Posts Tagged ‘JPMorganChase’


Special mention

huck3jan and012613web-600x446



Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, has been awarded total pay of $20 million for 2013, a 74-percent increase over the amount he received for 2012, according to a regulatory filing released on Friday.

The bank’s board of directors approved the increase even though a steady stream of scandals and a raft of regulatory actions have in recent months cast doubt on Mr. Dimon’s leadership at the nation’s largest bank. The big raise for 2013 came in the face of opposition from a vocal minority of board members, who wanted Mr. Dimon’s compensation for 2013 to be roughly equal to his pay for 2012, which totaled $11.5 million. . .

Mr. Dimon’s 2013 pay was close to the $23.1 million he got for 2011, when he was the highest-paid chief executive at a large bank. Over the last five years, Mr. Dimon has been paid nearly $70 million.


Special mention

toles0116 banks-crime-jpmorgan-cartoon-1024x801


Special mention

bigCOLOR 140121_600


Special mention

139966_600 300dpi rgb jpg 10"x9.09"


Special mention

137714_600 137773_600

300dpi rgb jpg 7.53"x10"

Special mention

132292_600 toles05272013


Special mention

132195_600 132100_600


Special mention

cartoon130111-02_full_600 David Simonds moderate bonuses 13.01.13

Once you’ve stated the obvious point that the financial sector “has grown to an unprecedented share of the economy,” how do you make sense of that growth?

Well, if you’re Paul Krugman, you send us to Thomas Philippon’s unpublished essay, “Has the U.S. Finance Industry Become Less Efficient? On the Theory and Measurement of Financial Intermediation” (pdf) [ht: br]. And that’s when the fun—or the horror—begins.

Here we have neoclassical economics in all its glory, starting with the following proposition:

Since the opportunity cost of being a banker is the wage in the non-financial sector, and since this wage is proportional to aggregate productivity, the income share of finance remains constant on the balanced growth path.

An extraordinary syllogism, based on two absurd premises—that the “wage” of a banker bears any resemblance to wages in the nonfinancial sector (has he bothered to even look at the levels of compensation in the financial sector?), and that that “wage” is proportional to aggregate productivity (thereby presuming the neoclassical illusion that finance is productive of something, which is appropriately compensated). The conclusion (that “the income share of finance remains constant on the balanced growth path”) is simply laughable except—wait for it: “I test this hypothesis and find that it holds well.”

In the rest of the paper, Philippon marshals all of the neoclassical machinery—of production-function econometrics, given preferences, utility-maximizing households, monitoring technology, equilibrium, and so on—to analyze the “production of intermediation services” in order to arrive at “the main conclusion of the paper.” To wit,

In other words, what Philippon finds is that the cost of financial intermediation, defined as income divided by output, (a) is “remarkably stable” over 130 years and (b) “has been trending upward, especially since the late 1970s,” notwithstanding the development and use of new information technologies.

Unbelievable! All that neoclassical machination to “prove” that, during more than a century, it took only two cents of “cost” to produce a dollar’s worth of financial “output” and that the cost of financial intermediation has risen in the last few decades, to 3 cents.

And that forms the basis for Philippon’s final question:

How is it possible for today’s finance industry not to be significantly more efficient that [sic] the finance industry of John Pierpont Morgan?

Boy, those banks were so efficient for so long (like in the good old days of the House of Morgan), and now they’re not (today, with Jamie Dimon’s JPMorgan Chase). And we have no idea why that’s the case.

Perhaps, Philippon suggests, it’s because there’s been an increase in trading activity and people trade so much because—wait again—”they simply enjoy it.”

Garbage in, garbage out. But think about it: if we throw a lot more research money at the economists at the Stern School of Business at New York University and the National Bureau of Economic Research, and hold more research seminars on the topic at Stanford, Yale, NYU, Harvard, and the Paris School of Economics, maybe someday we’ll find out why it is that “the non-financial sector [is] still transferring so much income to the financial sector”