Talk:JPMorgan Chase

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Date of Founding

Technically, Manhattan bank (founded in 1799) is no longer the oldest heritage bank. JP has acquired Bank of New York's branches. BONY was founded in 1784 by Alexander Hamilton. This also technically makes JPMC the nations oldest bank.--Desertroguex 03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversal of vandalism

I have reversed some vandalism by IP address 208.67.143.100.

--Randolph 16:12, 19 September 2006 (SAT)

[edit] Article Quality

I apologize for overwriting/revising other people's text. I'm just trying to improve the overall quality of the article. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

--Wikipedia Updater 20:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

To say that Morgan Stanley is not JP Morgan's last name is a bit of a stretch considering it was named after JP's first son, Henry Morgan, who worked at JPMorgan & Co. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.13.16 (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You know that you could have edited it, this being a wiki and all? ;-) I've changed it to read "It is a common misconception that the "Morgan" in Morgan Stanley refers to John Pierpont Morgan, but, in fact, it is a reference to Henry Morgan..."
Hope that's clearer.  This flag once was red  18:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uruguay Banking Crisis

This section was moved to a seperate article: Uruguay Banking Crisis.

--Wikipedia Updater 16:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

--- Uruguay Scandal Sources ---

1.- http://portal.courts.state.ny.us/pls/portal30/CMS_DEV.RPT_FCAS_OPEN_CASEINFO.show?p_arg_names=enter_county_code&p_arg_values=30&p_arg_names=enter_index_no&p_arg_values=01169052004

2.- http://www.labournet.de/internationales/uy/weber.html

3.- http://www.finanzas.com/id.5112334/noticias/noticia.htm

4.- http://www.espectador.com/nota.php?idNota=26189

These are a few of the sources I used for the expansion. There's others out there; and others I used, but I'm not going to sift through my entire history for them, these are just a few to show Wikipedia Updater that there are facts and sources. I didn't put them in initially because this case is public knowledge and 90% of what I wrote can be seen daily in most newspapers.

Here are the sources I used for the Uruguay Banking Crisis section. Please note that these links actually work and they are derived from articles written in English, unlike the links above. The predominant view is that the banks had difficulty in managing the risk of the developing countries and dealing with the corrupt Rohm brothers during the financial crisis. The Central Bank of Uruguay is also largely to blame for not having adequate banking regulations and for the corruption among officials, part of the reason Uruguay became so popular in the first place.

1. - Banking reform will reinforce recovery (The Banker): http://www.thebanker.com/news/printpage.php/aid/2752/Banking_reform_will_reinforce_recovery.html

2. - Bank Frauds Highlight Lax Controls, Possible Collusion by Officials (Costa Rica Daily Online News Magazine): http://insidecostarica.com/specialreports/finance_south_america_bank_fraud.htm

3. - J.P. Morgan, Partners Sued Over Lost Argentine Funds (Bloomberg): http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2002/2002-September/022885.html

4. - Banks risk legal action through involvement with Argentine Rohm brohters (Latin Lawyer: Argentina): http://llerena.com.ar/english/news/inthenews/jgr/jgr-04-10-02.html

5. - Banco Comercial: Creditor Wins First Round in Legal Battle (Bankrupt.com - Scroll down to find URUGUAY): http://bankrupt.com/TCRLA_Public/050117.mbx

I also recommend you do a search for Rohm Brothers and Banco Comercial. This whole section probably belongs in its own article in Wikipedia.

I'm not going to mark this as POV yet, I don't think doing so without giving Wikipedia Updater a chance to explain his/her reasons would be fair. The problem is that the version posted now is straight out of JP Morgan's lawyers'. Dissecting the article:

"Uruguay Banking Crisis" The title itself is misleading, there was never a banking crisis in Uruguay, as many other banks were able to live through the Argentine Banking Crisis without problems, it was those that were mismanaged and looted that ended up broke due to the rush on banks.

"In 1990, Chemical Overseas Holdings, Inc. (a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co.) acquired with Dresdner Bank Lateinamerika and Credit Suisse First Boston the Banco Comercial del Uruguay (BCU), one of that country's oldest and largest national banks." This is the legal ruse that JPMCC is using in order to divert the case away from itself, it is clear to all involved (including courts in two countries), that it was JPMCC that acquired the bank, shielding itself through a fraudulent subsidiary. This is evident in the fact that the signatories to acquirement documents were JPMCC directors, and not those of Chemical Overseas.

"The consortium was headed by the brothers Carlos and José Rohm, two of Argentina’s most powerful financiers." The consortium was actually headed by JPMCC & Credit Suisse appointees, with the Rohm brothers acting on their behalf. This is evident in all documents, including those presented by Carlos Rohm & the Uruguayan government.

"As the years progressed, Uruguay developed as a large offshore banking center for Argentina and Brazil, largely as a result of its lax banking laws and the predominant view among Argentineans that Uruguay was a stable place for their savings." This is completely incorrect, as Uruguay has been an offshore banking center (not only for Argentina and Brazil), since well before 1990. It is JPMCC's attempt to show itself in a positive light. The predominant view that Uruguay was a safe place came from France , Spain, Italy & Germany, who's banks have long held close ties to Uruguay's; it was this fact that originally prompted argentinean immigrants (mainly from those four countries) to deposit their savings in Uruguay.

"In 2002, Uruguay suffered a massive banking crisis caused by a considerable contraction in the economy and by over-dependence on neighboring Argentina, which experienced an economic meltdown itself in 2001. A rush on banks ensued during the devaluation in Argentina, and the BCU was not able to handle the large loss of funds and began to clamor for government aid." I repeat, there was never a banking crisis in Uruguay, merely a run on banks. Those which had funds equal to their statements were able to survive. Those which practiced creative accounting in their government statements did not, simple.

"As a result of the crisis and the fraudulent schemes conducted by the Rohm brothers, some $800 million USD of assets were missing from the BCU alone. In the end, five financial institutions failed and hundreds of thousands in Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil were left in dire economic conditions after seeing their bank accounts literally disappear." While not innocent puppets in the scheme, the Rohm brothers did not have power over the bank (stipulated in the contracts), they simply oversaw the actions directed by JPMCC & Credit Suisse.

"According to many sources, the banking crisis could have been avoided if Uruguayan authorities had properly regulated its banks. The Central Bank in Uruguay had trusted international banks to regulate themselves properly and was too lenient and slow in responding to the crisis." This statement is philosophical. "Trust", "properly", "lenient", "slow"; these are all words of opinion, not fact. The Uruguayan regulations have been standing for hundreds of years with nary a problem, JPMCC simply took advantage of the system and used it for their own benefits.

"In January 2005, the Paris-based International Arbitration Court ruled that the Uruguayan government would have to pay $120 million USD to JPMorgan Chase & Co., Dresdner Bank AG, and Credit Suisse First Boston for failing to maintain the solvency of the BCU." This statement simplifies the entire ordeal, and is used by JPMCC as marketing fodder to confuse those who do not have the full facts. Part of the original contract called for Uruguay to aid the bank with up to $110 million in funds to mantain solvency, however, the government refused to do so when they discovered the entire scheme, because it would have simply gone through the JPMCC network and never made it to the account holders. Instead, the government closed the bank to stop the growing debt Banco Comercial had. The ruling simply reflected what was written in the original contract, not, as JPMCC is trumpeting, the government's fault in the scandal.

"The Rohm brothers, whose fraudulent activities included granting loans to ghost companies and concealing complex financial movements, are also largely to blame. Carlos Rohm is currently in prison in Argentina for using $250 million in credit instruments from BCU and diverting them to a trust account in Argentina. José Rohm is understood to be at large in the U.S., and his extradition is being sought by Uruguay." Ghost companies created by JPMCC and complex movements involving JPMCC subsidiaries. Once again, the Rohms are guilty to a degree, but they were not the masterminds behind the operation.

"The crisis underscores the three banks’ difficulty in managing risk in developing countries and dealing with local partners during a time of financial crisis. As a result, many of BCU's former clients are suing the three international banks and their chief executives." Correct.

I don't think anyone disagress that the Banco Comercial del Uruguay (BCU) was mismanaged, but the notion that the three international banks were perpetrators of a fraud is false. There is absolutely no evidence that the BCU's investor banks had any direct connection with the fraud committed by the Rohm Brothers. JPMorgan Chase, Dresdner Bank, and Credit Suisse First Boston lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the crises that occured in Argentina and Uruguay.

Any accusations of fraud must be supported by direct evidence and are frankly not appropriate in the context of an impartial encyclopedia. Both the Rohm Brothers were convicted on fraud charges. The BCU's investor banks were not. Statements such as "JPMCC created ghost corporations" are misleading and are based on the writer's opinion, not fact. Reliable sources from the links above indicate that the extent of the three banks' liability is their difficulty in managing the risk of developing countries and in controlling the Rohm Brothers during the financial crises. That is acceptable. On the other hand, to indicate that the BCU's investors purposefully sought to defraud their clients during a time of crisis and to steal their deposits is absurd and is unacceptable. Again, there is absolutely no evidence of this, whatsoever. If you disagree, please provide English language links from reliable publications that show the contrary.

Around the world, banks lend out deposits and typically only keep a percentage of deposits on hand for customers to redeem. Even if a bank does have funds equal to its statements, it will not survive a Bank run. The crisis in Uruguay was exacerabted by the fact that the Central Bank of Uruguay did not have adequate banking regulations and capital controls. Had the Central Bank instituted proper controls, the bank may have been able to maintain its solvency during the crisis. Please see the article "Banking reform will reinforce recovery" above. Uruguay was not in compliance with the Basel Capital Accords during the crisis, which are a formulation of best banking practices by the G-10 countries. See Bank regulation.

--Wikipedia Updater 20:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no notion whatsoever about the three international banks being involved in the fraud. As stated in the original article: by contract, the Rohm brothers did not have full executory powers over the bank, there was oversight from the majority partners (JPMC), this is evident in all documentation available on the subject (mostly in spanish, as the english-speaking press has not payed much attention to this). As a side note to this, I fail to see how english-language sources are more reliable in comparison to their spanish counterparts, information in languages other than english is just as relevant, and I resent the implication.

Who has been convicted or not is irrelevant, since the Uruguayan and Argentine courts have no jurisdiction over JPMC and, due to this, there is a current case in New York courts (as shown in the links) dealing with this matter. JPMC's argument that the case is baseless due to the reasons Wikipedia Updater states has been continously thrown out by the case judge, due simply to the fact that there is enough evidence connecting JPMC to the fraud to continue the case. I fail to understand why the fervor to protect JPMC, the facts are simple, there is evidence and that evidence is being used in court; JPMC's and Wikipedia Updater's arguments of lack of evidence are incorrect, as stated by judges in three nations.

I am not trying to imply anything about how JPMC sought to "defraud their clients during a time of crisis"; the fraud was existent way before the crisis. As stated in the original article: the crisis only served to bring the fraud to light. The fact stands that there was malfeasense between the Rohm brothers and JPMC against the bank and its clients, at all times, not only during the crisis. The fact that they took advantage of lax banking laws is merely a sidenote to this, not a justification.

There are complex calculations and systems in place to ensure a bank's solidity in troubled times, but these all grow from the bank's statements, if those are inflated, then the controls and government insurance are worthless, since they are created upon a fantasy. It may seem counter-intuitive, but a bank that overstates its earnings and positions is actually more at risk than one that understates them, it is not a direct system where, for example, for every $1.00 in the bank, $0.80 is safeguarded. This is one of the main reasons why the BCU folded so quickly; the network of loans and false markets created inflated the bank's value to a point that client accounts were a tiny drop in the alleged coffers, hence the lack of liquidity and impossibility of quick action when the run ensued. Other banks in Uruguay (national and international) were able to survive the run and continue to operate today, under Wikipedia Updater's assumption, those banks should not exist, since they were part of the same system.

You cannot simply distill facts into broad statements and then work backwards to reconstruct them. Facts must be taken at face value and not as optional ingredients. Personal opinion about a company and its behavior cannot enter into what is supposedly a collection of facts.

The sources I cited are 1)New York Court public records; 2)A German non-profit organization; 3)Finanzas.com, a spanish-language economics analysis and news center (similar to Forbes); 3)Espectador, Uruguay's most respected news radio. I fail to see how these are not reliable sources.

--Hdezela 10:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hdezela, I am having trouble evaluating your sources. The New York State Court link that you provided above does not show actual court documents, it only shows the case name, "NETWORK FINANCE v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO," the names of the law firms, the judge and the case calendar. Please provide a better link or instructions on how to access the actual court documents, so I can ascertain the facts of the case to respond to your arguments.

Also, I do not speak German or Spanish. This is an English language encyclopedia, and it is only appropriate that you provide sources in English, so everyone reading the encyclopedia can evaluate them for objectivity and relevance.

When you provide these sources, I will take the time to review them and respond to your comments, but I would like to mention that five of Uruguay's 22 financial institutions collapsed (including those that had no affiliation to the Rohm Brothers). This fact is significant because it shows that there were serious and substantial problems with the regulatory environment in Uruguay. The fraud and resulting insolvency at the BCU is by no means an isolated problem. Weaker banks that conducted their operations legally were equally affected by the crisis.

Wikipedia should not be a forum for advancing your viewpoints or mine. Please provide me with better source material, so I can directly respond to your arguments and so we can resolve this matter and return the article back to an objective summary of the organization for the benefit of Wikipedia's audience. Thank you.

--Wikipedia Updater 01:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name (and logo)

The logo and name appear to use CamelCase. I have already put this on the CamelCase page, should we put this in the article? In a new "Trivia" section? 67.1.156.172 16:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The article appears to use J. P. Morgan & Company (abbr. J. P. Morgan) for the Firm's name. That is cool, and I encourage all contributors to follow in that convention. The alternative (accepted) names for the Company are JPMorgan, J.P. Morgan, JPM, but please don't use these. Colloquially, you see JP a lot too. Ilya 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Usages within the bank (at least the investment bank)

- Pre-2000: J.P. Morgan OR Morgan, never JPM
- Post-2000: J.P. Morgan in legal names, JPMorgan in text, JPM not encouraged (though internal use has grown)

Certainly 'JP Morgan' is completely unacceptable My view is that JPMorgan should be used in the bulk of the text OR JPMorganChase when referring to the HoldCo. Also think this article maybe needs a separate section on the retail Chase Bank given its importance in US Retail Moa999 04:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I work for the bank and regularly use JPMC and it is accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.133.61 (talk) 03:41, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Hi there, I would like to translate this article into wikipedia France. Who should I talk to for this? Or is it simply permitted? Regards. F. E.

It is simply permitted. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

- CrazyRussian talk/email 04:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The move request on WP:RM was accepted and completed. - Ganeshk (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chase Blink Service

Chase currently has a new credit/debit card. It has the original magnetic strip on the back, however the card is thicker to accomodate new smart card RFID within the card. Its called [www.chaseblink.com|Blink] and is similar to MasterCard's program Paypass. Should this item be mentioned in this article? Herenthere 03:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swastika

I don't know if I'm just seeing things, but the logo for JPMorgan Chase looks like a modified swastika to me. If you look at the gaps formed by the shapes made by the logo, you can see a square with lines protruding from each side like a swastika. I don't know if this is intended or not but I think someone should notice the similarity. Not that I'm promoting the Nazi Party or anything, but I'm just noticing similarities...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Swenson (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 December 2006

Looks more like an origami doughnut to me, but maybe I'm just hungry.

--Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bank One Article Merger/History Update

An unregistered user has merged the former Bank One Corporation article to redirect to JPMorgan Chase's, and added a brief history of Bank One directly in the JPMorgan Chase article. Rbyrd8100 03:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Try calling their customer service and asking them to do something which requires their "security team". You won't think they are such a benevolent entity like a donut then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.170.3 (talk) 04:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sacha Baron Cohen

The part naming Sacha Baron Cohen as a person affiliated with JP Morgan Chase needs a source. This is somewhat hard to believe. I'm not going to delete it but just thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention. Jmccallum1401 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is probably false - the actual bank Cohen worked for was Goldman Sachs. See the Goldman article for the actual reference. --Thesilence 14:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chase Acquisition of J.P. Morgan & Co

The article alludes to Chase purchasing J.P. Morgan in the late nineties. Under the subheading "J.P. Morgan & Company" the article states, "By the late 1990s, when it was acquired by Chase Manhattan (the new company's name became JPMorgan Chase & Co.)." Please note that the merger was announced on September 13, 2000. The deal closed on January 2, 2001.

[edit] 2007 Subprime mortgage financial crisis and JPMC

Does anybody know how JPM and more especially its hedge funds were affected by the crisis? Some other hedge funds (like Bear Stearn's) are quite seriously affected in the US, so I wonder how it is for JPM... --Kremtak 21:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chase Acquisition of J.P. Morgan & Co REDUX

The sentence "By the late 1990s, when it was acquired by Chase Manhattan (the new company's name became JPMorgan Chase & Co.)." is one of the most unusual I have seen. The main sentence, i.e., subject and verb, are included parenthetically, almost incidentally, and the adverbial dependent clause is made to look like the independent, main clause.

I am not sure I understand exactly what is meant, but the simplest treatment is:

“When Chase Manhattan acquired J. P. Morgan in the late 1990s, the new company's name became JPMorgan Chase & Co.)."

NeffiKatt (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably it was left in that awkward state after a previous edit changed the phrasing around, it happens sometimes. Feel free to fix stuff like that you run across. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)