Jamie Dimon

The past couple of weeks, some might argue, have been the worst of Jamie Dimon’s professional career. Although being fired by Sandy Weill in 1998 was obviously a distressing time in Dimon’s life, a JPMorgan trader’s multi-billion dollar (and counting) loss appears to be even more painful for the CEO, who now has a reputation (and a title: “America’s Least Hated Banker”) to defend. While it’s unlikely that the blunder will cost him his job, every article written questioning Dimon’s judgment, suggesting that he is in fact fallible, and wondering aloud if he is simply a pretty face (that is about to get the regulation it has vociferously argued against rammed down its throat) clearly hurts. So far, Dimon has chosen to frame the situation, at least publicly, as a group fuck-up, one for which the responsibility is shared among himself, The Whale, The Whale’s bosses, and The Whale’s bosses’ bosses. Over the weekend, though, a heretofore unmentioned character, whose actions set in motion the events that served to tarnish JD’s halo, was added to story. And now, Dimon has a place to channel his anger: on a bloodsucking vermin whose days are numbered. Read more »

“We maintain a fortress balance sheet to manage surprises and setbacks like this,” Dimon said today. “I’m confident when we’re done here we’ll be a stronger company.” [Bloomberg, earlier]

Time was, Jamie Dimon was the most popular CEO on Wall Street and America’s “Least Hated Banker,” for reasons that included the fact that the man has soulful blue eyes, charisma out the ass, and was in charge of one of the banks that a) didn’t go out of business during the financial crisis, like Lehman and Bear and b) supposedly didn’t actually need the bailout money the government made it take (as JD has said previously), like Bank of America and Citigroup. The man, in the hearts of many and especially the adoring press, could do no wrong. Which is why it probably stung a lot that Lloyd Blankfein, a Wall Street CEO who also possesses more charm than a person would know what do do with, who was also in charge of a bank that neither went out of business during the financial crisis nor required the bailout money it was forced to take (according to GS), and who is also the owner of a pair of baby blues, though in his case ones that sparkle, could only do wrong. And while LB is not one to gloat at another’s misfortune, especially that of a friend, he’s obviously feeling pretty good about being living proof of the old saying, “only one Wall Street CEO’s balls can be in a vise at a time,” and right now it’s JD’s turn. Read more »

  • 11 May 2012 at 4:50 PM

Fitch Has Something To Say About Fudgie

“Manageable” but “raises questions.” Read more »

In case that was unclear. Also, no more “surprises” like you know what again, please. Read more »

Jamie Dimon just did a conference call in which he mentioned something called the “Dimon Principle,” but he did not define it, so I will propose a definition, which is: If you are going to have a Slytherin alumnus running a $375bn book full of snakes and CDX and TIPS (??) and things, and someone notices and the press starts lobbing in guesses about it, and Congress starts fretting about it, and you say things like “this is a tempest in a teapot,” you have to NOT LOSE TWO BILLION DOLLARS ON IT. From JPMorgan’s just-filed Q: Read more »


[via CNBC]