As the world’s foremost business and economics reporter, everyone expects Gasparino to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The only problem is, he doesn’t like Swiss food, he doesn’t speak German, and, most importantly, skiing is no substitute for brutalizing ones’ pecs in the weight room. For these reasons, CG is a no go. Now, if you’d host the WEF in a more congenial location–a cigar bar, perhaps, or at a boxing match–you might pique his interest. Hold it at a classy Italian restaurant on East 54th Street and, well, let’s just say you can pencil him in. Read more »
[via Ryan McCarthy]
Presumably the new scruff is being sported simply in an effort to stay warm in Switzerland but dare we say it should become a permanent thing? As you can see here it does nothing to obscure The Lloyd Face and in fact enriches it somehow?
I feel like this exchange did not go well for Jamie Dimon:
[Elliott Capital's Paul] Singer said the unfathomable nature of banks’ public accounts made it impossible to know which were “actually risky or sound”. … Mr Singer noted that derivatives positions, in particular, were difficult for outside investors to parse and worried that banks did not always collateralise their positions. Mr Dimon said the bank did for all “major” clients. Mr Singer retorted: “Well, we’re a minor client then.”
Whoops! Guess someone else doesn’t know what positions banks collateralize. I suspect someone at Elliott is already on the phone with JPMorgan to renegotiate their CSA. Also so many other people; I count about $50 billion of uncollateralized (fair value) derivative exposure at JPMorgan, suggesting that it fully collateralizes a little under two-thirds of its trades.1 Perhaps those are the two-thirds with the major clients, but if so that seems a little irrelevant. That’s a lot of minor-client money.
Why does Singer care? Well I guess he wants better collateral terms from JPMorgan? More seriously … there is whatever incentive to say things that always exists at Davos sessions, which I guess is a thing, ugh.2 Then there is the broad question of whether banks are too opaque to invest in. Singer is not alone in thinking that the answer is no; we talked a while back about how a lot of smart people get kind of freaked out by bank financial statements; derivatives, as well as other buzzwords like prop trading and opacity, play a role in their conclusions as well. Also here is a funny article about how 60% of Bloomberg subscribers are basically commie anarchists: Read more »
While The Rest Of You Davos Slackers Are Tweeting Pictures Of Your Dicks, Nouriel Roubini Is Working His ASS OFF Over HereBy Bess Levin
As you may have heard, the World Economic Forum kicks off in Switzerland this week and fresh off of last year’s report on the Bitches o’ Davos (in descending order: The Wives, The Mistresses, The Aspiring Mistresses), Anya Schiffrin (wife of Joseph Stiglitz) is back with a few tips for her fellow second-class citizens. Read more »
Hedge Fund Managers Less Than Thrilled With Goldman Sachs President’s Interpretation Of Who Caused The Financial Crisis, Why Banks Don’t Need Increased RegulationBy Bess Levin
At a panel yesterday in Davos, Goldman Sachs president Gary Cohn, perhaps testing out a few new jokes he’s hoping to use at the Laugh Factory‘s open mic night next week, made several interesting statements. The first was his reason for why banks shouldn’t be subject to greater regulation.
Mr. Cohn warned that greater regulation of banks would push risky activities into the “shadow banking sector” which he said was “less regulated” and “opaque.”
Mind you, we have no reason to assume Gary was saying any of this out of self-interest. He’ll have you know Goldman Sachs LOVES regulation. The more the better. He’s just doesn’t want Goldman and the other banks to be selfish and take more than they need when there are others who could really benefit from increased supervision, like the “unregulated” businesses that apparently caused the last financial crisis and might cause another, if we’re not careful.
“What I most worry about,” said Mr Cohn, “is that in the next cycle, as the regulatory pendulum swings, we are going to have to use taxpayer money to bail out unregulated businesses that, unlike the banks in the last crisis, may not be able to repay them.”
He continued. Read more »
Jamie Dimon Will Scratch The Eyes Out Of The Next Journalist To Paint All Bankers With The Same BrushBy Bess Levin
Earlier this week in Davos, Jamie Dimon said that when his and other banks are asked to comply with ‘irrational regulation,’ the sensation feels a lot like taking it in the ass. Which is to say, he doesn’t like it. His dislike for the figurative equivalent of anal rape, however, pales in comparison to what he feels for idiot reporters who think everyone on Wall Street is the same, i.e. reckless, greedy and responsible for taking down the economy with their bare hands. JPMorgan and its commander and chief couldn’t be more different than the fuck-ups at places like, say, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns (and Citi). Just because they’re in the same industry doesn’t mean they’re the same. One ignorant twit at Davos panel entitled “The Next Shock, Are We Better Prepared?” was unaware of the distinction; and after asking the JPMorgan chief about what he thought of “Americans who had directed their anger against the banks for the bailout” was offered an explanation a media person could understand.
Dimon visibly turned more animated, replying that “it’s not fair to lump all banks together.” The TARP program was forced on some banks, and not all of them needed it, he said. A number of banks helped stabilize things, noting that his bank bought the failed Bear Stearns. The idea that all banks would have failed without government intervention isn’t right, he said defensively. “I don’t lump all media together….There’s good and there’s bad. There’s irresponsible and ignorant and there’s really smart media. Well, not all bankers are the same.”
Clearly “aggrieved by the question,” he went on. Read more »