A brief Q&A trashing the Levin investigation of J.P. Morgan explains all you need to know about how Fox Business News
There is one hard and fast rule about financial scandals. It's never what they talk about; it's what they don't talk about. On Fox Business News they never talk about facts suggesting any kind of corporate malfeasance.
On just about any given day, you can catch a few minutes of airtime and see how propaganda preempts straight business reporting. This substance free Q&A segment about the Levin investigation of the London Whale trades, with a bank company shill from Rochester, pretty much says it all. It misleads viewers by suggesting that investigators for Sen. Carl Levin had found nothing new, that his investigators were incompetent, and that the investigation was a political witch hunt. In other words, ad hominem attacks were used as a substitute for any mention of the facts alleged, and the substance of the charges.
Here's some of the exchange between an unknown Fox News announcer and Anton Schutz of Mendon Capital Advisors:
Unknown Fox News person: It happened a year ago why is this Senate now presenting this report and Still grilling these J.P. Morgan executives?Here's she's talking about. At a J.P. Morgan investor event last month, at which Dimon was asked by CLSA bank analyst Mike Mayo if J.P. Morgan wasn't at a competitive disadvantage compared to more highly capitalized peers:
Anton Schutz: Well, the first question you have to ask is why are they fixing the budget. As any American he should ask that question.
The second response is the Fed yesterday came out and let J.P. Morgan buyback $6 billion of its stock, increase its dividend from $.30-$.38. So the Fed feels comfortable enough so that they can spend a lot of capital going out and returning back to shareholders.
Clearly the regulators have a responsibility here, and clearly individuals did things wrong, And they've all worked together, J.P. Morgan with the regulators to Solve all these responsibilities, And there's more work to do, there's no doubt about it.
At this point in time, the people doing the investigation, I'm not sure can spell the word derivative.
I think it's disappointing that they're wasting everybody's time doing this. When they had their witchhunt at Goldman Sachs last year they spent millions of taxpayer dollars and achieved nothing.
So it's up to the regulators to do this they are doing their job, No one questions the OCC or the Fed and their competency, And they're handling of J.P. Morgan so, at the end of the day this is politicians trying to get reelected and demonize the banks yet again.
Im sure [the regulators] are fully aware of [what's going on.] So to have this public hearing doesn't really accomplish anything.
Unknown Fox News person: Especially if Jamie Dimon isn't even there. I just got the feeling that the senators are exhausted by Mr. Dimon 'cause he kind of gets them on the run, and on the ropes and they don't know how to deal with it.
Mayo: I think what I hear UBS saying in the presentation is that if I'm an affluent customer I'll feel a lot better going to UBS if they have 13.5 (percent) capital ratio than another big bank with a 10 percent ratio. Do you agree with that?Remember when adults debated issues on the merits, and ad hominem attacks were considered tacky and immature? Remember when the rule of law and transparency were considered pillars of free market capitalism? For some people all that doesn't matter, because they are richer than us.
Dimon: You would go to UBS and not JPMorgan?
Mayo: I didn't say that. That's their argument.
Dimon: That's why I'm richer than you.