4 ms·

And right on cue, wall street fights back! Expected, but still rankles as bit. 'JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says 'it's time to fight back' on regulation' from htt

And right on cue, wall street fights back! Expected, but still rankles as bit. 'JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says 'it's time to fight back' on regulation' from https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/jpmorgan-ceo-says-its-time-fight-back-regulation-2024-10-28/ https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/jpmorgan-ceo-says-i... The comment from Dimon is the cherry on top. 'Dimon said he was not against open banking but noted that it could compromise consumer data and lead to fraudulent money transfers and he was set to fight it.' His bank is happy to accept fraudulent checks and ACH transfers all day long, but his primary opposition to open banking rules is his overwhelming concern for his customers. Riiiight.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." You have an entire commercial banking industry that has been dependent on being able to capture inexpensive deposits from unsophisticated financial services consumers (they make the spread between the ~0% they offer on demand deposits and what they can lend at), as well as charging exorbitant fees to move value around, and that is all coming to an end with open banking and FedNow instant payments. Sad folks gonna sad. You're a utility, sorry to say. (obligatory credit union plug here)
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Credit Unions are typically better, but not always. Fees can still be high and interest rates low. You still have to comparison shop and do some due diligence.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Certainly, but they are not profit motivated in the same way a commercial bank is. Do your due diligence. https://mycreditunion.gov/about-credit-unions/find-join-start https://mycreditunion.gov/about-credit-unions/find-join-star...
    - wbl 2y ago
      Yeah and S&Ls would never participate in the credit cycle.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      > Certainly, but they are not profit motivated in the same way a commercial bank is. Do your due diligence. How is profit motivation supposed to help the customers of a bank? On paper this is just as customer-hostile as with any other industry—profit is waste that fundamentally should be going to employees and customers.
- tivert 2y ago
  > "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." I don't think the issue here is that he doesn't understand. I think the issue is he's lying. He's almost certainly starting with the policy that he wants for his own self-interest, then working backwards from that to come up with BS arguments for it that sound good. He's not an idiot so almost certainly knows full well what he's doing.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- politician 2y ago
  Banks are really dragging their heels on FedNow support.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    It will arrive eventually (lots of concern around fraud due to potential value velocity). It only took a year for the first ~1k institutions to onboard, the last few thousand will onboard with time. The US Treasury is a participant, as is JP Morgan Chase and FiServ. https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/organizations https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/organi...
jfengel 2y ago
Yeah, it was nice having a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It's on the chopping block under Project 2025: "the next conservative President should order the immediate dissolution of the agency—pull down its prior rules, regulations and guidance" So don't get too used to your new financial data rights. We'll know Tuesday if you'll ever get a chance to apply them.
- sailfast 2y ago
  The notion that a president can do this unilaterally without Congress is very strange. While I understand the laws and norms around executive authority are often pushed against, you cannot legally defund an entire agency by executive order. (Or create one for that matter - I'm looking at you "Government Efficiency Administration" or whatever the heck they keep talking about. "Down with bureaucracy!" "Isn't that bureaucracy? A whole organization that focuses on waste?" "Yeah, but it's MINE. I only want down with YOUR bureaucracy."
  - jkaplowitz 2y ago
    It’s true that an executive order cannot legally defund the CFPB, but since SCOTUS gave the President the right to remove the CFPB Director without cause, the President absolutely can cripple the agency by that type of executive action rather than by defunding it.
    - mikeyouse 2y ago
      Even his chosen appointee was a big fan of $1 fines to companies who defrauded customers. One of great 'victories' of the small government types who've been in power is rendering many of the agencies they were responsible for to be completely ineffective. Why fight to protect the CFPB if they're a tool of the companies they're supposed to police? It's extremely important to keep these agencies independent and aggressive in seeking justice/recompensation.
      - jshier 2y ago
        Yeah, we saw exactly this across the executive branch the last time this guy was in power. Intentionally corrupt or feckless appointees who blocked or simply failed to approve any action on the part of the agencies they nominally ran. What does it matter if you don't completely dissolve the EPA if you just have your stooge redefine the EPA's job, or what pollution means? Of course, that's been the typical Republican approach for decades. Now they're full mask off for round two and will be working to completely dismantle the administrative state altogether.
mmooss 2y ago
To add context: The large banks just destroyed, through intense lobbying, what was called Basel III Endgame - a long-planned, carefully implemented regulatory structure designed to prevent future catastrophes like 2008. The Federal Reserve pretty much openly said they gave into pressure. The problem with capitulating to make peace is that you don't get peace: The attacker is emboldened and tries for more, and now has precedent and momentum in the eyes of third parties.
- skybrian 2y ago
  Declaring defeat seems a bit much, considering that we haven't had another catastrophe similar to 2008. That seems pretty successful, so far? (The pandemic was bad, but banks mostly didn't collapse.)
  - arunabha 2y ago
    But by the same metric, The great recession hadn't happened before 2008 so it would imply that the rules up to 2008 were sound? With hindsight we know that the rules were far from sound and allowed banks to take on massive risk which they dumped on the taxpayers as usual.
  - immibis 2y ago
    IIRC 2020 was about to be one, then the Fed tripled/quadrupled the money supply.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." You have an entire commercial banking industry that has been dependent on being able to capture inexpensive deposits from unsophisticated financial services consumers (they make the spread between the ~0% they offer on demand deposits and what they can lend at), as well as charging exorbitant fees to move value around, and that is all coming to an end with open banking and FedNow instant payments. Sad folks gonna sad. You're a utility, sorry to say. (obligatory credit union plug here)

SoftTalker 2y ago
Credit Unions are typically better, but not always. Fees can still be high and interest rates low. You still have to comparison shop and do some due diligence.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Certainly, but they are not profit motivated in the same way a commercial bank is. Do your due diligence. https://mycreditunion.gov/about-credit-unions/find-join-start https://mycreditunion.gov/about-credit-unions/find-join-star...
  - wbl 2y ago
    Yeah and S&Ls would never participate in the credit cycle.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    > Certainly, but they are not profit motivated in the same way a commercial bank is. Do your due diligence. How is profit motivation supposed to help the customers of a bank? On paper this is just as customer-hostile as with any other industry—profit is waste that fundamentally should be going to employees and customers.
tivert 2y ago
> "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." I don't think the issue here is that he doesn't understand. I think the issue is he's lying. He's almost certainly starting with the policy that he wants for his own self-interest, then working backwards from that to come up with BS arguments for it that sound good. He's not an idiot so almost certainly knows full well what he's doing.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
politician 2y ago
Banks are really dragging their heels on FedNow support.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  It will arrive eventually (lots of concern around fraud due to potential value velocity). It only took a year for the first ~1k institutions to onboard, the last few thousand will onboard with time. The US Treasury is a participant, as is JP Morgan Chase and FiServ. https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/organizations https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/organi...

jfengel 2y ago

Yeah, it was nice having a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It's on the chopping block under Project 2025: "the next conservative President should order the immediate dissolution of the agency—pull down its prior rules, regulations and guidance" So don't get too used to your new financial data rights. We'll know Tuesday if you'll ever get a chance to apply them.

sailfast 2y ago
The notion that a president can do this unilaterally without Congress is very strange. While I understand the laws and norms around executive authority are often pushed against, you cannot legally defund an entire agency by executive order. (Or create one for that matter - I'm looking at you "Government Efficiency Administration" or whatever the heck they keep talking about. "Down with bureaucracy!" "Isn't that bureaucracy? A whole organization that focuses on waste?" "Yeah, but it's MINE. I only want down with YOUR bureaucracy."
- jkaplowitz 2y ago
  It’s true that an executive order cannot legally defund the CFPB, but since SCOTUS gave the President the right to remove the CFPB Director without cause, the President absolutely can cripple the agency by that type of executive action rather than by defunding it.
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    Even his chosen appointee was a big fan of $1 fines to companies who defrauded customers. One of great 'victories' of the small government types who've been in power is rendering many of the agencies they were responsible for to be completely ineffective. Why fight to protect the CFPB if they're a tool of the companies they're supposed to police? It's extremely important to keep these agencies independent and aggressive in seeking justice/recompensation.
    - jshier 2y ago
      Yeah, we saw exactly this across the executive branch the last time this guy was in power. Intentionally corrupt or feckless appointees who blocked or simply failed to approve any action on the part of the agencies they nominally ran. What does it matter if you don't completely dissolve the EPA if you just have your stooge redefine the EPA's job, or what pollution means? Of course, that's been the typical Republican approach for decades. Now they're full mask off for round two and will be working to completely dismantle the administrative state altogether.

mmooss 2y ago

To add context: The large banks just destroyed, through intense lobbying, what was called Basel III Endgame - a long-planned, carefully implemented regulatory structure designed to prevent future catastrophes like 2008. The Federal Reserve pretty much openly said they gave into pressure. The problem with capitulating to make peace is that you don't get peace: The attacker is emboldened and tries for more, and now has precedent and momentum in the eyes of third parties.

skybrian 2y ago
Declaring defeat seems a bit much, considering that we haven't had another catastrophe similar to 2008. That seems pretty successful, so far? (The pandemic was bad, but banks mostly didn't collapse.)
- arunabha 2y ago
  But by the same metric, The great recession hadn't happened before 2008 so it would imply that the rules up to 2008 were sound? With hindsight we know that the rules were far from sound and allowed banks to take on massive risk which they dumped on the taxpayers as usual.
- immibis 2y ago
  IIRC 2020 was about to be one, then the Fed tripled/quadrupled the money supply.