Monday, June 1, 2015

Here's why Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan CEO, is grossly ovepaid

Getting paid $27 million to earn a 1% return on assets is ridiculous. The Fed earns more than twice that and Yellen gets paid $200k.

8 comments:

Unknown said...

Jamie Dimon gets paid $27 million.

Yellen gets paid $200k ...

Chelsea Clinton earned an annual salary of $600,000 from NBC.

Meritocracy rules the day in America ........ ?

John said...

It's a damn strange economy when financial corporate profits are so fantastically low (one measly percent) yet account for 40% of US corporate profits!

Ralph Musgrave said...

How much of that 1% came from the taxpayer via trillion dollar bail-outs and interest free loans from the Fed? 2%, 3%, 5%? Oops: that would mean Dimon earns NEGATIVE return on capital. Tee hee.

mike norman said...

Right, Ralph. All of it. So Dimon was literally given the money--from us.

John said...

Ralph and Mike,

It has been reported and documented that the implicit bailout guarantee reduces the investment banks borrowing by about 1%. Absent this reduced borrowing rate the investment banks profits would be zero!

It takes real incompetence to make no money when given carte blanche to commit fraud by the government and only make the meagre profits they do from reduced borrowing costs.

The finance sector is literally parasitical.

See the Bloomberg article for further details: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-02-20/why-should-taxpayers-give-big-banks-83-billion-a-year-

Tom Hickey said...

The finance sector is literally parasitical.

As Bill Black has been arguing convincingly, that's the way it's designed. Criminogenic environment and CEO control fraud. They just got caught for it big time (felony) and got a slap on the wrist in the form of fines that the shareholders will pay. The people involved get off scot free and get to keep the loot, too. Such a deal.

John said...

Tom,

You wonder when industrial capital is going to say "enough".

I think Marx was the first to really describe the conflict between industrial and financial capital and how this constant war between the two has seen one and then the other triumph at the others expense. The industrialist don't seem to be putting up much of a fight, and so the triumph of finance capital seems complete. The world needs the industrialist capitalists to be more Marxist!

Tom Hickey said...

Michael Hudson, From Marx to Goldman Sachs: The Fictions of Fictitious Capital

http://michael-hudson.com/2010/07/from-marx-to-goldman-sachs-the-fictions-of-fictitious-capital1/