It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

77% of JP Morgan’s Net Income Comes from Government Subsidies

page: 1
19

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
without government subsidies no bonuses would be given to the JPMorgan pirates,

JPMorgan receives a government subsidy worth about $14 billion a year, according to research published by the International Monetary Fundand our own analysis of bank balance sheets. The money helps the bank pay big salaries and bonuses. More important, it distorts markets, fueling crises such as the recent subprime-lending disaster and the sovereign-debt debacle that is now threatening to destroy the euro and sink the global economy.


zerohedge

so the people of america have bailed out the largest recipient of welfare,
JPMorgan

and this is while people are thrown off food stamps and others demand and end to wealfare,
imagine how many people could be feed with that welfare

these guys dont earn their bonuses, they simply leatch them of the public

xploder




posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Not surprising. Money is essentially taken from the pockets of the working class and handed over directly to the rich.

25% of the money I "make" is not seen.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatAreThey
 


at what point do i point out that jpm is a parasite to the people?
do you realise without the "subsidy" see welfare for the rich
JPM is just a casino playing with someone elses money

YOURS

and when they win they keep the profits and when they lose you pay the bill

JPM is not worried about losing so they make crazy bets,

you would too IF YOU CANT LOSE

imagine what 14 billion would do in the real economy where people are,
instead of at the JPM casino table

xploder



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
it was obvious to me where their money comes from after watching zeitgeist the movie back in 2007 and from then i only work for cash in hand and avoid the tax man like a bad smell every penny i make i spend screw paying taxes that go towards weapons and killing people.I just intend to mind my own business and i hope they do the same I have private health care a fire extinguisher and a shot gun so i don't think i will ever need any emergency services and if i ever do i will find a way to pay them one way or another.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


That's just deplorable ...All these fat cats should look in the mirror before the noose tightens...just ranting



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
The Average American gets screwed from every angle and we all just sit back and let it happen without really saying a word. We have all the facts but nobody is challenging these leaches...what gives. Don't we have an attorney in the mix that would be willing to start going after these blood suckers?



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Why exactly do they receive this ridiculously sized government subsidy? I mean what gives them the right to claim such a huge amount of money paid for by American tax dollars? What is the rationality when all they do with it is gamble on the global casino and pay their people ridiculous salaries and bonuses?



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
think of all the true progress we could achieve with that much money.

This is why I don't help the retards who have usurped the label of "responsible men"

Screw you uck tards. What a waste. I wont lift a finger to help you when the time comes. In fact count me as one of your enemies.

Rable Rable you damn parasites. I hope your houses burn.


So much wasted on you. Not even enlightenment can make you see the light. ucking monkeys.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


You can not expect less from one of founding fathers of the Federal Reserve that they now own and behind Goldman Sach as they one and the same along with many banks in the EU including the IMF

Yes this monster of a banking system with affiliates and behind the scene powers (they also runs deep within our government) will not have less.

We the tax payers are their ticket to none stop wealth and power, we are their life blood.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Oh, everybody's so excited in this thread! That's what happens when emotions are mixed with poor and somewhat deceptive math.

There is of course an approximate number, an actuarian value, that can be put on "expectation" of a government bailout. This in itself is not easy to estimate with any reliability.

But let's agree with the article in that this brings down the borrowing cost by 0.7 to 0.8%. When I look at the Yahoo info sheet on JPM I see numbers that are impossible to reconcile with claims made in the article sited in the OP. Look at total debt, cash on hand, and that bespoke "0.7%". Doesn't square. The net difference in the cost of borrowing is more like 3B, and not 14B.

Now, I'm not saying any of that is just and nice, but I tend to dislike sensationalism.

And instead of screaming "subsidy", people should realize that the Glass Steagall act needs to be put back in place. That is the crux of the issue. If commercial banking was properly insulated from the risks of investment banking, non of the original mess would have happened.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Why exactly do they receive this ridiculously sized government subsidy? I mean what gives them the right to claim such a huge amount of money paid for by American tax dollars? What is the rationality when all they do with it is gamble on the global casino and pay their people ridiculous salaries and bonuses?


hahaha, what gives them the right, easy, there all budys. all these guys in DC have friends in the banking sector and they help each other out. It kinda makes you rethink your youth

Kids when growing up always want to be a police man or a firefighter, what a bunch of suckers, if i know what i know now, i would want to be a banker. thats the good ol life of risk taking for profit and if you fail, make the people pay for you bad bets. sweet life if you ask me.

Nothings going to ever change as long as people keep voting (R's) and (D's)
edit on 2-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
What I read is that JPM isn't the biggest cooperate welfare recipient that would be the oil companies, year after year after year...



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   


JPMorgan benefited from the assumption that there’s a “very high likelihood” the U.S. government would back the bank’s bondholders and creditors if it defaulted on its debt, according to the statement. Without the implied federal backing, JPMorgan’s long-term deposit rating would have been three levels lower and its senior debt would have dropped two more steps, Moody’s said.

Hooey. This is pure nonsense. To assume that the Federal Government would prop up any bank, large or small, is pure speculation at best, and hysteria at worst.

The alleged calculated "savings" has to do with Moody's credit ratings on JPMorgan. The article is speculating that there is a "perception" in the marketplace that the Federal Government would support JPMorgan in the event of bank failure, and therefore JPMorgan gets a higher credit rating and subsequently lower borrowing costs from the Federal Reserve.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It's simply not a subsidy from the American people.

JPMorgan has trillions of dollars in assets. This bank earns tens of billions of dollars per year in Net Income. Even with its recent trading loss that hit the papers, it still earns billions of dollars every quarter.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09



JPMorgan benefited from the assumption that there’s a “very high likelihood” the U.S. government would back the bank’s bondholders and creditors if it defaulted on its debt, according to the statement. Without the implied federal backing, JPMorgan’s long-term deposit rating would have been three levels lower and its senior debt would have dropped two more steps, Moody’s said.

Hooey. This is pure nonsense. To assume that the Federal Government would prop up any bank, large or small, is pure speculation at best, and hysteria at worst.


Well said, thanks.

I'd call it speculation.



new topics

top topics



 
19

log in

join