Obama, NYT, continue constant attacks on JPMorgan
The attacks are never ending. Obama's vindictiveness shows no bounds. Jamie Dimon, after supporting Obama in 2008 began criticizing the administration in 2010 for many legitimate and defensible reasons. He did not do so not in a harsh or disrespectful way. He mainly fully detailed his concerns in his annual letter to shareholders, which he writes himself and which Warren Buffett refers to as among the best, sometimes he says best, annual shareholder letters in corporate America. The thin skinned Obama can't take it and uses his significant power to strike back repeatedly.
That is not to say that JPMorgan is a saint and that it has not made some mistakes, one big trading one of course, but the observation by most investors is that they were not malicious mistakes, but just mistakes that happen in many financial institutions. Broadly speaking, investors generally see JPM as one of the best managed large banks in the country, or in the world(and most profitable), despite the Obama administration's constant public harassment and significant Justice Department and SEC penalties.
Today's New York Times has the following headline on the front page, bottom left --- "For China Elite, JPMorgan Jobs On Easy Track". The article in fact does not back up the headline. It does say what is obvious for most major financial firms, which is that they hire well educated and well connected people to work for them, young or old. It does not cite even one instance of a substantiated business quid pro quo for a hire. It even notes that with a few exceptions, according to their analysis, all of the younger hires but a few were well educated and qualified for their jobs.
So how does the NYT crack this supposed story. They have clearly been the preferred outlet for leaks by the Justice Department over and over again. There is no charge of wrongdoing here, just an appearance of something that may be "unfair", one of Obama's abiding principles.
All financial firms and should I add corporate firms, from the U.S., Asia, Russia, and Europe look to hire not only well educated employees but also well connected ones in China and around the world(this is almost universally not to the exclusion of also hiring well educated and talented people without top tier connections). While there may be some abuses, and most likely there at various places in the corporate world, in general these are long term decisions, as training and building a relationship with a capable individual and their families can be beneficial whether they stay with a firm short term or long term. The same story published today by the NYT about JPM could be written about myriad firms, but that would not satisfy Obama and Holder's vindictive natures.
Let me add a short story from the past. First, as a footnote of sorts, I worked for JPM and predecessor institutions but have not for the last 10 years and while I do have an investment in JPM stock, it is no larger, and in many cases smaller, than what I have in eight other large financially oriented firms. Now that's out of the way. I have created my own basket of financial equity risk.
When my career began at the ripe old age of 31 at Manufacturers Hanover( there were a number of us older new hires that had finally joined the business world "late" but we were definitely in the minority) there was a normal process of building friendships with a large group of people that were not too senior, at all senior, at the time. One weekend soon after joining many of us, maybe 20, met at Central Park for a touch football game. As a pat on the back to myself, they were shocked that this old fart could throw a pass farther and more accurately than any of them. But here's the point of what may seem like an off topic ramble.
One of the younger guys, maybe 24 and a good friend in my working unit, had been there longer than me and he pulled me aside and said, "Do you realize who we're playing with". He then rattled off the last names of maybe eight of those playing and said "do you recognize those last names. They're the real thing." What he was telling me was that those last names were the names attached to major U.S. companies. One that he did not mention was a multi-cultural young man(American and European) whose mother was reputed to be the richest woman in the world. Were these young people at Manufacturers Hanover to immediately bring in new business. No! They were there to get a real world education in credit and banking and eventually go back to their family businesses, of course with some contacts at the firm that trained them. This was common practice everywhere.
Some investment banks, this was back when investment banks and commercial banks were completely separate, took this approach a step further and hired sons and daughters of influential politicians, meaning members of Congress, for summer "internships", giving them "tough" assignments not only in New York but in London, Paris, or other interesting cities, of course on expense accounts while they were contributing their "work" to the firms' benefit. One firm was particularly aggressive in this practice and, not naming names here, your first guess is probably accurate. Whether this still goes on is not known here.
The point of all of this is that picking out solely JPMorgan for this story and headline is offensive. This is not a practice limited to JPM and has been more aggressively used by many other firms, especially certain investment banks of old. It is not illegal.
It could make one wonder whether Obama has the maturity to make an informed and responsible decision on Middle East policy, now focusing on Syria. He certainly blew it in Egypt, focusing all support on Morsi by his ambassador, ignoring Morsi's appointments based solely on Islamist credentials and not competence, and having no one in the administration speak up as Morsi tightened the screws on women's rights, and both traditional and Coptic Christian communities. Why did Obama do this? He saw Egypt as his "personal" showpiece for the success of democracy in the Middle East.
Now with Syria he could feel slighted as they have ignored all warnings and defied Obama's "red line". There is no love lost here for the horrific Assad and his Syrian regime, as has been clear in many blogs written here of late. One can only hope that Obama's decisions and actions related to the current situation are based on thorough analysis and some consensus, and not just on the affront to him personally.
Congratulations to those who have had the interest and tenacity to make it though this unpredictable diatribe.
That is not to say that JPMorgan is a saint and that it has not made some mistakes, one big trading one of course, but the observation by most investors is that they were not malicious mistakes, but just mistakes that happen in many financial institutions. Broadly speaking, investors generally see JPM as one of the best managed large banks in the country, or in the world(and most profitable), despite the Obama administration's constant public harassment and significant Justice Department and SEC penalties.
Today's New York Times has the following headline on the front page, bottom left --- "For China Elite, JPMorgan Jobs On Easy Track". The article in fact does not back up the headline. It does say what is obvious for most major financial firms, which is that they hire well educated and well connected people to work for them, young or old. It does not cite even one instance of a substantiated business quid pro quo for a hire. It even notes that with a few exceptions, according to their analysis, all of the younger hires but a few were well educated and qualified for their jobs.
So how does the NYT crack this supposed story. They have clearly been the preferred outlet for leaks by the Justice Department over and over again. There is no charge of wrongdoing here, just an appearance of something that may be "unfair", one of Obama's abiding principles.
All financial firms and should I add corporate firms, from the U.S., Asia, Russia, and Europe look to hire not only well educated employees but also well connected ones in China and around the world(this is almost universally not to the exclusion of also hiring well educated and talented people without top tier connections). While there may be some abuses, and most likely there at various places in the corporate world, in general these are long term decisions, as training and building a relationship with a capable individual and their families can be beneficial whether they stay with a firm short term or long term. The same story published today by the NYT about JPM could be written about myriad firms, but that would not satisfy Obama and Holder's vindictive natures.
Let me add a short story from the past. First, as a footnote of sorts, I worked for JPM and predecessor institutions but have not for the last 10 years and while I do have an investment in JPM stock, it is no larger, and in many cases smaller, than what I have in eight other large financially oriented firms. Now that's out of the way. I have created my own basket of financial equity risk.
When my career began at the ripe old age of 31 at Manufacturers Hanover( there were a number of us older new hires that had finally joined the business world "late" but we were definitely in the minority) there was a normal process of building friendships with a large group of people that were not too senior, at all senior, at the time. One weekend soon after joining many of us, maybe 20, met at Central Park for a touch football game. As a pat on the back to myself, they were shocked that this old fart could throw a pass farther and more accurately than any of them. But here's the point of what may seem like an off topic ramble.
One of the younger guys, maybe 24 and a good friend in my working unit, had been there longer than me and he pulled me aside and said, "Do you realize who we're playing with". He then rattled off the last names of maybe eight of those playing and said "do you recognize those last names. They're the real thing." What he was telling me was that those last names were the names attached to major U.S. companies. One that he did not mention was a multi-cultural young man(American and European) whose mother was reputed to be the richest woman in the world. Were these young people at Manufacturers Hanover to immediately bring in new business. No! They were there to get a real world education in credit and banking and eventually go back to their family businesses, of course with some contacts at the firm that trained them. This was common practice everywhere.
Some investment banks, this was back when investment banks and commercial banks were completely separate, took this approach a step further and hired sons and daughters of influential politicians, meaning members of Congress, for summer "internships", giving them "tough" assignments not only in New York but in London, Paris, or other interesting cities, of course on expense accounts while they were contributing their "work" to the firms' benefit. One firm was particularly aggressive in this practice and, not naming names here, your first guess is probably accurate. Whether this still goes on is not known here.
The point of all of this is that picking out solely JPMorgan for this story and headline is offensive. This is not a practice limited to JPM and has been more aggressively used by many other firms, especially certain investment banks of old. It is not illegal.
It could make one wonder whether Obama has the maturity to make an informed and responsible decision on Middle East policy, now focusing on Syria. He certainly blew it in Egypt, focusing all support on Morsi by his ambassador, ignoring Morsi's appointments based solely on Islamist credentials and not competence, and having no one in the administration speak up as Morsi tightened the screws on women's rights, and both traditional and Coptic Christian communities. Why did Obama do this? He saw Egypt as his "personal" showpiece for the success of democracy in the Middle East.
Now with Syria he could feel slighted as they have ignored all warnings and defied Obama's "red line". There is no love lost here for the horrific Assad and his Syrian regime, as has been clear in many blogs written here of late. One can only hope that Obama's decisions and actions related to the current situation are based on thorough analysis and some consensus, and not just on the affront to him personally.
Congratulations to those who have had the interest and tenacity to make it though this unpredictable diatribe.
posted by John Borden at 4:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home