You're watching...
Former UBS Chairman Joe Grano on J.P. Morgan’s losses and whether regulations would have prevented it.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
It's tough to go after -- golden boy don't former -- -- maybe at some of those other jealous.
Broken boy is as wells -- grandma says don't dismiss the financial.
Ego a factor here Jamie was a -- -- there's nothing is brokerage brethren like now than maybe keeping that diamond.
In the rough is -- a little bit -- today you know you do.
Desserts.
Well I think that.
Several got beat up Goldman Sachs Merrill Lynch and he had to get -- hadn't yet and even after this -- I still think the -- detective on the street.
And anyone who's happy about the demise of any major competitor.
To get employment elsewhere than on long an industry on they could still stick could -- -- so they could.
You know these -- straight losses.
Could worsen none of those on the other hand of them could just leave and nine and on the vine and maybe -- it to -- -- -- loss is 94 million -- more.
Do you think that's right well.
Even if that happens it's against -- 127 billion of equity.
-- is gonna earn four billion dollar this quarter.
Sixteen -- nearly sixteen verses eighteen -- Eighteen ver Y one as the Baghdad report -- the media focuses on -- sort of like the players Crescent -- yes but but it's no where near even now that it's the sound bite hidden and it's it's sensationalism thing.
They are piling on there's no question about it.
And there's no question that this was an egregious problem at the bank.
I think -- it happened in their eyes because it got -- as it happened because there was no oversight now it's not because a regulation that I think that.
Two basic tenets of management were were violated here or certainly dismissed.
When you dominate overly dominate a market position you become the market which means there is no market.
And secondarily I don't care what the hedge is about what what kind of synthetic derivatives using whatever when there's no liquidity there is no hedge.
They the derivatives separates itself for divorces itself from -- underlying security I'm sure they looked at this as a mitigation strategy to some of the things that.
They inherited from Washington Mutual it it at all what it by the government comes back Jones says and you got to stop that.
Period the risk is too great that one bad move it's been look it's a great question.
It's not an issue of of being too big to fail the government's making mistake.
That's making that the -- I don't care if it's trader a trading desk a division or department it's all about do you have a position.
That is so levered and concentrated that it could result in a systemic risk if you took that approach rather than this institutional approach you'd be looking at.
The risk of those positions but you do more risky things -- Concern the president and you do more risky things when you know in a vacuum mine.
Worst comes to worse the government's gonna -- my time.
I don't think that anyone believes that any longer by the way -- clearly stated you don't think the government would would.
Would jump in to help a major.
You have money senator institutional investment bank of this size.
If it were on the on the I think on the -- very problematic for them to do so no doubt but I I don't know -- effect but that's that's my point look what look at the one that was poured into AIG.
And look at AIG making Goldman whole.
This is an odd lot compared to I don't quite agree with you but I don't that you know is over -- year -- something more systemic -- that was the contagion that -- Your world for years ago and I'm a free market advocate and so was George Bush I understand but I would say to you that what's after the 20082009.
I think it's very unlikely to have that kind of I really -- -- -- make -- -- big deal over this they obviously there -- leading the politics aside does not add to 80% of it but.
Yeah seat theater that one -- trade could lead to another bad grade could lead to -- stock sell -- that could lead to a meltdown.
Right I again I think this is to a degree.
Partisan ideology.
And they're saying -- I told you so look look at happening this is a genius so to speak.
And and then and we and we easily understand -- and he'll be a better executive after this.
From the lessons learned and and I there's no doubt in my mind about that this is being overplayed in my opinion.
And it is more political and make it 90% and eighty and I I think that the media it's flaming the fire.
They really are resilient in part by -- on this one episode and -- and and Jamie -- former golden boy it's artist.
Obviously those politicians who want to regulate Wall Street better.
Our -- have a perfect opportunity in a season Nokia.
Yes and I and I and it's not that that personally I'm not against more regulation.
But I'm I want and you wouldn't threaten to cut these guys down to size up how much regulation -- -- And regulation that I thought dud frank did -- are you kidding if it's its war and peace.
-- how many times bigger does is it of the constitution so it when they talk about -- Dodd-Frank with more -- you're worried about what.
Frankly.
People who don't understand the real world everything looks good conceptually.
You get into the real world any real high since its inoperable that doesn't make sense.
Regulation and the lack of clarity today is one of the problems and -- -- economy.
Corporations not just financial institutions don't wanna make a move to the more clarity.
So you're saying I don't know CEOs of all types of industries they hear something like this they say.
There hopping on the brokerage guys again the bank guys.
They're gonna hop on me well no question there's no question interest and that that's gonna preclude hiring and things of that nature.
Joseph thank you very much to see you again my pleasure to have -- -- one of the institutions the financial world.
-- -- -- --
