JP Morgan pays $920m to regulators

[Jimbuna]

The settlement is the third biggest banking fine by US regulators, and the second largest by UK regulators.


Will the bankers ever learn?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24159801

[Fubar2Niner]

Why will they Jim. It's the only job I know where you can totally screw up and get a £xx,000 or more hand shake :nope: Bastidges

[Jimbuna]

Impose custodial sentences in addition to fines to those responsible and bring in tighter scrutiny and governmental control measures.

You?

[Jimbuna]

Why will they Jim. It's the only job I know where you can totally screw up and get a £xx,000 or more hand shake :nope: Bastidges

Agreed...that is one of the most annoying aspects of this whole sorry financial system...in the UK anyway.

[Armistead]

No they don't learn, because they know they can make more money breaking laws and regulations than the fines or lawsuits brought against them.

[Jimbuna]

I think that's a chivalric approach, but I don't think it will eliminate the corruption. It might not even curb it.

I don't have an answer.

Well thanks for your honesty anyway.

I forgot to mention, strip them of their gold plated pensions and share issues as well because it is all about money and the greed for more.

[Fubar2Niner]

I forgot to mention, strip them of their gold plated pensions and share issues as well because it is all about money and the greed for more.


Whole heartedly agree Jim, will it ever happen? I doubt it, but hope I'm wrong.

[soopaman2]

That's a drop in the bucket.

How come someone who steals 100$ will go to prison, but steal a billion and you get interest free loans from the Fed?

Any free capitalists wanna explain that one to me?

[STEED]

JP Morgan is always being fined and they answer with this...:har::har::har::har:


They don't give a hoot they are making millions every day.

[Skybird]

Impose custodial sentences in addition to fines to those responsible and bring in tighter scrutiny and governmental control measures.

You?

Government? Sure they know it better? They live parasytically.

Problem is there is infinite supply of money. It gets inflationarily printed.

Reduce the availability of money by making it non-printable. Means - get rid of papermoney, return to normal covered money. This necessarily will reduce availability of it, and making its value a free negotiating by and on the market.

Have you never wondered why politicians were the ones enforcing central banks? Central banks are the infinite money source that politicians want like an addict needs his heroine.

And you think politicians really have even an interest to regulate the system towards printing less money? You expect them to act against there own career interests.

[Simmy]

No they don't learn, because they know they can make more money breaking laws and regulations than the fines or lawsuits brought against them.

Isn't this the truth?
Same with the drug companies. They make 2 billion dollars on a new drug then end up paying 300 million dollars to pay off the class action law suits.

[Armistead]

Isn't this the truth?
Same with the drug companies. They make 2 billion dollars on a new drug then end up paying 300 million dollars to pay off the class action law suits.


Look what they did with the bailout, given billions to help home owners, not only did they not loan, they simply stole numerous homes. Sure,, they paid millions in fraud lawsuits, but they made 100 times more breaking the rules. They create a problem, get a bail out and still give themselves millions in bonuses. Was anything solved, not really, they do the same thing and they're still too big to fail.

[Wolferz]

Fines? More like bribes.:-?

Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank and go to prison for it. But, give a man a bank and he can rob the world and get paid handsomely for it.

[Sailor Steve]

Isn't this the truth?
Same with the drug companies. They make 2 billion dollars on a new drug then end up paying 300 million dollars to pay off the class action law suits.
Wouldn't it be nice if people did just a little research before they repeated what they've been told?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/the-cost-of-inventing-a-new-drug-98-companies-ranked/#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development

On the other hand, and to be fair, a pair of economics experts question how much it really costs and come up with some numbers of their own.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/420.long

[Armistead]

Wouldn't it be nice if people did just a little research before they repeated what they've been told?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/the-cost-of-inventing-a-new-drug-98-companies-ranked/#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development

On the other hand, and to be fair, a pair of economics experts question how much it really costs and come up with some numbers of their own.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/420.long

I think he was trying to make a point...

[Sailor Steve]

I think he was trying to make a point...
It gets old when people "make a point" by repeating the lies they've been fed.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

“A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain.” I don't see banks or bankers learning their lesson anytime soon, at this point bankers are like "Screw the rules I have money!"

[Armistead]

It gets old when people "make a point" by repeating the lies they've been fed.

I understand, but I've learned when it comes to this, all numbers are fed, just depends which ones you choose to argue your point..

I think we would all be shocked if a realistic honest model with correct numbers was used by any bank or govt agency. Sort of like Obama stating unemployment fell when people simply stopped working and fall off the unemployment rosters.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree. I had a bad reaction when Clinton and his followers bragged about balancing the budget. I said "Let me see if I've got this straight. You 'balanced the budget' by raising taxes. If that actually works, why don't you just raise all the taxes to 100%, take everything and give us back what you think we need." Problem there is that some of them acually think that's a good idea.

[Armistead]

Govt isn't much different than those scamming TV preachers, rake in the cash, do good with 10% of it, blow the rest, then brag about all the good they've done for us. And like those idiots that send their SS check to Benny Hinn, we keep voting in the same trash.

I hate being told my taxes aren't enough. About 4 years ago my wife and I tried to keep up with every tax, govt, sales, property, those hidden taxes in bills.
I' m sure we missed some, but that year about 52% of our income was paid to taxes.

[Platapus]

Will the bankers ever learn?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24159801


As part of the deal JP Morgan admitted violating US federal securities laws.

That sounds like a confession to a crime.

sooooo I am awaiting some indictments. I wonder how long I will have to wait until we start throwing some of these bankers in the jug?

I will probably win the lottery that I don't play before that happens. :nope:

[Simmy]

Wouldn't it be nice if people did just a little research before they repeated what they've been told?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/the-cost-of-inventing-a-new-drug-98-companies-ranked/#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development

On the other hand, and to be fair, a pair of economics experts question how much it really costs and come up with some numbers of their own.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/420.long

You misunderstood my reply.
No one said creating a drug was cheap or that it happens overnight.
Which is what your post seems to indicate I was implying.
And then of course everyone has a different set of numbers to show how expensive or inexpensive it "really" is.

The post was about the big bucks drug companies make off their wares while the patents are standing.
Pfizer I believe it was got caught paying another company $200 million "not" to make a generic brand of a drug whos patent had run out.

Since you love to look up things because you always think I'm so wrong about Everything. Look up what some of these drugs made in profit and then how much the drug company paid out in the lawsuits.
I hear Lipator is the latest to hit the skids. It must of been around for 10 years, now they claim it has very bad side effects.

I would do it for you, but I'm sure I would only screw it up.
But maybe You could tell me how if it takes so long to make a drug and so much money to get it market, and then hundreds of millions or even billions to settle the lawsuits, not to mention all the bucks to defend the company in court, how do these companies pay their CEO's and other execs that big bonus and still make those big big profits? The ones used to pay for all the R&D, testing, manufacturing, offices, plants, payroll.
Yes sir you got me feeling real sorry for them.

But I wonder if we should trust drug companies with providing the numbers when trying to get to the real cost. I mean they might have a good reason for making those numbers high. As in what they want to charge for the drug, the advertising for the drug, legal cost to get the drug going and maybe defend it in court. The bucks needed to show the board that we are in charge and making money for the big bonus, and all the money they have to pay out to investors and stock holders.

But no need to ask, I'm sure you have all the answers.:know:

[Jimbuna]

I will probably win the lottery that I don't play before that happens. :nope:

More than likely :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

You misunderstood my reply.
Are you sure?

No one said creating a drug was cheap or that it happens overnight.
Which is what your post seems to indicate I was implying.
Not at all.

And then of course everyone has a different set of numbers to show how expensive or inexpensive it "really" is.
Very true. I pointed that out myself.

The post was about the big bucks drug companies make off their wares while the patents are standing.
The post said that big drug companies make huge profits, then pay off lawsuits that are cheap by comparison. It seems to me that a lot of people accuse them of making "obscene" profits without taking into account where a lot of those so-called profits actually go.

Pfizer I believe it was got caught paying another company $200 million "not" to make a generic brand of a drug whos patent had run out.
If they broke the law then they deserve to be punished. That doesn't mean that all drug companies engage in illegal practices, and it certainly doesn't mean that the profits they seem to make are out of line with operating and development costs.

Since you love to look up things because you always think I'm so wrong about Everything. Look up what some of these drugs made in profit and then how much the drug company paid out in the lawsuits.
First, what makes you think I "always" think you're so wrong about everything? Is it because I argued a point about which I did think you were wrong? Should I never debate someone? You have no idea what I think, and I find it interesting that you would even bring something like that up.

Second, if you want to prove a point it's your job to post links, not tell someone else to look it up.

I hear Lipator is the latest to hit the skids. It must of been around for 10 years, now they claim it has very bad side effects.
Okay. That's one. How many others? It happens.

I would do it for you, but I'm sure I would only screw it up.
Why do you think there's something special about me? Do you need my approval? Why are you sure you'd only screw it up, or is that another way of saying you wish I wouldn't debate you? If you can show it, do so.

If somebody says something I disagree with, I say something. If you want to prove me wrong, do it. It won't be the first time, or even the hundredth, that I've been wrong on these forums and it won't be the first time I've apologized.

But maybe You could tell me how if it takes so long to make a drug and so much money to get it market, and then hundreds of millions or even billions to settle the lawsuits, not to mention all the bucks to defend the company in court, how do these companies pay their CEO's and other execs that big bonus and still make those big big profits? The ones used to pay for all the R&D, testing, manufacturing, offices, plants, payroll.
Yes sir you got me feeling real sorry for them.
Yes, they make a lot of money. I won't deny that. Yes, some engage in illegal practices. That is always going to happen. I think the people responsible should go to jail. The courts feel otherwise. I just don't like blaming all for the guilt of some. I like specifics, not generalities.

As for the CEOs, they get paid what their shareholders think they are worth, not what you or I think they are worth. If they don't get the job done the way the Directors want, they get replaced by someone who can, and he gets paid what they think he's worth. I hated it when the banks that got bailed out took some of that money and gave it to the people who should have suffered the most. But then I hated the bailout anyway.

But I wonder if we should trust drug companies with providing the numbers when trying to get to the real cost. I mean they might have a good reason for making those numbers high. As in what they want to charge for the drug, the advertising for the drug, legal cost to get the drug going and maybe defend it in court. The bucks needed to show the board that we are in charge and making money for the big bonus, and all the money they have to pay out to investors and stock holders.
No, we shouldn't trust anyone. As for having a good reason, you're right. There's also the cost of paying the employees, the cost of packaging and shipping and everything else involved with manufacturing. It does cost a fortune to do all that, and again I wonder just how much the profit really is, and who it goes to.

But no need to ask, I'm sure you have all the answers.:know:
Is there really a need to get personal? No, I don't have any answers, just questions and the willingness to look for answers. I just try not to make flat statements about how these evil companies all operate on the principle that it's cheaper and easier to settle suits than to make it right in the first place.

[Simmy]

Whatever Steve...

[Mr Quatro]

The post was about the big bucks drug companies make off their wares while the patents are standing.

But I wonder if we should trust drug companies with providing the numbers when trying to get to the real cost.


The subject your on is okay, but needs it's own thread ... this thread is about banking.

I must add however since you brought the subject up that drug companies are some of the worst examples of integrity.

However with that said, I remember one drug company up in Canada (I think it was Canada) a few years back came out with a drug that had negative response to their claims of it being a wonder drug and when the FDA pointed it out the drug company took a $5 billion dollar hit in the stock market the very next day.

You got to be honest banks or drug companies or you will pay.