<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/the-bankers-job.html?hp[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/the-bankers-job.html?hp</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that JPM lost shareholder wealth - not depositor wealth.</p>
<p>That said, the younger generations are blaming us anyways. I guess we get lumped in with the bankers.</p>
<p>“Don’t lose our money”</p>
<p>Do you have a large number of shares in JPM?</p>
<p>If not, why in particular would you care about their losses? How does that affect you?</p>
<p>Should students be mad at colleges for losing money in their endowments?</p>
<p>“The total value of Harvard’s endowment fell nearly 30 percent in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, to $25.7 billion, according to a national survey of college and university funds released today. Much of that decline is from investment losses - 27 percent; the fund’s balance also went down because the university needed to spend money on school programs. The Yale University endowment, the nation’s second-largest, dropped 28.6 percent, to $16.3 billion, while Stanford University’s fell 26.7 percent to $12.6 billion. The average drop for endowments across the country was 23 percent, based on a survey of 842 colleges and universities by the National Association of College and University Business Officers and Commonfund, an investment firm for endowments.”</p>
<p>[Harvard</a> endowment leads others down - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/business/markets/articles/2010/01/28/harvard_endowment_leads_others_down/]Harvard”>http://www.boston.com/business/markets/articles/2010/01/28/harvard_endowment_leads_others_down/)</p>
<p>I don’t know if the college students (the recipients of the gift) have any right to be angry. It isn’t actually their money. Now the gift givers, have every right to be angry that the colleges have squandered and poorly invested their gift. Then again, most everyone lost plenty of money that year, and no doubt the endowments are back up near where they went before.</p>
<p>The Harvard figures BC mentions include losses in 2008, part of FY 2009. </p>
<p>Dated Sept, 2011: Harvard University announced today that its endowment earned a 21.4 percent return and was valued at $32 billion for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2011. </p>
<p>This is also interesting: [FAS</a> Budgets Stay Flat Post-Crisis | News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/3/1/fas-budgets-stay-flat/]FAS”>FAS Budgets Stay Flat Post-Crisis | News | The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>Why wouldn’t we care about the banks losses?</p>
<p>Taxpayers bailed the banks out.</p>
<p>Savers bailed the banks out.</p>
<p>Now the banks don’t loan money…</p>
<p>Some of the banks’ policies are so tight…the economy is affected.</p>
<p>There are plenty of projects ready to be developed that will make people a lot of money…and create jobs…and help the economy long term.</p>
<p>But the banks are too busy trading…</p>
<p>But the losses are to the shareholders, not the taxpayers or the savers. The banks won’t loan money until it is profitable to do so, regardless. They’ve been getting away with this shady stuff for a long time, the politicians can run their mouths all they want, but very little is going to get done. I have no idea what anyone can do. Seems like they should have put a couple of conditions on the banks when we bailed them out.</p>
<p>The jpm losses are the shareholders.</p>
<p>But they are a symptom or a subset…of something bigger.</p>
<p>It is profitable for the banks to loan money on some deals…I have seen some deals that make sense, but the banks won’t lend. </p>
<p>And it is hurting the economy.</p>
<p>Yes…we should have put conditions on the banks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t remember 2008 when we all had to bail out the banking industry? JPM is “too big to fail.” </p>
<p>And yes, they should have put conditions on the banks when we rescued them in '08. But banks essentially write banking regulations, and they like the current state of affairs just fine. They take stupid risks and if it pays off, they keep the profits. If not, the taxpayers are left holding the bag. Privatized reward, socialized risk. What’s not to like, if you’re JPM?</p>
<p>I’m reading a truly terrifying book called * All the Devils Are Here * about the banking/mortgage crisis of '08. Nothing has changed since then, not human nature, not banking laws. It could happen all over again, and clearly, one of the biggest banks hasn’t learned anything.</p>
<p>My wife just worked on a project that turned out fantastic.</p>
<p>The community will benefit for decades.
Her boss and his partners will do well.
My wife got a salary.
A couple of hundred temporary jobs were created.
I don’t know…maybe 20 permanent jobs were created.
The locality and state receive tax dollars.</p>
<p>The banks pulled out of the deal.
The deal happened because the state and local government stepped in to make sure the project was built. Federal stimulus money was used also
as a guarantee. The federal government makes money too.</p>
<p>No politics. These are just facts</p>
<p>There are a couple of projects that can be built right now…that will have similar effects.
Banks are not interested in loaning money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and why should they? They can make more money speculating with it.</p>
<p>Until they can’t.</p>
<p>Then we bail them out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, absolutely. This and some substantive, glass-steagall like, regulation, would have gone a long way towards making things more sane.</p>
<p>It boggles the mind, to some extent, until you realize that the banks, GS in particular, run the treasury and the FED. Until firewalls are put up between working in “banking” and working in bank and investment regulations? Nothing will change.</p>
<p>And no one is talking about building another firewall that I know of, poetgrl. Since Washington rarely enacts sweeping legislation unless there’s a disaster very fresh in people’s minds, we’re going to have to wait for yet another catastrophe.</p>
<p>I don’t know why the banks would loan money unless the individual or business was a very good bet. Right now they can borrow money for nothing and get a return on it, so why chance it. Too many people have walked away from their loans with no remorse. It used to be that there was a sense of shame in doing that, and it was your last option if you ran into serious trouble. Now, it’s purely a financial decision for many. Do I owe much more on my house than it’s worth? Walk away. No, actually, I like this house and I don’t want to walk away, so I’m just going to stay here without paying until they foreclose. Maybe I’ll get 1-2 years of living for free, and watch how my bank account rises when I don’t make any mortgage payments. This is happening all over the place, people have become squatters. So if you were the lending division in a bank, would you lend money to an individual or company with this new attitude, unless they were an extremely good risk?</p>
<p>That’s a nice rationalization. ;)</p>
<p>The same banks that were making loans and doing stupid things went the financials of the deal were poor …are now not making loans and doing stupid things when the financials of the deals are strong. :)</p>
<p>I’m not rationalizing the banks doing stupid things at any time, before or after the meltdown. I do not think banks should be able to make risky investments with other people’s money unless there is full and clear disclosure, and that is what the individuals desire. And not with the depositors money.</p>
<p>But I do understand why they wouldn’t want to make loans that are risky anymore. At least they finally got smart on that account. Do you think they should?</p>
<p>Actually every company should have some projects that lose money or do not work. If you don’t you are not taking enough risk and won’t learn. You just want to keep it within reason for the size of the firm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because when the mortgage industry was deregulated, the connection between lender and borrower was broken. The lender no longer has to care whether the borrower can pay back the loan, because these days, mortgages are sold almost as soon as they’re written. The lenders makes their money by securitizing and selling the mortgage quickly, not by servicing it over years. The securities get re-securitized and re-securitized until no one knows what’s actually in them. Remember derivatives and CDOs? For the lender, the incentive is to write as many mortgages as possible, without regard to the borrower’s creditworthiness.</p>