# J P Morgan Chase bank



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

They just annouced that they are taking a 2 billion dollar lose and will must likely take another 2 billion lose next quarter. Fox Business says they lost the money in derivatives.

Could this be the start of the collapse??


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

More news;

Officials at Chase bank are refusing to comment. Lou Dobbs an FBC are saying that the markets will be down tomorrow and that this may just be the first of many loses at other banks. JP Morgan Chase bank is one of the top 5 banks in the US.


----------



## ContinualHarvest (Feb 19, 2012)

Too big to fail again? These mega banks need to be broken up.


----------



## Davarm (Oct 22, 2011)

The "Big Banks" failing(without bail outs) are one of the Warning Events that I have told my DD's to watch for.

Keep your radar on....and your gas cans full.


----------



## horseman1946 (Oct 19, 2011)

*I wonder*

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but, I WONDER,

a. how many households are spending more for gas than rent/mortgage
b. how many households are spending more for gas than food
c. how many households are spending more for gas than tuition/school
d. how many households are spending more for gas than medical, 
accident, life and auto insurance
e. how many households are paying more in taxes than all of the above

And finally, when super inflation hits ( I lived through Jimmy Carter) how many households will be able to pay all of the above and survive.

Today, as I was coming home, gas had dropped to $3.40 gal. and there
were lines at the stations.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

Just my opinion, I believe all the banks are screwed and only creative bookkeeping has been keeping them alive. The FED writes a number on a piece of paper (or on the computer), hands it to them and says ‘ok, you have this much money now’.

I’m surprised their ponzi has lasted this long. There is no real value in any of it, it is all poop.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

These reported losses are nothing to the big corporations. The end will come if the financial system begins to unravel, starting in europe.


----------



## Possumfam (Apr 19, 2011)

Maybe I don't understand finances very well, but I kinda thought with China taking over a US bank and this news, that gold and silver would take off, but they are down. I don't get it.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

Possum,

The financial markets don't care if China takes over a bank, that's a meaninless noise issue. While you and I may be concerned, I suspect the powers view it as an aid to achieve their end game.

Also, there's been some indication that the precious metal market is being manipulated. The real question is how much and by whom? Many of the conspiracy pundits are pointing to a sharp rise, but I don't see it happening until after QE3 is intitiated.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

Tweto said:


> They just annouced that they are taking a 2 billion dollar lose and will must likely take another 2 billion lose next quarter. Fox Business says they lost the money in derivatives.
> 
> Could this be the start of the collapse??


I don't think it's the start of the collapse. Not unless they lose 200 billion. The potential losses for derivatives will be huge. 100 time or 1,000 times the assets of the banks involved.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Reported in 2011 on zerohedge, the top 4 banks had a debt overhang as a result of derivatives contracts of 94% of the total debt overhang in the sector.

JPM $78.1 trillion, Citi $56 trillion, Bank of America $53 trillion, Goldman $48 trillion.

so JPMorgan & Chase Co is reporting $4 trillion. They probably HOPE it's just $4 trillion. Remember the debt overhang on media sources was reported in 2011 and they've been staving it off until now. It's coming to roost.


----------



## UncleJoe (Jan 11, 2009)

http://www.businessinsider.com/jpmo...t-keeps-spiraling-higher-2012-5#ixzz1vUzpRQD2

From WSJ:

The nation's largest bank has said publicly that its losses on the trades have surpassed $2 billion, and people familiar with the matter have said they could over time reach $5 billion.

But the losses could be even bigger if the company sells its positions into a market that has turned against its positions, some traders say. Improvements in the markets could slice the bank's losses.

So the basic issue seems to be: Unwind now and stomach large losses, or wait and hope that things improve.

Either way, it's clear that JPMorgan has a live and active problem on its hands.


----------



## SuspectZero (Feb 3, 2011)

Morgan losses is now up to 7 billion and expected to rise. Maybe it will be harder to manipulate silver as I'm sure they will want more transparency now.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

This is getting nuttier by the day.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

partdeux said:


> This is getting nuttier by the day.


But is anyone waking up?
Who says it better (WAKE UP!), RATM or KRS-One?

Its certainly getting interesting around here.


----------



## ContinualHarvest (Feb 19, 2012)

With a bank that size and has such an impact on the overall economy, they should be subject to tougher regulation. If this spirals out of control (the losses will need to be substantially higher), other banks may follow suit (AGAIN!) and look for a taxpayer bailout (AGAIN). These mega banks need to either be more regulated or broken down to smaller and separate banks to soften the blow of any failures. There should NEVER be "Too Big to Fail". In a "Free Market Society" If a business is spiraling into ruinous disaster for whatever reason, it's left to rot and a new one fills the niche if there is sufficient market share.


----------



## UncleJoe (Jan 11, 2009)

ContinualHarvest said:


> If a business is spiraling into ruinous disaster for whatever reason, it's left to rot and a new one fills the niche if there is sufficient market share.


So why is it our "highly educated" politicians can't get this through their thick skulls? :gaah: Let the TBTF banks fail. If there is a need, the void will be filled.


----------



## jungatheart (Feb 2, 2010)

*"JP Morgan, responding to stockholder fears of their $2Bn loss, said not to worry it's all taxpayer money."*


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

UncleJoe said:


> So why is it our "highly educated" politicians can't get this through their thick skulls? :gaah: Let the TBTF banks fail. If there is a need, the void will be filled.


unk,

The one factor you're missing is the Federal Reserve. Federal Reserve is funding the govt (over)spending. Federal Reserve is a private corporation owned by the TBTF banks. If TBTF bank(s) fail, they take down the federal reserve in the process... Govt will never let that happen, no matter how stupid their behavior.


----------



## ContinualHarvest (Feb 19, 2012)

The Federal Reserve needs to be changed fundamentally to be effective. It's the fox guarding the hen house right now.


----------



## ContinualHarvest (Feb 19, 2012)

UncleJoe said:


> So why is it our "highly educated" politicians can't get this through their thick skulls? :gaah: Let the TBTF banks fail. If there is a need, the void will be filled.


Because all of those politicians probably received a "campaign donation" from those very banks.


----------



## Zonation (May 4, 2012)

The fed reserve is owned by foreign banks, who report to the the main financial institution in London. They print money and them lend it to the US government for a fee(interest rate). Right now, the government is auctioning off treasuries with no one showing up to buy. The federal reserve is then buying the treasuries which imply that the debt is not being paid. Crooked bastards.

Also, what many tend to not realize is that the J.P. Morgan loss was because of derivatives. The top 9 banks are exposed to 290 trillion. Scary.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

The bank of central banks is the BIS in Basil Switzerland. All central banks answer to the Bank for International Settlements.
the top 5 or 6 banks are responsible for over 90% of the derivatives exposure. JPM Chase, Wells, Goldman, etc., won't disappear no matter what happens. They'll be rescued and their losses placed on the backs of the people. That's fascism. One might be sold to another. It will still exist and time will go on.


----------



## Zonation (May 4, 2012)

tenOC said:


> The bank of central banks is the BIS in Basil Switzerland. All central banks answer to the Bank for International Settlements.
> the top 5 or 6 banks are responsible for over 90% of the derivatives exposure. JPM Chase, Wells, Goldman, etc., won't disappear no matter what happens. They'll be rescued and their losses placed on the backs of the people. That's fascism. One might be sold to another. It will still exist and time will go on.


Amen dude. As per central banks, your right when speaking about Switzerland. When dealing with the federal reserve, I believe the central bank is in London. I may be wrong though.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

UncleJoe said:


> So why is it our "highly educated" politicians can't get this through their thick skulls? :gaah: Let the TBTF banks fail. If there is a need, the void will be filled.


That could've been done when the banks were smaller. It was a huge mistake to let banks cross state lines back in the 90s. But I'm sure letting banks get huge was all part of the plan. Along with letting derivatives be created and allowing banks to have huge contingent liabilities in derivatives.

The way it is now if they let a bank fail they still have to bail out the depositors through the FDIC. Those depositors are individuals, governmental units, businesses, and non-profits. It would take a long time for them to get their money back. A lot of people would be left without money. A lot of businesses would go under when they couldn't make payroll or pay their bills. The big banks have large numbers of toxic assets that they've been allowed to keep off their balance sheets. The Fed has been keeping them alive by allowing them to borrow money for free and by Treasuries with it.

So, to keep it simple, it's no longer practical to let the big banks fail. It's past that point. And of course, it hasn't been politically feasible to do that for some time.


----------

