This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2013/jan/23/jamie-dimon-jp-morgan-defence-of-bankers

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Jamie Dimon's defence of bankers won't fly Jamie Dimon's defence of bankers won't fly
(about 1 hour later)
Poor Jamie Dimon: as CNBC warmed up the audience up for Wednesday's Davos debate on "the global financial context", he was forced to sit unflinching through an ear-splitting video montage of Wall Street's misdemeanours, including the so-called "London Whale" farrago, that saw JP Morgan 'fess up to having lost $6bn (£3.77bn) after several London traders made hugely risky trading bets in what was meant to be a relatively conservative corner of the bank. Poor Jamie Dimon: as CNBC warmed the audience up for Wednesday's Davos debate on "the global financial context", the JP Morgan boss was forced to sit unflinching through an ear-splitting video montage of Wall Street's misdemeanours, including the so-called "London Whale" farrago that saw his bank 'fess up to having lost $6bn (£3.77bn) after several London traders made hugely risky bets in what was meant to be a relatively conservative corner of the bank.
True to pugnacious form, Dimon came out fighting. He took on Paul Singer, the hedge fund manager who has been critical of banks' opaqueness and complexity, denying that there is anything about JP Morgan's balance sheet that the public – or the regulators – can't find out from reading the information it discloses to regulators. "You don't know how aircraft engines work, either!" he shot back at Singer. True to pugnacious form, Dimon came out fighting. He took on Paul Singer, the hedge fund manager who has been critical of banks' opaqueness and complexity, denying that there is anything about JP Morgan's balance sheet that the public – or the regulators – can't find out from reading the information it discloses. "You don't know how aircraft engines work, either!" he shot back at Singer.
Yet the JP Morgan boss's analogy, comparing a finely tuned jet and vast multinational banks was a cheeky one, to say the least. For one thing, if the revelation of the London Whale's losses showed anything, it was that Dimon and his team were not aware of what every cog in their machine was doing. But for another, it's far too complacent to suggest that, just as BA's Willie Walsh can't be expected to get his spanner out and tune up a 747, Dimon and his colleagues shouldn't have to know the precise details of the financial engineering that keeps their banks in the air. But his analogy, comparing a finely tuned jet and a vast multinational bank, is a cheeky one, to say the least. For one thing, if the London Whale revelations show anything, it is that Dimon and his team were not aware of what every cog in their machine was doing. And for another, it's far too complacent to suggest that, because BA's Willie Walsh can't be expected to get his spanner out and tune up a 747, Dimon and his colleagues shouldn't have to know the precise details of the financial engineering that keeps their banks in the air.
In fact, if anything, perhaps the best comparison to make with aeronautical engineering is that the implications of a plane dropping out of the sky are so dire that it's in all our interests for the industry to be regulated to within an inch of its life. And whether Walsh can name them or not, it's fair to assume that every component of an aircraft engine performs some useful function or another, aside from maximising BA's profits. For some complex financial products, that's a much harder argument to make. And unlike banks, if problems emerge in one aircraft, as Boeing is experiencing with its Dreamliner, then the rest of the fleet can be grounded until it is solved. There is no risk of contagion and blow-ups that can impact the global economy. If anything, the best comparison to make with aeronautical engineering is that the implications of a plane dropping out of the sky are so dire that it's in all our interests for the industry to be regulated within an inch of its life. And whether Walsh can name them or not, it's fair to assume that every component of an aircraft engine performs some useful function or another, aside from maximising BA's profits. For some complex financial products, that's a much harder argument to make.
And unlike banks, if problems emerge in one aircraft, as Boeing is experiencing with its Dreamliner, then the rest of the fleet can be grounded until it is solved. There is no risk of a blow-up that can destabilise the entire global economy.