You're watching...
Alan B. Lancz & Associates President Alan Lancz and Guggenheim Securities Marty Mosby on the impact of J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s testimony o...
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- bring in -- last president -- -- Lance & Associates saw also Marty mostly analysts at Guggenheim securities don't wanna ask everybody really it's Alan let's start with you.
Whether or not Jamie Dimon did actually have -- have played a role and increasing the share value.
Of JPMorgan Chase today because clearly he was the winner in in terms of this being a battle and and whether in fact this help the entire financial industry.
In their challenges that the government knows what they're doing a banking regulations.
Are -- did David it's a situation where.
You know he was honest and an open and even a question like you know further regulatory.
-- I'll maneuvers.
Have prevented this you know he said I don't know which you now.
I think it is hard he realizes that you know all the regulation the world's not to catch.
You know these complex derivative trades that's -- -- out -- for.
So so I think it did secure and stabilize the up financial sector and doubly helped the stock and we feel the same way we did march and I'll take profits in the forties.
And I'll buy it -- on the low thirties are under thirty it's a great long term buy in.
And Jamie did not disappoint he was honest and up and I don't think anybody that listened -- it would be.
You know proud to be a shareholder you just have to be at the right.
Right price levels instead of -- -- -- chasing -- the forties like two months ago while.
Go back to April where people who held the -- not the right price level Marty and and where do you stand on David's question about this because.
-- certainly even with his words today did not race the 127.
Million dollars that was.
Just sliced right off the market cap when he at first didn't deal with the situation any call that -- quote tempest in a teapot and he also ripped journalists.
Who -- putting this story out there about this London -- trader.
Yes this is first step back of kind of rebuilding the credibility.
Obviously you don't come companies -- management's can't disclose.
Insider information as these things are evolving he talked about how involve much quicker -- -- larger than what he anticipated.
But that there were limits which actually highlighted this issue and again elect a madrassa before became a franchise -- you.
And remain to be what we call an earnings volatility -- -- I I want to go to Peter again because he was in the room and add Peter the the fact I've made an assumption there but -- -- the assumption being that he won the debate insofar he was debating with certain senators there was one senator look like you would shell shocked after Jamie Dimon disputed his his retelling of what happened with TARP.
-- do you think it's a fair analysis to say that that to the extent that that he was on trial he won.
Well I think to the extent that he was in damage control mode mode and defended his bank well.
He won I think got that point that he came that -- -- that walking in and just they apologizing flat out.
And saying hey we made mistakes is usually very good strategy.
So that it became a fight over -- with the senators on and on partisan lines of whether or not this was a failure of management.
A failure or failure of regulation and so we started hearing a lot the same discussions and debates about that.
-- -- and saying hey.
Don't need more regulation here Dimon himself saying that.
Let's just get a lot more capital -- but the banks through that thing so.
He.
He he probably did.
A part where the bank itself defended it to the best visibility.
He did dial back a little bit according to Charlie Gasparino Allen on on how.
Sort of dramatically he's been against regulation he -- may be some regulation is needed.
He has said that in the past but this is also the same guy who is paid to have.
More than a hundred lobbyists in there spending millions of dollars you know he -- some of the banks I should say getting pushing in the lobbyists inside the beltway.
To take -- the -- whether they be crook -- are not of this regulation.
Yeah it's a situation where you know more regulation just limits there.
Avenues of while profitability.
You know -- margins.
You know and -- you -- over regulate to a point where you know we need a strong.
You know banking system in this country -- and and you know -- -- up have to fund these deficits down the road and with China's growth except for a you know is as far as the worst case today would have been -- Over regulate and get to the point where you break up these banks as we do need large strong.
Financial institutions like like you know at JPMorgan and and I thought you know he handled it well he wasn't.
You know just out for pounding on non anti regulation.
You know further regulation would -- helped in this case and frankly probably would not now.
But Marty let's let's be absolutely clear what that that the big loser today.
Above everything else in my mind was -- Volcker Rule.
They couldn't abide by the Volcker Rule is even Jamie said he couldn't define what the Volcker Rule is and it was absolutely clear to anybody listening.
That but what about last group of people you want to put together something it's -- stories of all parole is those guys in the senate chamber.
That's correct but I think you said that in you can see that the intent of the Volcker Rule I think -- agreed upon both -- Jamie and the senators.
Get out some of the trading.
I get back to what is really just core business which is market making and hedging and those kind of the -- -- so we can say about things that are -- -- quickly as the Volcker Rule -- do you think now.
No not at all other vocal role continue to evolve.
And it'll be something that would help banks limit the volatility.
And what are some of the exposures to some things like this Marty Allan Peter thank you so much we appreciate you joining the.
