Listen to Ross and Burbank weekdays on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
 Ross+Burbank


Death panels for banks!

June 14, 2012 @ 9:10 am (Updated: 9:15 am - 6/14/12 )

cedargrove

JP Morgan CEO Jaime Dimon says no banks should be too big to fail. (AP Photo/file)

The CEO of JP Morgan testified before the Senate yesterday -- you all watched Jaime Dimon's testimony yesterday, right?

Of course you did. But you might have missed this nugget, which came in the second hour.

"We have to get rid of anything that looks like too big to fail," said Dimon.

No bank should be too big to fail, and to that end, he says he has given federal regulators instructions on how to dismantle HIS OWN BANK if it fails.

"We've actually filed recently a analysis and report how they would go about dismantling J.P. Morgan that didn't cost the taxpayer," said Dimon.

He calls it a living will -- like telling your family, if I'm 90 years old, and I have another heart attack, don't resuscitate. But suppose a bank failed WITHOUT a Living Will ---

"I personally I call bankruptcy for big dumb banks. I think when you have bankruptcy I'd have clawbacks. I'd fire the management. I'd fire the board. I'd wipe out the equity," said Dimon.

It's a death panel for banks. Although, he wouldn't just kill them:

"I think the banks should be dismantled after that and the name should be buried in disgrace," said Dimon.

He'd bury the very MEMORY.

And one senator just wanted to clarify:

"If J.P. Morgan became a big dumb bank in serious financial difficulty, is your sense that it would be concluded with J.P. Morgan's demise and no cost to the taxpayers?"

"Yes. That's the objective yeah," said Dimon.

I personally found that very refreshing. And I plan to save that sound bite in a very safe place.

More Ross and Burbank

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (11)


  • Add A Comment

  • logical independent mind wrote...
    I dont think a bank should be too big too fail just like i think Detroit automakers should be too big to fail.
    June 14, 2012 8:34 am
    What media types always fail to mention is that GM would have re-organized. They would not have liguidated-there are just too many buyers for their cars to just disapear.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    "What media types always fail to mention is that GM would have re-organized"
    June 14, 2012 8:22 pm
    GM DID reorganize. Did you not read the papers? It just had to be done with taxpayer money BECAUSE NO PRIVATE MONEY WAS AVAILABLE. Even Ford, Honda, and Toyota wanted them to survive because the supplier base would have folded if GM and Chrysler went down.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical independent mind wrote...
    Drool-in this election season, many media interviews frame the GM bailout to be the one and only course of action.
    June 15, 2012 8:05 am
    I have read in Wall St what could be done before the bailout. But do really beleive that with the millions of cars that GM sells, it would have disapeared? I know of airlines that have filed chapter 11, did not get any private money, yet they re-organized and kept flying.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Believe it or not, Dave, some of us actually DO follow this stuff.
    June 14, 2012 8:36 am
    What should be done is re-separate investments from banking. Normal, safe loans for safe stuff like home loans (OK - bad example) and a different entity for speculative investments. But that's a different story.

    As it is, were it not for that dumb FDIC, no bank would be too big to fail. But when your savings are federally insured, even a small bank might be 'too big' if it's cheaper to save it than let it fold.

    Personally, I don't really understand much of what Jaime Dimond says or does. Maybe no one does, and that's the problem with Chase. ... And were Chase ACTUALLY about to fold.................

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    That "Dumb" FDIC
    June 14, 2012 8:25 pm
    Keeps people from freaking out and trying to go get all their money when a bank is in trouble. We need separation of savings and investment but the politicians are bought and paid for by those making big money while it is unregulated.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    Do you honestly...
    June 14, 2012 11:59 am
    believe that Dimon would follow through on anything of the sort? After all, he's no different than the politicians he was testifying in front of. You could only tell he was lying because his mouth was moving.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    I personally found that very refreshing.
    June 14, 2012 8:31 pm
    Gee Dave, that is pretty shocking given that how the left demonized conservatives when they said GM was not too big to fail and the left argued that it was, so Obama violated the constitution to purchase a private business that should have been allowed to restructure under the very bankruptcy laws you're now finding "refreshing". Of course the taxpayers are still on the hook for that bail out.

    You're years late, but welcome to the party.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Rational
    June 14, 2012 10:54 pm
    That was actually George Bush that began the bailout of GM. Obama followed through on it. If you really want to fair, you can say that Bush violated The Constitution as well.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    wsualumn
    June 15, 2012 12:05 am
    I have no qualms about denoucing Bush...he was a big government progressive just like the clown in office now. Although you will have to admit that Obama owns the corrupt payoff to unions and the robbing of American tax payers. The federal government is afraid to sell off the stocks the taxpayers own because the value of the shares were overstated and we'd loose billions. Since when is the Federal government allowed to nationalize private industries? Sounds like the soviet union. I guess that fits now that it's come out that Obama is literally a card carrying socialist. didn't know? Google Obama and his membership in the socialist New Party. Not that leftist media would reveal that Obama was a member of a socialist political party.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 509 wrote...
    The problem with government regulation is the unequal playing field....
    June 15, 2012 6:46 am
    I retired from the Federal Government. Most professional government employees make just under 100,000 at that level. Now compare that the banks and the money to contribute to political campaigns. We would get calls from Murray and Cantwell offices asking about what we were doing!! Their contributors paid good money for...."the best government money can buy". That's why government regulation never works. The POLITICIANS do not want it to work. The solution is to go back to 1990 with state banks. Put Glass-Steagall back in place. And then if banks fail...let them fail.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • anotherfencewalker wrote...
    I watched a bit of that "testimoney"..
    June 15, 2012 7:10 am
    Political officials doing the questioning were doing nothing but play patty-cake with him. Careful not to ask tough questions or insist on clear answers. No. He was hardley breaking out in a cold sweat..JP Morgan is a major campaign contributer every election season. Major. Dont want to rock THAT boat. I'm surprised they didnt ask him what his favorite color is..
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }