77% of JP Morgan’s Net Income Comes from Government Subsidies for past four quaters

[Economics]

77% of JP Morgan (saw this on my feed had to click and went looking for the other reports)

Dear Mr. Dimon, Is Your Bank Getting Corporate Welfare? - Bloomberg (the original report)

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12128.pdf (IMF working report)

Implicit Subsidy

With each new banking crisis, the value of the implicit subsidy grows. In a recent paper, two economists -- Kenichi Ueda of the IMF and Beatrice Weder Di Mauro of the University of Mainz -- estimated that as of 2009 the expectation of government support was shaving about 0.8 percentage point off large banks’ borrowing costs. That’s up from 0.6 percentage point in 2007, before the financial crisis prompted a global round of bank bailouts.

To estimate the dollar value of the subsidy in the U.S., we multiplied it by the debt and deposits of 18 of the country’s largest banks, including JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. The result: about $76 billion a year. The number is roughly equivalent to the banks’ total profits over the past 12 months, or more than the federal government spends every year on education.

JPMorgan’s share of the subsidy is $14 billion a year, or about 77 percent of its net income for the past four quarters. In other words, U.S. taxpayers helped foot the bill for the multibillion-dollar trading loss that is the focus of today’s hearing. They’ve also provided more direct support: Dimon noted in a recent conference call that the Home Affordable Refinancing Program, which allows banks to generate income by modifying government-guaranteed mortgages, made a significant contribution to JPMorgan’s earnings in the first three months of 2012.

Not really that new to me or I'm sure to you brehs who stay informed but I haven't seen an exact dollar amount in a minute on the impact of the subsidies and the amount it increases their net income though.

Someone posted an old article in that first link in the comments on the skimming they were doing on the ebt cards too. That was an old story though. It is interesting when someone isn't consistent with their preference of state socialism though (how one group can have it while another can't for w.e their reasons they may believe). That was kind of what that post and article they linked was getting at.

 

[88m3]

Wow

 

[OsO]

people! these are not the actions of a government trying to fix the economy. these are the actions of a government that wants to take money out of your pockets and put it into the pockets of the ruling class.

the govt is giving out the money but it's not their money... let us not forget who funds the government

 

[Jello Biafra]

Corporate welfare (and big farm subsidies too) has always been a bigger problem than regular old welfare programs as far as I'm concerned but no one ever mentions that when these crooked pols start looking at food stamps and shyt like that for where cuts need to be made.

 

[AV Dicey]

Corporate welfare (and big farm subsidies too) has always been a bigger problem than regular old welfare programs as far as I'm concerned but no one ever mentions that when these crooked pols start looking at food stamps and shyt like that for where cuts need to be made.

obviously the system is rigged against working class folk, so either, work doubley extra hard and climb that social ladder, (which is possible, see the current POTUS) or do do what other societies have done through out history, bloody revolution, but your gonna have to beat the complacency out of the middle class cuh they sure do lub their little houses with the dogs in the backyard that go woof woof.

 

[Schmoove]

Lmao @ the government looking at the population like "AND what, nikka? "

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Corporate welfare (and big farm subsidies too) has always been a bigger problem than regular old welfare programs as far as I'm concerned but no one ever mentions that when these crooked pols start looking at food stamps and shyt like that for where cuts need to be made.

it doesn't rly matter if you and I realize it

how the fukk we gonna get peggy sue, the retired postal worker from montana to realize it???

 

[Habit]

obviously the system is rigged against working class folk, so either, work doubley extra hard and climb that social ladder, (which is possible, see the current POTUS) or do do what other societies have done through out history, bloody revolution, but your gonna have to beat the complacency out of the middle class cuh they sure do lub their little houses with the dogs in the backyard that go woof woof.

I'm waiting for this day, I will grip up. Fukk the status quo, I want things balanced again.

 

[O.iatlhawksfan]

Illumanati!!!

 

[88m3]

Too big to fail!

 

[714562]

77% of JP Morgan (saw this on my feed had to click and went looking for the other reports)

Dear Mr. Dimon, Is Your Bank Getting Corporate Welfare? - Bloomberg (the original report)

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12128.pdf (IMF working report)





Not really that new to me or I'm sure to you brehs who stay informed but I haven't seen an exact dollar amount in a minute on the impact of the subsidies and the amount it increases their net income though.

Someone posted an old article in that first link in the comments on the skimming they were doing on the ebt cards too. That was an old story though. It is interesting when someone isn't consistent with their preference of state socialism though (how one group can have it while another can't for w.e their reasons they may believe). That was kind of what that post and article they linked was getting at.

Read the report, please. It's not a LITERAL subsidy. That IMF paper is trying to quantify what it terms a "structural subsidy." In other words, they're saying that there mere expectation of increased government support has driven down borrowing costs. This decrease in rate is what they're calling a "subsidy" and the paper tries to quantify its value. Taxpayers are not, strictly speaking, subsidizing this, unless:

1. You are defining the threat of potential inflation as low-key subsidies. We have not seen this inflation yet, so calm down.

2. Taxpayer money is what funds the FDIC and most fiscal stimulus. In that case, you are correct...but that's not what the paper is talking about. We're talking about the mere EXPECTATION that the government will do something, not what the government has actually done with tax money.

In other words, this paper is trying to quantify a hypothetical "subsidy of expectations" that doesn't actually exist. You can apply this "subsidy" to the entire global lending climate in the 1st world.

 

[rapbeats]

Corporate welfare (and big farm subsidies too) has always been a bigger problem than regular old welfare programs as far as I'm concerned but no one ever mentions that when these crooked pols start looking at food stamps and shyt like that for where cuts need to be made.

thats because people still believe. "well regular people dont hire people big corps do. so its okay for big corps to have big bailouts and welfare. atleast they create jobs"

 

[ogc163]

 

[Economics]

Read the report, please. It's not a LITERAL subsidy. That IMF paper is trying to quantify what it terms a "structural subsidy." In other words, they're saying that there mere expectation of increased government support has driven down borrowing costs. This decrease in rate is what they're calling a "subsidy" and the paper tries to quantify its value. Taxpayers are not, strictly speaking, subsidizing this, unless:

1. You are defining the threat of potential inflation as low-key subsidies. We have not seen this inflation yet, so calm down.

2. Taxpayer money is what funds the FDIC and most fiscal stimulus. In that case, you are correct...but that's not what the paper is talking about. We're talking about the mere EXPECTATION that the government will do something, not what the government has actually done with tax money.

In other words, this paper is trying to quantify a hypothetical "subsidy of expectations" that doesn't actually exist. You can apply this "subsidy" to the entire global lending climate in the 1st world.

They’ve also provided more direct support: Dimon noted in a recent conference call that the Home Affordable Refinancing Program, which allows banks to generate income by modifying government-guaranteed mortgages, made a significant contribution to JPMorgan’s earnings in the first three months of 2012. And I guess the bailouts before those from the TARP program wasn't a direct subsidy before either right? Yes, the other is an implicit subsidy, as is quoted in the report. I read the report and know all about the FDIC and what you are talking about, that isn't part of the topic though. Stop acting like you know all things finance and economic. . and like I or others need something like that explained. JP Morgan gets direct and indirect subsidies and it impacts its balance sheet positively. When the government can it's supposed to eliminate and/or decrease direct/implicit subsidies to a firm so that firm can obtain an profit on its on function.

The implicit (indirect) AND explicit (direct) subsidies to a firm like JP Morgan that gains extra monetary value is a form of an economic rent. Those types are rents are not desired. No need to act arrogant with the facepalm like what you just stated isn't comprehended. This firm gets direct subsidies as well and has in the past.

 

[ogc163]

They’ve also provided more direct support: Dimon noted in a recent conference call that the Home Affordable Refinancing Program, which allows banks to generate income by modifying government-guaranteed mortgages, made a significant contribution to JPMorgan’s earnings in the first three months of 2012. And I guess the bailouts before those from the TARP program wasn't a direct subsidy before either right? Yes, the other is an implicit subsidy, as is quoted in the report. I read the report and know all about the FDIC and what you are talking about, that isn't part of the topic though. Stop acting like you know all things finance and economic. . and like I or others need something like that explained. JP Morgan gets direct and indirect subsidies and it impacts its balance sheet positively. When the government can it's supposed to eliminate and/or decrease direct/implicit subsidies to a firm so that firm can obtain an profit on its on function.

The implicit (indirect) AND explicit (direct) subsidies to a firm like JP Morgan that gains extra monetary value is a form of an economic rent. Those types are rents are not desired. No need to act arrogant with the facepalm like what you just stated isn't comprehended. This firm gets direct subsidies as well and has in the past.