Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Want to bring in a former senator Judd Gregg now Republican -- a New Hampshire.
Because he's just been named recently as the CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association -- -- we're gonna talk thank you senator for joining us.
That was so I don't about JPMorgan and it before resume mid specifically of what Adam was reporting there on Jamie -- it.
What's your view if you have a general view on whether large banks in this country should have the same person mr.
chairman and -- CEO.
I think that's entirely up to the stockholders through their border directors.
My view is that Jamie Dimon is one of the best leaders in this country ever financial institution I'm I'm very small stockholder.
JPMorgan I'm but I'm strongly for keeping him -- as chairman and CEO role I don't see any reason to separated for -- -- separate that.
A bank like that that is very complex and very and very significant.
Needs leadership and he is a very strong leader I think is really out.
Corporate political correctness to try to separate these roles arbitrarily and for no good reason and and he can end up a lot of disruption and actually dysfunction if you do that and increase the risk to that.
To the shareholders that their assets will go down instead of up and if you look at JPMorgan that your Sheryl -- gotta be pretty happy to hear of the -- -- -- gone up 18% of the company's -- to dividend goes out.
Money making tons billions and billions of dollars but -- -- was reporting.
He's saying whether this is an arbitrary discussion or not there are those that argue and have argued that this shareholder meeting and do so in other banks.
That there's a conflict of interest there to the chairman of the stuff I've done that.
-- I find that.
Not defensible I mean the simple fact.
Is that there are a lot of institutions.
Started with a present United States is commander in chief and president where you want a single leader.
And -- there may be some institutions where you -- where you're gonna get the benefit from having chairman and CEO about.
There's no inherent conflict of interest here in fact -- look at just the other way I think it strengthens the organization significantly if that's what the board of directors want.
And that's what the shareholders feel benefits they're there.
There -- value in the company and that's the test are you increasing the value for the shareholders.
In this London whale a situation where a large debt went wrong essentially.
Here's what happened for JPMorgan and lost a lot of money at the time but as you say now the -- you know financially -- -- certainly righted the ship -- the took the loss on that London well.
Story with the overseas said a trader had a bad debt do you think.
There were issues created their corporate governance that had -- been better oversight or better risk controls that something like that could have been prevented.
Obviously obviously there was they're having an early person or another voice in there -- I guess is what I'm getting out as the chairman talking to the CEO would data helped.
No because this time the failure was well below the chairman now or CEOs level that this.
The risk was taken and the failure of their risk oversight committees.
I presume they've corrected that so that they don't have that it.
I look good to some degree on the bright side that glass being half full -- of the -- think it's.
You know the big issue for us is an economy is whether or not these major financial institutions.
I can survive significant hits and -- continue to function effectively in creating credit and capital on main street.
In the post 2008 period and they did it they did they basically they took a pretty big hit here and they continue to make money in the stockholder value went up so that shows to me that we're getting a pretty good.
Would they were getting stronger -- in our financial structure.
And that was in in my final question for you senator in your role there except not as we zoom back out after having zoomed in on JPMorgan.
Too big to fails obviously.
Still something that's being debated.
Dodd-Frank is something that's being.
Implemented where are we on now don't we go in the going in the right direction in your view for the interest that you represent or do have to make some.
Some big picture changes.
Our doctor frank is a huge piece of legislation the biggest legislative action and banking arena and probably in our history and -- trying to take a long time to work through it.
Too big to fail is not been adequately addressed.
We do not support the concept of a bank or any institution being too big -- simple fact is that if you're.
If you should -- he should bail.
And we think there -- ways to do that we think relying on title two which is in -- Franken.
And needs of each week to make sure it works right is appropriate we think may be moving on to it.
After title two which is normally.
Basically -- orderly -- you move on to.
The bankruptcy is is an appropriate -- also consider it.
There ways to do this that maintain the integrity and strength of the financial institutions.
The key here is to make sure we end too big to fail.
And in that position that you have now it's -- no hopefully we'll have -- -- Well though many times to talk about these issues senator Gregg thanks a lot thank you thanks for -- time.
Filter by section