Heads Start Rolling
the so-called “London Whale,” that JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM-N33.49-0.44-1.30%) was aggressively selling huge amounts of insurance against defaults by U.S. corporations.
A clearer picture of how JPMorgan Chase traders managed to find themselves stuck with a position losing $2-billion (U.S.) is beginning to emerge -- a hedge against systemic risk that backfired. JPMorgan has offered few clues, other than characterizing the problem trade as a hedge.
It's been known since April, thanks to great reporting by Bloomberg News on the so-called “London Whale,” that JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM-N33.49-0.44-1.30%) was aggressively selling huge amounts of insurance against defaults by U.S. corporations. That, on its face, seemed counterintuitive. A bank, by nature, is already very long credit risk. Going even longer corporate credit risk by selling insurance against defaults is the opposite of a hedge.
It's been known since April, thanks to great reporting by Bloomberg News on the so-called “London Whale,” that JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM-N33.49-0.44-1.30%) was aggressively selling huge amounts of insurance against defaults by U.S. corporations. That, on its face, seemed counterintuitive. A bank, by nature, is already very long credit risk. Going even longer corporate credit risk by selling insurance against defaults is the opposite of a hedge.
There may be more departures to come as Dimon tries to contain the damage done to his bank both reputationally and financially. The bank’s shares fell 9.5% on Friday, the trading loss has highlighted once again the need to regulate banks’ risk-taking abilities.
Heads Start Rolling At JPMorgan Amid Trading Loss PhottyDimon MUST GO…….no cosmetics pleasehobartDimon is just another fraudster. He has been acting on behalf of all the banksters by holding a seat on the New York Fed Board… HOW CAN THAT BE? A blatant [...]Dylan TeoThe damage is done and confidence lost, damage control is just a cosmetic term to say cut loses. It is what the impact globally that these too big to fail [...]TopherJPM is still solvent and is set to report a PROFIT in the BILLIONS this quarter ALONE. Dylan Teo-how has this effected the “average” person? somebody made [...]Bonnie GreenWell now that it has been found that 25 Billion was lost in trading under the watch of individuals who earned $15 million in one year—what will be done for [...]Shareholder FriendKey shareholder proposals to be voted at Tuesday JPM annual meetingHalah Touryalai, Forbes StaffThanks for the details here.Nader NazemiInteresting indeed. 23 comments, 16 called-out + Comment now Bonnie Green
Well now that it has been found that 25 Billion was lost in trading under the watch of individuals who earned $15 million in one year—what will be done for [...]
+ Comment now You knew it was coming. The resignations and firing of JPMorgan Chase employees who were close to the$2 billion trading loss are just getting started.
The first round of departures is starting at the top. No, not CEO Jamie Dimon, but his chief investment officer Ina Drew.
Drew, 55, is one of the most powerful women on Wall Street. Last week was a rough one for Drew who oversaw the unit responsible for the$2 billion trading loss. Drew is among the highest paid execs at JPM. In 2011 her pay package was roughly $15 million.
Drew isn’t the only one on the way out. According tothe WSJ, Achilles Macris, who is in charge of the London-based desk that placed the trade and trader Javier Martin-Artajo, a managing director on Macris’s team are also leaving. The Journal reports that the so-called London Whale, Bruno Michel Iksil is expected to leave also but there’s no official word on him yet.
There may be more departures to come as Dimon tries to contain the damage done to his bank both reputationally and financially. The bank’s shares fell 9.5% on Friday, the trading loss has highlighted once again the need to regulate banks’ risk-taking abilities.
Well now that it has been found that 25 Billion was lost in trading under the watch of individuals who earned $15 million in one year—what will be done for [...]
+ Comment now You knew it was coming. The resignations and firing of JPMorgan Chase employees who were close to the$2 billion trading loss are just getting started.
The first round of departures is starting at the top. No, not CEO Jamie Dimon, but his chief investment officer Ina Drew.
Drew, 55, is one of the most powerful women on Wall Street. Last week was a rough one for Drew who oversaw the unit responsible for the$2 billion trading loss. Drew is among the highest paid execs at JPM. In 2011 her pay package was roughly $15 million.
Drew isn’t the only one on the way out. According tothe WSJ, Achilles Macris, who is in charge of the London-based desk that placed the trade and trader Javier Martin-Artajo, a managing director on Macris’s team are also leaving. The Journal reports that the so-called London Whale, Bruno Michel Iksil is expected to leave also but there’s no official word on him yet.
There may be more departures to come as Dimon tries to contain the damage done to his bank both reputationally and financially. The bank’s shares fell 9.5% on Friday, the trading loss has highlighted once again the need to regulate banks’ risk-taking abilities.
gagging writ Politicians and libel lawyers
Politicians and libel lawyers have often worked closely together in the past and, it seems, will continue to do so. Lord Archer has promised vengeance on his enemies and he knows a thing or two about the libel courts.
So does George Galloway MP, already successful over the past decade against the Mirror, Today, Sunday Telegraph, London Evening Standard, and two Arab papers (he is now taking on the Telegraph again). And Nato general-secretary Lord Robertson has just launched a defamation claim against the Scottish newspaper the Sunday Herald after a libellous posting on the message board of the newspaper's website. The Scottish writ seeks ¡Ì200,000 damages plus costs after the former MP was falsely accused of helping Thomas Hamilton, who shot dead 16 people in Dunblane in 1996, to obtain his gun licence. Robertson feels that the allegations are so serious that they could hinder his chances in the employment market when he steps down as head of Nato at the end of this year. He, too, is no newcomer to libel claims - in 1995 he successfully sued the publisher Macmillan over a claim made in Oleg Gordievsky's book on the KGB. In February 2003 the Sunday Herald was running an online discussion forum in response to an announcement that 106 official documents relating to the Dunblane massacre, including a letter from Robertson to the then Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth (Hamilton's MP) relaying his concerns about Hamilton's militaristic boys camps, would remain classified for a century. The online editor invited comments from site visitors which prompted speculation, and allegations, over Robertson's role. Perhaps offering a red rag to a bull, the site had asked people to comment on speculation about Hamilton's supposed links with prominent Scots via freemasonry. The writ claims that, due to a lack of website policing, the allegations remained on the message board for more than three weeks and were only removed when Robertson brought the postings to the attention of the Sunday Herald's editor, who then acted expeditiously and removed them. The newspaper could find itself between a rock and a hard place. Legal scrutiny is likely to focus on whether there was reasonable care taken to police the site. If it invited possibly scurrilous allegations and did not edit, that might well not be reasonable; but if it did edit and allowed the clearly defamatory posting to stay online for weeks that might not be reasonable either. It is likely to be argued that in such circumstances the newspaper is as responsible for readers' online views as it is for correspondence from readers published in the letters page. But the Scottish courts may decide to take a different (and more modern?) view of the difficulties that are faced by publishers who want to encourage debate, the relevant law being section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996. An as yet unknown reader accused Robertson of signing the firearm certificate recommendation for Hamilton and, according to the writ, using his influence to force the police to ignore their suspicions about him. The contributor had got his facts wrong, claiming that Robertson was the killer's local MP, when in fact he represents Hamilton South, 35 miles away. There were also further derogatory allegations by two other contributors to the site. Earlier this month the Sunday Herald ran the libel claim as a news story and quoted in full the allegations made on its website and stated that less than 400 visitors would have viewed the postings objected to (Robertson's lawyers believe the figure to be much higher and point out it was available worldwide). As every journalist knows, claim forms are privileged documents and fair and accurate reports of their contents can be published without creating a fresh libel risk. In England, Australia, the US and elsewhere the courts have scrutinised libels on the internet, but Scotland has not yet had full judicial analysis of the liabilities of internet service providers (ISPs) or publishers such as newspapers or the BBC with interactive message boards or chatrooms. As one might fear, different countries take different judicial views on the internet, with the US protecting ISPs (with the Communications Decency Act 1995) by not treating them as the publishers of information put on the worldwide web by someone else (though the person posting, if traceable, could be sued). The US Telecommunications Act set out the "Good Samaritan defence" protecting ISPs and publishers who take steps in good faith to restrict access to pornographic or defamatory postings. There is no requirement to police services to prevent outrageous libels but, on being notified by the person libelled, they must be withdrawn. American lawyers take the view that the internet is rather like a telephone line. If a caller slanders someone it would be harsh to blame the telephone company. Even here British Telecom is not (yet) held responsible for what people choose to say on the phone. The US system may be good for freedom of expression but it has led to innocent claimants, victims of hoaxes and obscene messages, having no realistic legal remedy. But the Defamation Act of 1996 is tougher on publishers. English judges consider a posting on the internet to be a fresh libel and one that continues if it is still accessible through an archive. Section 1 of the 1996 Act helps only if the defendant can show that he was not the author, editor or publisher of a defamatory statement, took reasonable care and did not intentionally (such as a provocative invitation to leave postings or an obviously libellous front page) contribute to the publication of a defamatory statement. This may help printers and distributors but not broadcasters and publishers, and we may soon learn what the Scottish take on this conundrum of balancing free speech and reputation will be. Libel remains a funny old game. James Hewitt has recently been much in evidence as Diana's lover, and this is the same man who sued the Sun in 1992 over allegations about a relationship with the late Princess. He explained at the time that he dropped the case to spare his friend (not lover) the ordeal of giving evidence. This was not the first, and it will certainly not be the last, gagging writ issued by a claimant on dodgy ground. There is plenty of life in libel yet. ¡¤ Duncan Lamont is a media partner at City solicitors Charles Russell Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited
The Knights Templars, as it turned out, had been masters of deception, experts in duplicity, appearing to serve Christ on the surface while worshiping Lucifer within their inner rites.
"Having embraced Gnosticism while in Palestine, and in touch with the sect of the Assassins, the Templar order degenerated, and some of its members, under the influence of that sect, were said to practice Phallicism or sex-worship and Satanism and to venerate "The Baphomet," the idol of the Luciferians. The crime of Sodomy was a rite of Templar initiation." (Ibid., 144). "In 1307 the Templars were charged with heresy and immorality by a former member of the order" (Collier's Encyclopedia, "Knights Templars"). As a result, Philip IV of France launched an investigation looking into the alleged misdeeds of the organization (World Book Encyclopedia, 1969, "Knights Templars"). On 15 October 1507 the king had the Templars of France arrested and brought before the Inquisitor for France by whom they were examined (Webster, Secret Societies, 51-52). The knights confessed to a variety of notorious crimes and admitted to taking blasphemous oaths against Jesus Christ upon admission into the Order.
They said, they had been shown the cross on which was the figure of Christ, and had been asked whether they believed in Him; when they answered yes, they were told in some cases that this was wrong (dixit sibi quod male credebat), because He was not God, He was a false prophet (quid falsus propheta erat, nec erat Deus). Some added that they were then shown an idol or a bearded head which they were told to worship; one added that this was of such "terrible aspect that it seemed to him to be the face of
some devil, called in French "un maufe," and that whenever he saw it he was so overcome with fear that he could hardly look at it without fear and trembling." All who confessed declared that they had been ordered to spit on the crucifix, and very many that they had received the injunction to commit obscenities and to practice unnatural vice. Some said that on their refusal to carry out these orders they had been threatened with imprisonment, even a few said they had actually been incarcerated; one declared that he had been terrorized, seized by the throat, and threatened with death (Ibid., p. 52; Michelet, Proces des Templiers II, 1841. p. 284-364).
Pope Clement V, however, refused to respond to the charges and confessions of the Templars.
Clement V, deeply resenting the King's interference with an order which existed entirely under papal jurisdiction, wrote in the strongest terms of remonstrance to Philippe le Bel urging their release, and even after their trial, neither the confessions of the Knights nor the angry expostulations of the King could persuade him to believe in their guilt (Ibid., p.53).
The pope was not only slow to respond to the confessions but actually did what he could to protect the order. Later on, however, he gave the following reasons for his actions (in his own words):
"Because it did not seem likely nor credible that men of such religion who were believed often to shed their blood and frequently expose their persons to the peril of death for Christ's name, and who showed such great and many signs of devotion both in divine offices as well as in fasts, as in other devotional observances, should be so forgetful of their salvation as to do these things, we were unwilling . . . to give ear to this kind of insinuation . . . (hujusmodi insinuacioni ac delacioni ipsorum . . . aurem noluimus inclinare)." (Ibid., p.51, Michelet, Proces des Templiers).
Due to mounting pressure from a suspicious public and because a number of the confessions before Philip IV were allegedly made under torture, the pope finally decided to mount his own investigation, consenting to receive in private audience "a certain Knight of the Order, of great nobility and held by the same Order in no slight esteem" (Ibid., 53). Upon being questioned by the pope, the Knight "testified to the abominations that took place on the reception of the Brethren, the spitting on the cross, and other things which were not lawful nor, humanly speaking, decent."
Pope Clement V then decided to examine seventy-two other French Knights at Poictiers in order to discover whether their earlier confessions before the Inquisitor for France were true. These hearings were conducted without torture, with the witnesses taking an oath promising "the full and pure truth." The Templars' Grand Master, Jacques de Molay and the French leaders of the order were likewise questioned in the presence of three Cardinals, four public notaries, and many others (Ibid.). Before these many witnesses the Templars admitted their crimes as previously confessed during the trials of King Philip IV (Ibid., 53-54). The Knights Templars, as it turned out, had been masters of deception, experts in duplicity, appearing to serve Christ on the surface while worshiping Lucifer within their inner rites. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masonic.htm
They said, they had been shown the cross on which was the figure of Christ, and had been asked whether they believed in Him; when they answered yes, they were told in some cases that this was wrong (dixit sibi quod male credebat), because He was not God, He was a false prophet (quid falsus propheta erat, nec erat Deus). Some added that they were then shown an idol or a bearded head which they were told to worship; one added that this was of such "terrible aspect that it seemed to him to be the face of
some devil, called in French "un maufe," and that whenever he saw it he was so overcome with fear that he could hardly look at it without fear and trembling." All who confessed declared that they had been ordered to spit on the crucifix, and very many that they had received the injunction to commit obscenities and to practice unnatural vice. Some said that on their refusal to carry out these orders they had been threatened with imprisonment, even a few said they had actually been incarcerated; one declared that he had been terrorized, seized by the throat, and threatened with death (Ibid., p. 52; Michelet, Proces des Templiers II, 1841. p. 284-364).
Pope Clement V, however, refused to respond to the charges and confessions of the Templars.
Clement V, deeply resenting the King's interference with an order which existed entirely under papal jurisdiction, wrote in the strongest terms of remonstrance to Philippe le Bel urging their release, and even after their trial, neither the confessions of the Knights nor the angry expostulations of the King could persuade him to believe in their guilt (Ibid., p.53).
The pope was not only slow to respond to the confessions but actually did what he could to protect the order. Later on, however, he gave the following reasons for his actions (in his own words):
"Because it did not seem likely nor credible that men of such religion who were believed often to shed their blood and frequently expose their persons to the peril of death for Christ's name, and who showed such great and many signs of devotion both in divine offices as well as in fasts, as in other devotional observances, should be so forgetful of their salvation as to do these things, we were unwilling . . . to give ear to this kind of insinuation . . . (hujusmodi insinuacioni ac delacioni ipsorum . . . aurem noluimus inclinare)." (Ibid., p.51, Michelet, Proces des Templiers).
Due to mounting pressure from a suspicious public and because a number of the confessions before Philip IV were allegedly made under torture, the pope finally decided to mount his own investigation, consenting to receive in private audience "a certain Knight of the Order, of great nobility and held by the same Order in no slight esteem" (Ibid., 53). Upon being questioned by the pope, the Knight "testified to the abominations that took place on the reception of the Brethren, the spitting on the cross, and other things which were not lawful nor, humanly speaking, decent."
Pope Clement V then decided to examine seventy-two other French Knights at Poictiers in order to discover whether their earlier confessions before the Inquisitor for France were true. These hearings were conducted without torture, with the witnesses taking an oath promising "the full and pure truth." The Templars' Grand Master, Jacques de Molay and the French leaders of the order were likewise questioned in the presence of three Cardinals, four public notaries, and many others (Ibid.). Before these many witnesses the Templars admitted their crimes as previously confessed during the trials of King Philip IV (Ibid., 53-54). The Knights Templars, as it turned out, had been masters of deception, experts in duplicity, appearing to serve Christ on the surface while worshiping Lucifer within their inner rites. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masonic.htm
the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance
The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest Working beyond the authority of parliament, the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance
Freemasonry royal freeman and the Nuremberg Trials
The indictment contained four counts, namely, (1) that the defendants had engaged in a common plan or conspiracy (2) to commit crimes against peace, (3) war crimes, and (4) crimes against humanity. The third count, that of committing war crimes, had ten subdivisions, in the fifth of which the plunder of public and private property was treated as being in the same category as the murder and ill treatment of civilian populations, the utilization of slave labor, the killing of hostages and the like. It was under this count that most of the evidence of the persecution of Masonic lodges was admitted in evidence. In 1946 and 1947 the United States Government printing office published a set of books in a limited edition, which has now become a collector's item. It is entitled Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression and was prepared by the Office of United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality. It ran to eight volumes plus two supplements, and an additional volume containing the judgment and sentence of the tribunal. In addition to that and to the charter under which the tribunal was set up, it contains the indictment under which the defendants were tried, the arguments of the prosecuting and defence counsel, the statements made by the defendants on their own behalf and the prosecution's trial brief. By far the largest portion of the trial brief consists of translations of captured documents found in the private and official files of many of the defendants and of the organizations they headed. All the material in this paper is to be found in these documents, or, in one instance, in the pre-trial examination of Alfred Rosenberg, and, in another, in a letter written by von Ribbentrop after his capture.http://www.grandlodgescotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99:freemasonry-and-the-nuremberg-trials&catid=50:holocaust-memorial-day-articles&Itemid=207
the Corporation's unique features
This illustrates another of the Corporation's unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks.
As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker's chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City's rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London's mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.
Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, "over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster." The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it "has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate". It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.
Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, "over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster." The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it "has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate". It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.
Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …".
It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG's wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn't get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead. No wonder priests are resigning over the plans to evict the campers. The Church of England is not just working with Mammon; it's colluding with Babylon.
If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval
If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval
Morals and Dogma adds, "Their watchword was, to become wealthy in order to buy the world. They became so, and in 1312, they possessed in Europe alone more than nine thousand seignories" (Morals and Dogma, 819-820). (A seignory refers to the estate or dominion of a noble or feudal lord).
The Knights Templars were probably corrupt from the beginning. But whether the order started out degenerate or became this way later, it is certain that the Templars had, during their exploits in the Middle East, become strongly influenced by both the Gnostics and the Assassins (a ruthless Arabic military order). It is a fact that several of the founders of the Knights Templars were initiates in the sect of the Assassins (Edith Starr Miller, Occult Theocracy. Hawthorne, CA; The Christian Book Club of America, 1933, p.143). The Templars, while adopting the religious beliefs of the Gnostics, received many of their organizational and political traits from the Assassins. The Templars represented the first wide-scale attempt to organize and mobilize the forces of occultism for the purpose of gaining control of the world.
The Knights Templars were probably corrupt from the beginning. But whether the order started out degenerate or became this way later, it is certain that the Templars had, during their exploits in the Middle East, become strongly influenced by both the Gnostics and the Assassins (a ruthless Arabic military order). It is a fact that several of the founders of the Knights Templars were initiates in the sect of the Assassins (Edith Starr Miller, Occult Theocracy. Hawthorne, CA; The Christian Book Club of America, 1933, p.143). The Templars, while adopting the religious beliefs of the Gnostics, received many of their organizational and political traits from the Assassins. The Templars represented the first wide-scale attempt to organize and mobilize the forces of occultism for the purpose of gaining control of the world.
