You're watching...
Former SEC chairman Harvey Pitt argues Jamie Dimon came out ahead in the hearing and that they did nothing to emphasize the need for financial regulat...
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- in today's hearing over the JPMorgan multi billion dollar Los Republican Idaho senator Mike Craig -- Asked -- -- about regulatory oversight of JPMorgan Chase and financial industry as a whole here's what he -- I think yet give boot -- realistic objectives I don't think realistically they can actually stop something like this from happening.
It's purely measures mistake.
We'll Harvey Pitt is no stranger regulation he of course the former chairman of the SEC currently CEO -- -- the partners mr.
Pitt.
Are there any regulations out there now or that are being worked on that could've prevented such a major trading lots.
Now I think the only thing that could prevent us would be better risk management controls internally at the bank but I don't think there's any thing.
The regulators could do to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
So -- suggested another rule needs to.
Being developed something that's nights encompassed by eight Volcker Dodd-Frank.
Know.
I think we.
Unfortunately how far too many rules most of which amount doing very much good what we need are smarter rules not either more or fewer rules.
And right now we don't have a lot of Smart rules.
But I think the -- -- of this.
Is basically requiring.
Large banks like JPMorgan.
To have airtight risk control procedures.
And that seemed to be what mr.
Dimon was suggesting they were doing.
Okay so fewer rules in your view are necessary.
But what about the question -- not necessarily it was JPMorgan too big to fail rather too big to.
-- Well I think there's always a difficulties.
One an institution gets large but here.
The problem was the internal checks and balances that should've alerted people to these kinds of trends earlier.
Just -- either not an existence or were ignored.
And there is no foolproof solution for that except to train people.
Not to look the other way when large risks are being undertaken.
Was a striking -- about the testimony today either from mr.
Dimon himself or that the senate panel.
Well I.
Thoughts.
Jamie Dimon did a terrific job of presenting his side of the issues he started by conceding mistakes and that's always a good start.
What amazed me was the lack of any real.
Coherence to the hearings I didn't think they have a real purpose except perhaps hopefully.
Either to embarrass him or to create some kind of pressure for the Volcker Rule which is a rule that is seriously flawed.
So in general I thought mister Dimon came out way ahead in terms of -- scorecard.
And the hearings serve very little purpose in terms of informing people about some of the real issues.
Right so then would you are are you saying then mr.
-- that you don't think today's hearings did much to advance the dialogue in our country about the need for financial regulation.
I didn't included quite as well was but that's what I meant to salute.
Okay thank you normally go from here I asked our reporter Charlie -- bring -- this is it for -- -- In Washington DC do you think -- be called upon for for further testimony as they try to craft what needs to be done for regulatory environment.
I don't think he's going to be called.
In congressional hearings I think the place where there will be questions will be answered.
Are in the regulatory hearings both the SEC in the CFTC.
Among others.
Are currently looking into these events they're far more serious than JPMorgan made them out to be when they first came to light.
And there are serious regulatory issues that -- rise out of those.
That's the real forum for the discussion and that's -- the -- solutions will be resolved.
-- other kind of interesting.
Perspective I had from the viewer earlier -- that I was going to be chatting with you today do you find it hypocritical and all that Dimon was grilled.
-- -- congress which is perhaps most fiscally irresponsible in terms of deficit spending ever.
Well you've done and -- -- You are you really think you've written -- you've really set it far better than I I could've but it is it is quite hypocritical and quite ironic.
Particularly given the fact that the purpose of the hearings never came through from the entire dialogue.
Mr.
Pitt thank you so much Harvey Pitt former chairman of the -- Joining us with his analysis is observations that from the hearings this morning you'll -- the irony of them sitting there grilling him about everybody -- -- -- -- -- -- that question -- -- -- really interesting.
Big picture question right there.
