation.
With Dimon at the helm, J.P. Morgan even went after local governments, bribing public officials to invest in the bank’s toxic securities, and demanding millions of dollars from taxpayers to end the predatory arrangements.
J.P. Morgan wasn’t the only bank engaged in these financial assaults on the economy—Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citigroup were all doing roughly the same things. And the reason they were allowed to get away with it—these companies were all, in fact, rewarded for their abusive behavior with the most generous bailout in economic history—is their size. All of these banks are so large that their failure would wreak havoc on the global economy. At the time of its collapse, Lehman Brothers held roughly $700 billion in assets. J.P. Morgan owns over $2 trillion. After witnessing the economic chaos that resulted after Lehman’s demise, the U.S. government simply cannot allow a bank of J.P. Morgan’s scope to collapse if it ever finds itself in trouble. That state of affairs gives the company enormous political clout. Lawmakers know that the big banks and their campaign contributions will be around for the long-haul, and are willing to change the economic rules of the game to suit the banks’ interests.
By contrast, the economy receives no substantive benefits from banks of J.P. Morgan’s size. As Simon Johnson and James Kwak note in their new book, 13 Bankers, we had plenty of large corporations in the early 1980s, and all of them had no trouble obtaining financing when the largest bank in the country was Citigroup, worth just $114 billion, or roughly 3 percent of the U.S. economy. Today, J.P. Morgan is 14.7 percent of the U.S. economy.
Any public policy that presents a massive economic downside with no economic upside is simply irrational. But Dimon argues that targeting the too-big-to-fail crowd is actually a form of ignorant prejudice. Here’s Dimon, from his shareholder letter:
“When we reduce the debate over responsibility and regulation to simplistic and inaccurate notions, such as Main Street vs. Wall Street, big business vs. small business or big banks vs. small banks, we are indiscriminately blaming the good and the bad – this is simply another form of ignorance and prejudice.”
The point, of course, is that all of our nation’s largest banks did truly awful things in the years leading up to the crisis. And if they had not been so big, policymakers would not have allowed them to get away with it.
But despite his bank’s active role in fueling the financial crisis, Dimon remains a highly respected figure in Washington. Last July, The New York Times ran a story referring to him as “Obama’s favorite banker,” and he continues to be a frequent guest at the White House. When asked about the size of Dimon’s 2009 bonus earlier this year, Obama praised the CEO’s “savvy.” It’s easy to understand the affinity—Dimon himself has been a big donor to the Democratic Party over the years, while J.P. Morgan spent more money on lobbying in 2009 than any other financial institution. And Republicans are eager for Dimon to switch teams—in February, House Minority Leader John Boehner took Dimon out for drinks to try and coax campaign contributions from the executive.
All of that lobbying has allowed the U.S. economy to work very well for Jamie Dimon. But he has enough money. Economic policy is supposed to work for everyone. Where Wall Street is concerned, that means making sure that the financial system actually furthers useful economic development, and that taxpayers, consumers and small businesses aren’t held hostage to whatever giant banks believe to be in their own short-term self-interest. The only way to do that is to remove the political clout of megabanks like J.P. Morgan. And the only way to do that is to break up the behemoths into smaller banks that can fail safely.
Zach Carter is AlterNet's economics editor. His work has appeared in The Nation, Mother Jones, The American Prospect and Salon.
I'll tell u what I learned from my broker when I asked this question, as I am an American Funds shareholder, but everyone gets pizzy with me about this subject. There evidently is another WAshington mutual investment fund that has no relationship with the former bank Washington Mutual that American Funds invests in. American funds is sooo conservative that I believe him but not a popular topic on this board.
eyes I admire ur comments and hope they have some impact. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that all that is left here is these flippers trying to get ur I can't remember what the amount is and my measly couple hundred bucks. This appears to be a storefront and SEC is only hope for intervention. I watched an interview on CNBC recently regarding the new woman in charge of the SEC, Mary Shapiro, I believe. They are trying very hard to close the loop on corruption such as this. However, when u stop and think about it the .000whatever stocks are way out there in terms of the big picture with a bigger pps but equally corrupt. Regardless, my understanding is that if u file a complaint, the SEC will open a case and assign a number. I will do it if you will. I'm thinking they have an open file already. GLTU and Me and Happy Easter! Gotta look at the brigh side, once in a while. take care
I believe she has some unknown calling to contribute to a greater good. Doesn't scare me at all in terms of the stock pps and so on. I'm just glad she is doing what is leading her from her heart.
What I hope to learn from the hearing is the logistics of this situation. Is EC able to give input or are they approval body only for end game? What is the bottom line with the bond holders? How does the FDIC weigh in at this juncture? How effectively can Rosen play both sides of the fence going forward? Is JMW still the rock star judge of the century? Information is power always.
I watched the Enron thing on CNBC. After Abighammer's post about JD getting restless,succession plan, and such, I started looking at old Ken Lewis stuff. His testimony, in short, was "the government made me do it." I can imagine we might hear that statement sometime in the future. The other thing of interest was the article by one reporter that except for the Merrill deal Ken Lewis did a good job.. Hmmmm something about that statement reminds me of another situation. Can't put my finger on it....haha American Greed is American Greed, isn't it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/ken-lewis-bank-of-america_0_n_214323.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=atIj9.b_MV7E&refer=us
I have a limited legal background, only by association, but I have learned that it is a major "faux pas" to have filed documents and not let the attorneys of record know that the filings are about to occur. A professional courtesy thing, I gather. It gives me the impression of "shunning" the unwelcome party, the EC. High level mind games IMO. I don't think it will sit well with the Judge and credit to the EC for pointing that out.
Thanks Rickszy for your tireless monitoring of filings. Someone asked awhile back how we would know when a certain objection would be filed. My immediate thought was that Rickszy would tell us, of course. lol. I don't know what u think about these documents but I hope the judge beach slaps them for one of them. I am interpreting that the counsels are not informing the EC of filings as is required(?)/etiquette for recognized attorneys of record. Your thoughts?
Me too uzual and ETO. I supported the letter by the author with poor handwriting, grammar, and crossed out words. This letter is an animal of a different color.
I am so intrigued by the $9million dollar grant to MD Anderson for cord blood banking. My friends it doesn't get any better than this but perhaps I am missing the big picture. Could someone kindly explain the relationship between this article and CBAI? Lest I be accused of pumping, I must disclose that I don't currently or previously hold any CBAI stock. Waiting to get in when a few of my other penny stocks close out. Just excited about medical science in general.
I would enjoy a letter a day posted from various citizens across the country affected by the events of the past 18 months. There was one Friday, one today. Maybe an EC strategy if the Judge makes the parties aware of correspondence she receives. Worth a smile anyway.
I have no problem with this letter. So interesting it was filed with the court documents. I would find it more meaningful than a form letter, for example. The next Joellen Plumber! LOL
3pm will talk about Financial reform ideas.
I think someone posted an audio link concerning Sheila Bair. Most recent interview just now on CNBC was Mary Shapiro of SEC. Her comments were awesome. She said the SEC has referred about a dozen cases to the DOJ in the past year regarding financial institutions actions and "more in the pipeline." Talked about lehman accounting practices and new requirements for accounting practices in development. Her interview more interesting than Sheila Bair, but Sheila didn't sound too bad either. And I'm a Bair critic. Anyone have link for Mary Shapiro interview? Don't have that technology knowledge. There is also a Part 2 of the interviews with Bair and Shapiro at 3pm on CNBC
All I can say is WOW. AAP and a Peds Heme/Onc group I work directly with. Beyond Awesome.
Now that's a good point. Why perjure yourself and show true colors? The more I think about this the funnier it is. A 521 page document to reorganize from bankruptcy without financials of a bank, no less. That's Saturday Night Live material.
yes, already priced into the game IMO
In illinois, tort reform occurred recently and was overturned by the Supreme Court. If u can believe it, there are signs in Kankakee IL that say "Drive carefully"... there are no neurosurgeons on staff in this community." The reason is because of the restrictions placed on neurosurgeons in this state, no neurosurgeons want to practice here. As much of an Obama fan as I am, I have to say the d people have to put their money where their mouth is. And I have become a d person. You can't have it all in terms of trial lawyers and Union groups, etc. The medical profession is driven by the need to respond to lawsuits instead of doing the right and practical thing. There's even a label for it called "Defensive Medicine"
Why does it matter for CBAI? Because it is totally related to the greater good. Red Cross an awesome idea.
I think it would be awesome and above the Socialist label. Geez we are all trying to live a long life and have good health, right?
Oh I got this one. The OB physicians want something... No surprise from working with them for many years.For example, there is quite an organized system for who is "first assist" in a c section so as to capture the insurance billing of 500 per case. It is necessary for the safety of the mother, but also billable.
In their defense they live a miserable life being on call and birthing babies at all hours of the day and night until they are 60 or so. With insurance and global billing and the ridiculous price they pay for malpractice insurance, they can't even catch a break or seriously make any money despite what the public may believe. So yes it would be in the best interest of all to loop obstetricians in. An investment, in other words.
Me too .14/.22 on Fidelity
I think this recession has hopefully taught us to be more practical in general. I am NOT the numbers person. Admire those ppl with that skillset.I do strive for whatever the truth may be. Right or wrong. GLTA
I have read all everyone has said with interest. One thing I have learned following this stock for about 9 months...oh wait the birth of a baby.. is that when everyone gives up on the stock IT gets going. IMO the RHTHYM of the stock. Potentially great news. No links of course. GL