Jamie Dimon

  • 05 Apr 2013 at 5:25 PM

JPMorgan Board, Execs Stand By Their Man

Executives and directors of J.P. Morgan Chase are rallying large investors against a nonbinding shareholder proposal to strip Chief Executive James Dimon of his chairmanship, the latest attempt to restore calm following a multibillion-dollar trading loss. The largest U.S. bank is arranging conversations with big fund managers in the coming weeks. J.P. Morgan is scheduling calls and offering meetings with directors for some of its biggest shareholders, including BlackRock Inc. and State Street Global Advisors, a unit of State Street Corp. Other large holders include Vanguard Group Inc., Fidelity Investments and T. Rowe Price Group Inc. Votes on the proposal will be counted at the company’s annual meeting next month in Tampa, Fla. Mr. Dimon has held the chairman and chief executive posts since 2006. Proponents of separating the two also plan extensive shareholder lobbying during coming weeks, including a meeting in Washington, D.C., with funds that hold large blocks of the company. [WSJ]

If you’d like to have at least eight federal agencies—and the Justice Department—investigating your firm, consider this approach. Read more »

Carl Levin Does Not Think Much Of Jamie Dimon

And Joe Nocera loves him for it. Read more »

  • 05 Mar 2013 at 6:50 PM

Person Sends Email To Jamie Dimon

We* don’t really find it particularly amusing amusing or post-worthy that a Jefferies employee misguidedly put Jamie Dimon on an email about a working group list but judging by the number of people who’ve sent it to us, this is the height of banking humor, so here you go: Read more »

Mike Mayo: I think what I hear UBS saying in their presentation is, if I’m an affluent customer, I’ll feel a lot better going to UBS if they have a 13 percent capital ratio than another big bank with a 10 percent ratio, do you agree with that or disagree? Jamie Dimon: So you would go to UBS and not JPMorgan? Mike Mayo: I didn’t say that, that’s their argument. Jamie Dimon: That’s why I’m richer than you. [BloombergTV]

  • 20 Feb 2013 at 4:35 PM

Does Jamie Dimon Have Too Much on His Plate?

Some meddlesome JPMC investors seem to think so. Read more »

  • 23 Jan 2013 at 1:32 PM
  • Banks

Bank Investors Push For Change Via Strongly Worded Poll Responses

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 »