Why the Senate Won't Touch Jamie Dimon
by Ellen Hodgson Brown / June 20th, 2012
When Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase Bank, appeared before the
Senate Banking Committee on June 13, he was wearing cufflinks bearing
the presidential seal. “Was Dimon trying to send any particular message
by wearing the presidential cufflinks?”
asked CNBC editor John Carney. “Was he . . . subtly hinting that he’s really the guy in charge?”
The groveling of the Senators was so obvious that Jon Stewart did a spoof news clip on it, featured in a
Huffington Post piece titled “
Jon Stewart Blasts Senate’s Coddling Of JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon,” and Matt Taibbi wrote an op-ed called “
Senators Grovel, Embarrass Themselves at Dimon Hearing.” He said the whole thing was painful to watch.
“What is going on with this panel of senators?” asked Stewart.
“They’re sucking up to Jamie Dimon like they’re on JPMorgan’s payroll.”
The explanation in a news clip that followed was that JPMorgan Chase is
the biggest campaign donor to many of the members of the Banking
Committee.
That is one obvious answer, but financial analysts Jim Willie and Rob
Kirby think it may be something far larger, deeper, and more ominous.
They contend that the $3 billion-plus losses in London hedging
transactions that were the subject of the hearing can be traced, not to
European sovereign debt (as alleged), but to the record-low interest
rates maintained on U.S. government bonds.
The national debt is growing at $1.5 trillion per year. Ultra-low
interest rates MUST be maintained to prevent the debt from overwhelming
the government budget. Near-zero rates also need to be maintained
because even a moderate rise would cause multi-trillion dollar
derivative losses for the banks, and would remove the banks’ chief
income stream, the arbitrage afforded by borrowing at 0% and investing
at higher rates.
The low rates are maintained by interest rate swaps, called by Willie
a “derivative tool which controls the bond market in a devious
artificial manner.” How they control it is complicated, and is explored
in detail in the
Willie piece here and
Kirby piece here.
Kirby contends that the only organization large enough to act as
counterparty to some of these trades is the U.S. Treasury itself. He
suspects the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund, a covert entity
without oversight and accountable to no one. Kirby also notes that if
publicly-traded companies (including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan
Stanley) are deemed to be integral to U.S. national security (meaning
protecting the integrity of the dollar), they can legally be excused
from reporting their true financial condition. They are allowed to keep
two sets of books.
Interest rate swaps
are now over 80 percent of the massive derivatives market, and JPMorgan
holds about $57.5 trillion of them. Without the protective JPMorgan
swaps, interest rates on U.S. debt could follow those of Greece and
climb to 30%. CEO Dimon could, then, indeed be “the guy in charge”: he
could be controlling the lever propping up the whole U.S. financial
system.
Hero or Felon?
So should Dimon be regarded as a national hero? Not if past conduct
is any gauge. Besides the recent $3 billion in JPMorgan losses, which
look more like illegal speculation than legal hedging, there is JPM’s
use of its conflicting positions
as clearing house and creditor of MF Global to siphon off funds that
should have gone into customer accounts, and its responsibility in
dooming Lehman Brothers by withholding $7 billion in cash and
collateral. There is also the fact that Dimon sat on the board of the
New York Federal Reserve
when it lent $55 billion to JPMorgan in 2008 to buy Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. Dimon then
owned nearly three million shares of JPM stock and options, in clear violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 208, which makes that sort of conflict of interest a felony.
Financial analyst John Olagues, a former stock options market maker,
points out
that the loan was guaranteed by $55 billion of Bear Stearns assets. If
Bear had that much in assets, the Fed could have given it the loan
directly, saving it from being swallowed up by JPMorgan. But Bear did
not have a director on the board of the NY Fed.
Olagues also notes that JPMorgan received an additional $25 billion
in TARP payments from the Treasury, which were evidently paid off by
borrowing from the NY Fed at a very low 0.5%; and that JPM executives
received some very large and highly suspicious bonuses called Stock
Appreciation Rights and Restricted Stock Units (complicated variants of
employee stock options and restricted stock). In 2009, these bonuses
were granted on the day JPMorgan stock reached its lowest value in five
years. The stock quickly rebounded thereafter, substantially increasing
the value of the bonuses. This pattern recurred in 2008 and 2012.
Olagues has evidence of systematic computer-generated selling of
JPMorgan stock immediately prior to and on the dates of the granted
equity compensation. Collusion to manipulate the stock to accommodate
the grant of options is called “spring-loading” and is a violation of
SEC Rule 10 b-5 and tax laws, with criminal and civil penalties.
All of which suggests we could actually have a felon at the helm of our ship of state.
There is a
movement afoot
to get Dimon replaced on the Board, on the ground that his directorship
represents a clear conflict of interest. In May, Massachusetts Senate
candidate Elizabeth Warren called for Dimon’s resignation from the NY
Fed board, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has used the uproar over
the speculative JPM losses to promote an overhaul of the Federal
Reserve. In a release to reporters,
Warren said:
Four years after the financial crisis, Wall Street has
still not been held accountable, and that lack of accountability has
history repeating itself—huge, risky financial bets leading to billions
in losses. It is time for some accountability. . . . Dimon stepping down
from the NY Fed would be at least one small sign that Wall Street will
be held accountable for their failures.
But what chance does even this small step have against the
gun-to-the-head persuasion of a nightmare collapse of the entire U.S.
debt scheme?
Propping Up a Pyramid Scheme
Is there no alternative but to succumb to the Mafia-like Wall Street
protection racket of a covert derivatives trade in interest rate swaps?
As Willie and Kirby observe, that scheme itself must ultimately fail,
and may have failed already. They point to evidence that the JPM losses
are not just $3 billion but $30 billion or more, and that JPM is
actually bankrupt.
The derivatives casino itself is just a last-ditch attempt to prop up
a private pyramid scheme in fractional-reserve money creation, one that
has progressed
over several centuries
through a series of “reserves”—from gold, to Fed-created “base money,”
to mortgage-backed securities, to sovereign debt ostensibly protected
with derivatives. We’ve seen that the only real guarantor in all this
is the government itself, first with FDIC insurance and then with
government bailouts of too-big-to-fail banks. If we the people are
funding the banks, we should own them; and our national currency should
be issued, not through banks at interest, but through our own sovereign
government.
Unlike Greece, which is dependent on an uncooperative European
Central Bank for funding, the U.S. still has the legal power to issue
its own dollars or borrow them interest-free from its own central bank.
The government could buy back its bonds and refinance them at 0%
interest through the Federal Reserve—which now buys them on the open
market at interest like everyone else—or it could simply rip them up.
The chief obstacle to that alternative is the bugaboo of inflation,
but many countries have proven that this approach need not be
inflationary.
Canada borrowed from its own central bank effectively interest free from 1939 to 1974, stimulating productivity without creating inflation;
Australia did it from 1912 to 1923; and
China has done it for decades.
The private creation of money at interest is the granddaddy of all
pyramid schemes; and like all such schemes, it must eventually collapse,
despite a
quadrillion dollar derivatives edifice
propping it up. Willie and Kirby think that time is upon us. We need
to have alternative, public and cooperative systems ready to replace the
old system when it comes crashing down.
Ellen Brown is an attorney in Los Angeles and the author of 11 books. In
Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free,
she shows how a private banking cartel has usurped the power to create
money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back.
Read other articles by Ellen, or
visit Ellen's website.
This article was posted on Wednesday, June 20th, 2012 at 10:21am and is filed under
Banks/Banking,
Debt.
Great post. I enjoyed a lot by reading it. What a way of telling about the subject!
ReplyDelete