JPMorgan Gets the Obama Treatment


0926_jamie-dimon-2_650x4551JPMorgan Chase & Co. has reached a tentative agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to pay a staggering $13 billion fine related to its involvement in questionable mortgage-backed bond sales that contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-2008. Although the settlement represents the largest payout ever by a financial firm to the U.S. government, the mega-bank remains on the hook for an unresolved criminal inquiry. Dick Bove, an influential bank analyst at Rafferty Capital, accurately assessed the meaning of the deal. “This is a basic and fundamental attack on capitalism,” he said. “It is possible that the government is taking away the property of the JPMorgan shareholders without the shareholders having committed any crime or having any say in the expropriation of these funds.”

Such considerations are apparently irrelevant. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon negotiated with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder shortly after the financial markets closed last Friday. The broad strokes of the deal were reportedly reached in a phone call between Holder, Dimon, JPMorgan General Counsel Stephen Cutler and Associate U.S. Attorney General Tony West.

The tentative deal announced on Saturday remains somewhat unclear, but the Washington Post reports that $4 billion in relief will be aimed at homeowners, part of which may lower what they owe on their mortgages. Another $4 billion would be paid to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates mortgage behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The deal also resolves a lawsuit fled by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman with regard to the securities, as well as a California civil probe. The statement of facts that will be publicly announced remains unresolved.

JPMorgan was one of 18 banks sued by the FHFA for faulty mortgage bonds two years ago. In JPMorgan’s case, the FHFA accused the bank and its affiliates of making false statements and omitting material facts when they sold $33 billion of mortgage bonds to Fannie and Freddie between 2005 and 2007. Fannie and Freddie have received $187.5 billion in taxpayer-funded bailouts to date.

It is likely the final deal will require JPMorgan to cooperate in a criminal probe of those tied to the issuance of the allegedly dubious mortgage-backed securities. According to the unnamed source, Holder insisted that criminal liability would remain a separate issue. Nancy Bush, a bank analyst who founded NAB Research LLC in New Jersey, thought such a development was ominous. “To not get the waiver from criminal prosecution is not good,” she contended. “What we’re looking for in a settlement of this size is certainty from things like the criminal prosecution of a company. The Street wants certainty.”

Many financial analysts characterized the deal as blatantly unfair, perhaps rightly so. In a classic example of the bromide “no good deed goes unpunished,” they note that 80 percent of the mortgages under criminal investigation were acquired from Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns. Both of those failing banks were acquired by JPMorgan in 2008 at the request of the federal government, which needed the bank’s help to keep the crisis from getting even bigger than it was. JPMorgan’s own  culpability involves mostly mismanagement, not investor fraud.

For others, the deal reeks of politics. In 2009, the New York Times referred to JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon as President Obama’s “favorite banker, and in turn, the envy of his Wall Street rivals.” “With the crisis, Mr. Dimon, a longtime Democratic donor, has become even more politically engaged, in the process becoming perhaps the most credible voice of a discredited industry,” the paper added.

A 2012 Politico profile was equally glowing, noting that Dimon was one of President Obama’s “most prominent Wall Street friends, a rare high-profile Democrat in an industry dominated by low-tax, free-market Republicans.” That friendship resulted in Dimon making 16 trips to the White House, including three meetings with Obama himself, as part of an effort to make the president seem more business-friendly.

All of that changed when Dimon, despite his Democratic leanings, began to criticize the administration’s economic policies during the 2012 election campaign. In May 2012, while characterizing America as a nation in possession of a “royal straight flush” represented by the world’s strongest military, best businesses, most entrepreneurial workforce and deepest capital markets, Dimon also cited three failings of the Obama administration: the debt ceiling crisis, the failure to adopt the Simpson-Bowles recommendations for fixing our financial crisis and the administration’s “constant attack on business.” When asked why corporate America wasn’t hiring more in a time of record profits, Dimon upped the ante, insisting that the 4 million jobs added by business had nothing to do with government policy. ”It should have been 8 million,” he said, whacking the administration yet again.

The New York Post’s Charles Gasparino noted the consequences of such candor. “By speaking out, Dimon became de facto public enemy No. 1,” he explains. Gasparino also reveals the strategy behind Eric Holder’s refusal to end the criminal probe, insisting the Attorney General’s demand for an some “concession of guilt…is basically a multibillion-dollar gift to the administration’s buddies in the trial bar, who are waiting anxiously to see exactly how much the bank will be forced to ’fess up to before their lawsuits start to fly.”

That Wall Street Journal is even more critical of the administration’s heavy-handed tactics. They characterized the effort to keep track of the government’s probes of the bank as tantamount to having a full time job. In conjunction with a tally taken by the New York Times, the Journal reveals there are investigations being conducted by “at least seven federal agencies” along with “seven investigations in the Justice Department alone, plus inquiries at other agencies.”

The reason for the ramped up effort? The Journal notes that JPMorgan did not need a taxpayer bailout when the 2008 financial crisis hit, and such independence is anathema to an Obama administration that “prefers dependent banks that quietly accept their role as money pots to be raided when politics demands. Mr. Dimon keeps deviating from the Obama script.”

Thus the long knives were out, and Dimon and JPMorgan gave the government the political ammo it needed when the so-called ”London Whale” trading scandal broke, costing the bank $6 billion, along with a hit to its reputation as a sound money manager. Despite incurring no public losses, conducting an investigation of its own and firing senior managers and traders for the debacle — while making record profits in 2012, despite the loss — JPMorgan became the poster child for Democrats seeking payback. They were furious that the loss exposed the inadequacies of the Dodd-Frank banking bill that was supposed to prevent large financial crises from reoccurring.

The Journal emphasizes three blinding hypocrisies associated with the efforts of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats to punish JPMorgan. They wonder how government regulators who “all but live at the bank” missed the London Whale scandal until JPMorgan notified them of it; how the government can portray Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as “unwitting investors in mortgage securities” when their own unconscionable gambling on mortgages triggered the aforementioned $188 billion taxpayer bailout; and why Dimon, who helped end the mortgage crisis is being vilified, while Jack Lew, who “helped to oversee a disaster at Citigroup that would require serial taxpayer bailouts from Treasury and the Federal Reserve,” has become the Treasury Secretary.

Hypocrisy aside, there is no doubt that most Americans have little sympathy for anyone in a banking industry that has wholly emerged from the financial crisis, even as Main Street Americans continue to suffer. Yet it is useful to remember that the genesis of that crisis was a federal government determined to turn owning a home into a de facto affirmative action program in which banks were threatened with reprisals if they did not approve a certain percentage of questionable loans. That is not to say bankers are innocent, only that they are forced to operate within the parameters, no matter how reckless and tainted by corruption, government sets for them.

It is easy to miss the real story behind the effort to make JPMorgan and Dimon villains, much like the IRS effectively made villains of the Tea Party, or the State Department made a villain of jailed filmmaker Mark Basseley Youssef who was framed by Obama and Hillary Clinton for Benghazi. The real story is that no one is safe from political retribution in the age of Obama, not even the president’s former “favorite banker,” who is now learning what happens to those who dare to criticize this administration. “Washington is looting J.P. Morgan, and may yet string up Jamie Dimon, as a lesson in what will happen to any banker who dares to disagree with his Washington bosses,” the Wall Street Journal contends.

Thus, JPMorgan is on the hook for $13 billion, before the criminal lawsuits “begin to fly.” And while some Americans may gain a misguided sense of satisfaction in seeing a “fat cat” taken down, they would be wise to remember that there is no fatter cat than the federal government. They would be even wiser to note that the JPMorgan episode is another reminder that not even mega-wealthy former friends are safe from the Obama administration’s retribution.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • American1969

    The Chicago Way.

  • Hass

    That POS Osama is no different from the Mullahs of Iran or any other Muslime dictator. To me there’s no difference, he has the MSM, DoJ, IRS etc at his disposal to ruin any life he so chooses.

  • GODnCOUNTRY

    What I can’t understand is why in the fuck was this muslimey ghetto knee grow given a second term? I blame it on those Hispanic illegals, 3rd world muslimey parasitic immigrants and Godless fools who are expected to benefit from obummercare and more hand outs than in the history of the US. I feel sorry for the tax payers who have to support these dead beats.

    • fistdeyuma

      Place blame where it belongs. Republicans did not vote. They did not understand Ronny and just let Obama coast to victery. Yes, Ronny was not a hard core conservative but he has a record of success. We let this happen and cannot blame Democrats.

  • rbla

    ‘A 2012 Politico profile was equally glowing, noting that Dimon was one of President Obama’s “most prominent Wall Street friends, a rare high-profile Democrat in an industry dominated by low-tax, free-market Republicans.”’

    The truth is that In 2008 most of Wall Street supported the Democrats and Obama; the details are in:

    http://americaneconomicdecline.blogspot.com/2013/09/movers-shakers-and-regulators.html

  • SoCalMike

    The Feds are the parasites that should be sued here, not Morgan.
    Sadly so many otherwise intelligent but totally mentally conformed economic illiterates will never get it.
    The Feds specifically caused the subprime mortgage bubble.
    And that is THE ground zero of the mess were in.
    And the same FED parasites keep making it worse and worse with this grade of crp.

  • Bamaguje

    Like the IRS hounding of Tea party groups, this persecution of Dimon and JP Morgan is an inexcusable abuse of power to intimidate and silence political and business opposition.
    America is gradually being reduced to a fascist dictatorship.

  • NAHALKIDES

    Agreed that the government’s conduct here is little short of despicable, yet on the plus side we might hope it will dislodge the prevailing philosophical pragmatism among American business leaders: the Progressive Left is not your friend, and it will turn on you the moment it becomes convenient for them to do so. Perhaps free-market economics and the corresponding ethos of freedom will become as prevalent on Wall Street as the WSJ rather naively imagines it already is.

  • Donald J DaCosta

    This entire debacle began with the Community Reinvestment Act. Mr. Ahlert asks the following question: ‘how the government can portray Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as “unwitting investors in mortgage securities” when their own unconscionable gambling on mortgages triggered the aforementioned $188 billion taxpayer bailout;’

    Mortgage lending institutions reacted to threats of discrimination lawsuits if they failed to meet the government assigned quotas for so called sub-prime loans that had less than reasonable lending standards, by doing what private industry does best when dealing with government imposed rules designed for social engineering. They worked with the government established rules and found ways they hoped would protect them when the bottom fell out. To be sure they likely knew the bottom would eventually fall out but what was their choice? A classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. And of course, when the bottom did fall out who was the biggest, fattest target the government could find to point the finger of blame at? Why what better than the villain of their own making, the one they and their liberal, anti-capitalist media love to vilify every chance they get, Wall Street, big banks, big investment firms and those evil, fat cat, overpaid, poor excuses for humanity at the helm of that corrupt ship.

    What government geniuses decided that lending money to folks who had little to no chance of meeting the debt obligation involved? Why the same geniuses who swore just months before, when some thoughtful individuals first got a whiff of what was coming, said all was well. Nothing to worry about, according to Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. And who was assigned to “fix” this problem that they created so that it would never happen again? Why none other than Chris Dodd and Barney frank. Sought of like putting the fox and the wolf in charge of protecting the chicken coup. And what was their solution? Why Dodd/Frank of course, the Consumer Protection Act. Doesn’t that make it feel all warm and fuzzy? But how safe is the consumer when the enemy is building the fortress?

    And now Obama and company are at it again, determined to squeeze JPMorgan for billions in penalties for something these holier than thou political bastards caused themselves with their inept interference in the free markets, an almost guaranteed recipe for fiscal disaster. If there was an impartial, apolitical media the blame would have been squarely placed where it belongs a long while ago and we’d have been dealing with President Romney.

    • Harald Eigerson

      There’s a lot of this stuff I don’t understand and I probably never will. However, it seems to me that if it were my money that I was forced to lend out to people who would not or could not pay me back, the only way I would do so is if I had a rock solid guarantee that someone else (with the full faith and credit of the nation) would pick up the tab and also ensure that I made a profit for my trouble. Even so I would not put all of my eggs in the federal government’s basket and I might pass on as much of the cost as a market would allow me to incidentally making everyone else’s loans more expensive devious person that I am. My damnation is almost complete and I would continue to make morally poor choices and rationalizing it as the price of doing business with the devil and looking out for number one. It would appear that the net effect of the government’s involvement would be to artificially inflate the price of real estate to the benefit of crony capitalists to the detriment of the free market and as yet unborn generations of net taxpayers. I’m just trying to construct a model that explains the bizzaro world that I’m living in.

  • Nike Air Max 90

    Die richtigen Sportschuhe für den Betrieb wird Ihnen helfen, verbessern Sie Ihre Fähigkeiten und schützen Sie Ihre Füße vor Beschädigungen. Je nachdem, welche Art von Füßen haben, ist es wichtig, das richtige Schuhwerk zu wählen, um sie unterzubringen, genau.

  • Günstige Nike schuhe

    Trotzdem Nike hat nie ihren Weg zu Nike Air Max Schuhe gegeben , von Air Jordan Schuhe populär geworden , hat Nike neues Paar jedes Jahr eingeführt . http://www.zalandonike.eu/

  • Andy_Lewis

    Bull.

  • maryann26

    This bullsh*t. Jamie Dimon should be in a hardcore federal prison for the rest of his life. He and the rest of the Wall Street criminals and their families should be left penniless.