What next for JPMorgan Chase and Jamie Dimon after $2 billion loss

The JPMorgan Chase $2 billion loss again shows why big banks pose a big risk – as seen in the admission of mismanagement by Jamie Dimon. The selfless purpose of a financial system in the economy must override the selfish risks of giantness in banks.

Mark Lennihan/AP Photo/file
The headquarters for JPMorgan Chase & Co., left, is shown in New York.

Big banks carry a special burden, one made clear again by JPMorgan Chase’s whopping $2 billion loss in a trade gone bad.

If big banks fail, they can bring down an entire financial system. That was the lesson from the 2008 Wall Street crisis. American taxpayers were forced to come to the rescue of financial titans who couldn’t manage their own giant, complex, and risk-taking enterprises.

An inherent tension resides in big banks – more so than in smaller financial institutions. While they operate on self-interest in maximizing profits for shareholders, their very size requires they also be selfless in not rattling America’s market economy with spectacular failure.

This selfish-selfless paradox lies at the heart of what went wrong at JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States. The bank forgot its special burden by pursuing a “hedge trade” that its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, now admits was “flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed and poorly monitored.” His own bank is still too big for him or other top executives to be “minding the store.” After the 2008 crisis, Congress considered and rejected a proposal to put a cap on the size of banks. Wall Street’s lobbying arm and its hefty campaign donations prevented that. The reform that did pass, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, mainly attempts to have federal regulators try to outguess the banks in the level of risk they take on.

But now the idea of a cap is back on the table, led by Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and others. They note that the nation’s 10 largest banks hold assets exceeding 61 percent of the nation’s economy. That concentration of banking prowess is triple the level of a few decades ago when the financial system was more diffuse and diverse – and thus safer.

While megabanks may make sense because they provide efficiency and one-stop services for customers, they also put the financial system at too much risk. Under one proposed bill in Congress, a single bank could not hold more than 10 percent of the nation’s banking deposits and could not garner more than 10 percent of the banking system’s liabilities. Four banks now fit that category – JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo.

It would be unfortunate to have more government control of the financial system. But when hubris drives a big bank to the brink, the selfless purpose of banks in society needs attention from regulators.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.