5 ms·
> When assessing risks of this size, I am glad that JPM seemed to be asking all the right questions about Madoff (which no one else, not even the SEC, was askin
by spinlock 13y ago
> When assessing risks of this size, I am glad that JPM seemed to be asking all the right questions about Madoff (which no one else, not even the SEC, was asking), it is funny JPM is being penalized for this.
It's amazing what JPM is being held liable for. I think it sets a terrible precedent that they were basically fined $13B for acquiring WaMu and Bear Sterns in the financial crisis. I can't imagine another bank cooperating with the government to takeover another failed bank. You would simply need too much time for due diligence to ensure that there was no illegal activity - ever - at the bank to be acquired.
- bronson 13y agoYou can't imagine BofA buying Countrywide?
- spinlock 13y agoThat happened in 2008.
- bonemachine 13y agothey were basically fined $13B for acquiring WaMu and Bear Sterns in the financial crisis. Ugh. They were fined for selling bad mortgage bonds. Not for acquiring Bear and WaMu. It also ends up being closer to $5B due to tax breaks and other incentives, BTW.
- spinlock 13y agoThe crimes happened at Bear and WaMu. It did not happen on Jamie Diamon's watch.
- bonemachine 13y agoAw -- you're just being silly when you say that. You know perfectly well that when companies make acquisitions, that they assume both the liabilities along with all the other assets they're acquiring.
- retube 13y agoHis point is that the majority of the fine levied (80%) against JPM was in relation to WaMu and Bear Stearns behaviour BEFORE JPM bought them. The real crazy tho is that JPM _knew_ that some potentiually dodgy stuff had been going on at WaMu/BS and sought assurance from the regulators that they would not be held liable if they bought these two firms - which they were basically doing as a favour for the US Gov. Then the regulators fucked them anyway.
- bonemachine 13y ago[They] sought assurance from the regulators that they would not be held liable if they bought these two firms... Then the regulators fucked them anyway. Not doubting you, but can you provide more substantiation / detail on that assertion, please? What kind of assurances were given, and when? And more to the point: were they contractual assurances, or were they not? I highly doubt that JPM went into the deal blind, and even more so, that they would have taken on any significant risk of open-ended liabilities on the basis of a handshake. And they certainly didn't go into the deal as a "favor" to anyone -- they did it to save their tender, pink skins, knowing full well what the future liabilities would likely be.