Bankers deserting Obama for Romney

posted at 2:01 pm on May 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Why did fundraising for Team Obama drop so precipitously in April?  The Boston Globe provides one possible answer.  In 2008, Barack Obama attracted a lot of support from the banking industry.  This time around, they have deserted Obama in favor of Mitt Romney (via News Alert):

When the head of JPMorgan Chase met with shareholders to answer for a trading loss of more than $2 billion Tuesday, it was against an evolving political backdrop: Donors from big banks are betting on Mitt Romney to defeat President Obama and repeal new restraints on risky, large-scale investments.

“There’s no doubt that there’s been a big diminution of support for the president,’’ said William M. Daley, Obama’s former chief of staff and a former top JPMorgan Chase executive. “People in the financial services sector are saying, ‘The president has been too tough on us, both in policy and on rhetoric.’ ’’

The top five donor groups in Romney’s campaign are individuals and political action committees associated with large financial institutions, led by Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, according to information compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign donations.

By contrast, Obama’s top five contributor groups include individuals and PACs affiliated with high technology giants Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp., and the global law firms DLA Piper and Sidley Austin, and do not include those associated with banks. In 2008, financial institutions backed him generously.

This being the Boston Globe, the article then adds this hopeful note:

Analysts said the JPMorgan loss could be a political opportunity for Obama – and an obstacle for Romney.

Er … probably not:

President Obama has between $500,001 and $1 million dollars in a JPMorgan Chase account, according to financial disclosure forms released Tuesday by the White House.

The bank — that’s now being looked at by the Department of Justice after posting a massive $2 billion trading loss last week — is the home of a joint checking account the Obamas have with its Private Client Asset Management division. The Obamas have a second checking account with JPMorgan with assets between $1,001 and $15,000.

That’s a big increase from his 2011 disclosure form, where the JP Morgan Chase account showed no more than $250,000 in assets.

And let’s not forget his endorsement of JP Morgan just days after the $2 billion loss was exposed:

Just hours after a top JPMorgan Chase executive retired in the wake of a stunning $2 billion trading loss, President Obama told the hosts of ABC’s “The View” that the bank’s risky bets exemplified the need for Wall Street reform.

“JPMorgan is one of the best-managed banks there is. Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we got and they still lost $2 billion and counting,” the president said. “We don’t know all the details. It’s going to be investigated, but this is why we passed Wall Street reform.”

Yeah — how exactly will that work, anyway?  Jonathan Weil explains for Bloomberg, after JPM CFO Douglas Braunstein gave the Chip Diller “All is well” speech to investors:

In other words: Clearly there wasn’t a problem, because if there was, the regulators would have seen it. And of course, by all indications, they didn’t see it, even though they were embedded in JPMorgan’s offices. On May 10, JPMorgan divulged $2 billion of intra-quarter trading losses and said they might get worse.

Once again, regulators seem to have been oblivious to huge risks at a bank they were supposed to be overseeing. To JPMorgan, however, they also have served a valuable purpose.

Having regulators around the clock at JPMorgan reinforces market expectations that the government has an obligation to stand behind the bank should it run into more serious trouble. Also, lest anyone forget, JPMorgan’s chief executive officer,Jamie Dimon, sits on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, even as the Fed is one of the agencies now investigating JPMorgan’s trading debacle.

The regulators’ very presence also may be of personal benefit to anyone at JPMorgan who might face scrutiny later from federal investigators. Let’s say the Securities and Exchange Commission were to consider accusing JPMorgan executives of possible rule violations. If what Braunstein said is true, there’s a chance these people might defend themselves by saying that everything they did was right under the regulators’ noses.

This might be one reason the government hasn’t brought a case, criminal or civil, against former executives of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. For several months before it collapsed, regulators were inside Lehman’s offices full-time, as the company’s bankruptcy-court examiner,Anton Valukas, noted in his 2010 report on Lehman’s failure.

With cover like that, it’s truly a wonder that bankers and other financial institutions are deserting Obama.  That’s probably because the regulation cover doesn’t make up for the class-warfare rabble-rousing in which Obama has engaged since last September, and for the abysmal economic policies that has the US economy in long-term stagnation.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I guess they got tired of being shat upon by the One they were funding, huh.

hillbillyjim on May 16, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I hope Romney flips more than half of his big Wall Street donors. Obama will then have his phone banks calling Indonesia for donations.

JAM on May 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The “too big to fail” banks should love Obama. Dodd-Frank protects them at the expense of small local and regional banks, thereby eliminating any upstart competition. I’ll believe it if they make it through the late Summer and early Fall without dropping millions in Obama’s pocket. Until then, I’m not buying that they’ve flipped. More like hedging their bets in case Obama loses.

totherightofthem on May 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

If Obama administration had any gumption they’d use the abandonment of wall street to their advantage. Populism is in this cycle.

libfreeordie on May 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Gosh, I can’t imagine why any Bank of America exec would turn against Obama. I mean it’s not like his cronies are sending union thugs to protest on their front lawn….oh wait.

Doughboy on May 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Well… now he can run as someone not connected/joined with those types…

//

Logus on May 16, 2012 at 2:10 PM

GOOD !

Jabberwock on May 16, 2012 at 2:10 PM

If Obama administration had any gumption they’d use the abandonment of wall street to their advantage. Populism is in this cycle.

libfreeordie on May 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I had a similar thought.

That said, I seriously doubt it’ll work for Obama. Less than six months until the election.

It’s been a very hot political spring for Mr. Obama. I suspect the summer’s only going to get hotter.

He’ll be sweating plenty come fall.

Logus on May 16, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I know this isn’t about this subject, but this kid seems so great I thought I’d post the reference. It also tells you a little about how Mitt was raised.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765576444/Mormon-prep-basketball-phenom-Jabari-Parker-makes-the-cover-of-this-weeks-Sports-Illustrated.html

Bambi on May 16, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Bankers to be named on the Obama attack site in 3…2…1

When will team Zero start screaming “RACIST!” ? Any minute now.

dogsoldier on May 16, 2012 at 2:14 PM

I hope that Romney will start talking about glass-steagal. we need to privatize investment banking.

funds covered by fdic must be boring..and if the investment banking segment loses a lot of money, well, see you at the soup line

all the rest is BS, trying to wring money out of a people who have captured the regulators and government.

r keller on May 16, 2012 at 2:14 PM

The “too big to fail” banks should love Obama. Dodd-Frank protects them at the expense of small local and regional banks, thereby eliminating any upstart competition. I’ll believe it if they make it through the late Summer and early Fall without dropping millions in Obama’s pocket. Until then, I’m not buying that they’ve flipped. More like hedging their bets in case Obama loses.

totherightofthem on May 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Exactly – it’ll be 50/50 before all is said and done. That way all the necessary backs are scratched and whoever is elected can be leaned upon to keep “too big to fail” around for another four years. Romney has to know this won’t fly with taxpayers.

http://www.fiscalwars.wordpress.com

stout77 on May 16, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I’m a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, so I’m glad when the forces of Obamunism suffer fundraising problems. All the same, I have a hard time seeing these banking execs as capitalists. They behave more like opportunistic cronies-in-waiting, greasing the palms of whichever politician can give them goodies from the government trough.

Ron Paul is an Jew-baiting nutball with suicidal ideas about foreign policy and defense, but I’d love to turn him loose on these guys.

OhioCoastie on May 16, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Wall Street support was the main reason why the GOP establishment issued a dog-whistle call to the conservative rubes of all stripes to tear Ron Paul down. Bankers can deal with Romney, they could probably deal with Obama if he called off his OWS clown brigade, but Ron Paul is anathema to their parasitic business model.

On the other hand, if that’s what it took to flip banks to Romney’s side and take the dog-eating usurper and his socialist gang out to pasture, I could live with it. Banking money carries a lot of weight in the presidential race but tenfold more in races down the ticket, the GOP needs this money, and we, unfortunately, still need GOP to win.

Archivarix on May 16, 2012 at 2:19 PM

The Obamas have a second checking account with JPMorgan with assets between $1,001 and $15,000.

This probably is the only “honest” money the Obamas have made.

pseudonominus on May 16, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Is there a banker anywhere in the country who, if being honest and candid, will say that Dodd-Frank is great for business and just what the banking industry needed?

farsighted on May 16, 2012 at 2:22 PM

It’s been a very hot political spring for Mr. Obama. I suspect the summer’s only going to get hotter.

He’ll be sweating plenty come fall.

Logus on May 16, 2012 at 2:12 PM

That’s only half of it. What with the election, convention, and campaigning Mooch is already complaining that there will be no family vacation this August. Does anyone really want to get between Mooch and a vacation? I’m sure Barry will be hearing about this for months if not years.

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I had a similar thought.

That said, I seriously doubt it’ll work for Obama. Less than six months until the election.

It’s been a very hot political spring for Mr. Obama. I suspect the summer’s only going to get hotter.

He’ll be sweating plenty come fall.

Logus on May 16, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Obama is too much of a statist to be a good populist. His “populism” only appeals to the OWS crowd..the rest of the population see him as the hypocritial fraud that he is.

HumpBot Salvation on May 16, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Banking money carries a lot of weight in the presidential race but tenfold more in races down the ticket, the GOP needs this money, and we, unfortunately, still need GOP to win.

Archivarix on May 16, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Giving money to Romney isn’t the same as giving money to down-ticket candidates or the RNC. I just hope you are right and they give to down-tickets as well.

totherightofthem on May 16, 2012 at 2:24 PM

It’s another dodge. Look over here at JP Morgan so we don’t look over there at MF Global. They vaporized $1.9 billion months before JPM. How about investigating that first? Oh right; Jon Corzine is a Democrat and Obama bundler so he’ll get a pass.

rcpjr on May 16, 2012 at 2:26 PM

“There’s no doubt that there’s been a big diminution of support for the president,’’ said William M. Daley, Obama’s former chief of staff and a former top JPMorgan Chase executive

…so what job did JugEars get this guy in the private sector?
Going to be heavy pressure put on those institutions until November…or until that big earred mobster see’s some money coming his way!

KOOLAID2 on May 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Romney will do nothing about the big bank cartels. It will be business as usual.

Dack Thrombosis on May 16, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Obama is too much of a statist to be a good populist. His “populism” only appeals to the OWS crowd..the rest of the population see him as the hypocritial fraud that he is.

HumpBot Salvation on May 16, 2012 at 2:24 PM

The rest of the population may see him as a fraud, but many will still vote for him.

Logus on May 16, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Exactly how is this a good thing?

tetriskid on May 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Commercial banking money and where it goes. . .. Scroll down all the way and you can see how much Obama and Romney have gotten thus far. So far, the banks have given Romney almost three times the money they have given Obama. They give more to Senate democrats than they do repubs, though.

totherightofthem on May 16, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Romney will do nothing about the big bank cartels. It will be business as usual.

Dack Thrombosis on May 16, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Bingo!

totherightofthem on May 16, 2012 at 2:34 PM

That’s only half of it. What with the election, convention, and campaigning Mooch is already complaining that there will be no family vacation this August. Does anyone really want to get between Mooch and a vacation? I’m sure Barry will be hearing about this for months if not years.

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Michelle and Barack both have very thin skin. I think it behooves every Republican, conservative, Tea Party and other organization, and especially the Romney campaign to see how much they can rub the Obama’s the wrong way, make them lose their cool.

Specifically come the Presidential debate(s) – if Obama deigns to take part in one. An algor moment by Obama in one or more of the debates will be delicious.

Logus on May 16, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Once again, regulators seem to have been oblivious to huge risks at a bank they were supposed to be overseeing. To JPMorgan, however, they also have served a valuable purpose.

And many people are oblivious to the type of bank behavior that led to the near collapse of our financial system. It’s completely true that Chase’s $2 bil loss posed no material threat to the bank itself, but when that type of risk-taking occurs systematically across the banking system due to the type of herd mentality characterizing by an asset bubble, then the entire banking industry is again threatening the very basis of our economy.

All the same, I have a hard time seeing these banking execs as capitalists.

Look, this country didn’t live under communist rule during the era of Glass-Steagall. There’s nothing capitalistic about bankers leveraging government-backed deposits to hedge the stock market. No one is preventing Chase from selling off its core banking assets and turning into a hedge fund so that it’s no longer placing bets on FDIC insured deposits. If you want to place the FDIC sign on your door, then you have to follow rules that protect taxpayers.

bayam on May 16, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Bankers have been under assault by this President and his Administration almost from the Inauguration. They had still been giving Obama more than all the GOP candidates combined through February at least – you see, most of those regulations and rules envisioned by Dodd-Frank have yet to be written, and Obama’s people are doing the writing. “Nice bank you have there, be a shame if anything happened to it.”

But sooner or later everyone begins to act in their own self interest. Jews are leaning away from Obama, too. Gays held up their money, but caved in for the lip service Obama paid them.

Adjoran on May 16, 2012 at 2:37 PM

JP Morgan lost $2 billion on a trade last quarter. However, their quarterly profits have been around %5 billion. And we are supposed to be concerned?

Is the new socialist position that banks should be investigated and further regulated when they make a bad investment decision, even when they are still very profitable overall? That’s ridiculous, but right in line with socialist goals.

The new Comrade Lenin Award winning socialist model for regulating capitalist enterprises is they should be investigated and regulated further if they lose money on a bad deal, even if in good shape overall, and they should be investigated and regulated further and taxed more when they make too much money, and they should be investigated and regulated further when they do not turn a profit.

Socialists are predictable and easy to understand once you know how they think.

farsighted on May 16, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Somebody doesn’t understand the basics of bank regulation.

All banks of reasonable size have on-site regulatory examiners. I work for a medium-sized bank and we have 20 from the OCC and 9 from the Fed on-site, and more coming in for specific exams. JPM has over 100 people onsite from the OCC.

The on-site examiners are not accountants that go over the bank’s books every day and look at every individual trade made by the trading desk. They do serial examinations of various bank operations, and examine for compliance with specific rules and for control processes that prove the bank is safe and sound and adequately identifying and managing risks. It’s entirely possible that the last exam that looked at JPM’s derivatives trading found noting amiss.

rockmom on May 16, 2012 at 2:38 PM

‘The president has been too tough on us, both in policy and on rhetoric.’ ’’

As Obowma’s numbers plummet…

… picture this scene at the DNC Convention.

Obowma will stand on high alter…

… In front of him, a mob of OWS thugs and union goons, dancing around a huge bonfire, while screaming and gnashing their teeth at “the rich”.

As pictures of bankers appear on huge screens, the mob turns into a feeding frenzy, tearing apart the weak among them…

… then the homes and addresses are displayed, and Obowma starts to chant:

Forward…! FORWARD…!! FORWARD…!!!

/

Seven Percent Solution on May 16, 2012 at 2:38 PM

The Obamas have a second checking account with JPMorgan with assets between $1,001 and $15,000.

That’s Michelle’s sneaker money account.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 2:39 PM

I’m concerned about the 1%.

The 1% nearest above me economically, who I want to join, and the 1% nearest below me economically, who I don’t want to join again…

Bruno Strozek on May 16, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Own him banks, you wanted him, you got him

Talks trash to your face with his hand out for cash

cmsinaz on May 16, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Socialists are predictable and easy to understand once you know how they think.

farsighted on May 16, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Poor banks.. they deserved every penny of the $1 tril in TARP bail out money! Unfortunately Obama hasn’t fully restored the level of regulation to prevent another bailout. So don’t worry, you won- the evil socialist didn’t do anything sensible such as direct the FDIC to take failed, too big to fail banks like Citi into receivership and to sell off their assets. Too big to fail is alive and well today.

bayam on May 16, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Hubby and I have had accounts with Chase for many years. That’s going to change given this information. Any suggestions for alternatives? I’m thinking maybe Wells Fargo.

natasha333 on May 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM

All of the top leaders of the Democrat Party deserted the banks first, when they publicly announced solidarity with OWS.

listens2glenn on May 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Hubby and I have had accounts with Chase for many years. That’s going to change given this information. Any suggestions for alternatives? I’m thinking maybe Wells Fargo.

natasha333 on May 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I’d suggest Comerica, if it’s available where you are.

totherightofthem on May 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM

This is yet another sign that people are beginning to see the inevitability of the end of The Soetoro Regime.

The stuttering Obama campaign looks utterly unprepared to compete with Mitt Romney.

And, yes, add to the fact that Barry Hussein Soetoro has been on a 3.5+year anti business rampage IS a factor. These guys would LOVE to see him gone.

wildcat72 on May 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Hubby and I have had accounts with Chase for many years. That’s going to change given this information. Any suggestions for alternatives? I’m thinking maybe Wells Fargo.

natasha333 on May 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I use a regional bank called First National, so that probably wouldn’t help you.

Whatever you do, stay the heck away from Bank of America. I’ve heard nightmare stories about that place.

Dack Thrombosis on May 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Whatever you do, stay the heck away from Bank of America. I’ve heard nightmare stories about that place.

Dack Thrombosis on May 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Worst. Bank. Ever.

totherightofthem on May 16, 2012 at 2:54 PM

We continue to have the same problems as we did in 2008.

As Lehman was going South, the regulators were looking over their shoulders, so if they did anything illegal, the regulators were probably at fault for not immediately flagging it.

JPMorgan is roughly the same, but it hasn’t been under nearly as tight supervision as Lehman was.

But the bottom line is that for the government to come back now and say there was anything illegal in the $2 billion loss, would be for the government to say that their own regulation isn’t working.

J_Crater on May 16, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Jamie Dimon was a big Obama contributor is 2008. His current participation with the re-election campaign has been lacking until now. Wonder if he’s contemplating ‘a donation’ in order to smooth things over.

GarandFan on May 16, 2012 at 2:54 PM

The ultimate solution of the “too big to fail” problem is the breaking up of these institutions into smaller entities, with a cap on the size based on some fraction of the total market, say 10% or less.

J_Crater on May 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Too big to fail is alive and well today.

bayam on May 16, 2012 at 2:46 PM

It’s never been stronger. Smaller banks cannot withstand the massive regulatory costs, leaving you with far fewer and much larger banks. Exact same thing is happening with insurance companies under ObamaCare.

Pretty simple stuff you self-declared geniuses never seem to get.

Chuck Schick on May 16, 2012 at 2:57 PM

The banks think Obama was tough on them!?! Give me a break. These welfare queen crony captialists apparently have no idea how the public feels about bailing them out of their sorry messes. Time to break them up. Too big to fail needs to mean too big to exist as is.

Charm on May 16, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Jamie Dimon isn’t just a big Obama contributor. He is a lifelong Democrat.

I love how the meme that Wall Street is a Republican bastion lives on.
Wall Street is in NYC for a reason. There many be a lot of Republican money on Wall Street, but the financial firms always lean towards Democrats with their giving (in part because the have to payoff the Democratic locals). If you took a census of employees, it would lean to the Democrats by about 2 to 1.

J_Crater on May 16, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The banks think Obama was tough on them!?! Give me a break.

I agree. The reality is that they see Obama going down and they like to be on the winning side. Besides they pumped millions into Obama last time and got almost nothing for their efforts.

J_Crater on May 16, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Whatever you do, stay the heck away from Bank of America. I’ve heard nightmare stories about that place.

Dack Thrombosis on May 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Politically abhorrent as they may be, I have an account with them for a decade and never had a problem. Pulling out just for the heck of it would be mighty inconvenient. It probably helps that I never keep more than two weeks of salary’s worth with them, though.

Archivarix on May 16, 2012 at 3:03 PM

bayam on May 16, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Bravo.

libfreeordie on May 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Jamie Dimon. . . is one of the smartest bankers we got. . .” – Obama

Whad’ya mean “we?”

Pablo Snooze on May 16, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Too big to fail is alive and well today.

bayam on May 16, 2012 at 2:46 PM

lol, Krugman’s back!

Pretty nice wigwam Chief Paulie has in Princeton, eh kemosabe?

Del Dolemonte on May 16, 2012 at 3:07 PM

It’s never been stronger. Smaller banks cannot withstand the massive regulatory costs, leaving you with far fewer and much larger banks. Exact same thing is happening with insurance companies under ObamaCare.

Pretty simple stuff you self-declared geniuses never seem to get.

Chuck Schick on May 16, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Smaller banks faced even more regulation before Glass-Steagall was repealed. But when someone starts exclaiming the old talking point about regulations hurting small business, it’s good to see people jump on the bandwagon.

You fail to note that Dodd Frank specifically protect smaller banks with lower interchange fees.

The banks think Obama was tough on them!?! Give me a break.

I agree. The reality is that they see Obama going down and they like to be on the winning side. Besides they pumped millions into Obama last time and got almost nothing for their efforts.

J_Crater on May 16, 2012 at 3:01 PM

The banks still own both political parties. Nothing has changed.

bayam on May 16, 2012 at 3:07 PM

The banks need a kick in the jimmy. They public utilities after all the tax doolars they took in.

rickyricardo on May 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Obamney 2012!!

dom89031 on May 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM

the financial firms always lean towards Democrats with their giving …. J_Crater on May 16, 2012 at 2:59 PM

That may be true on a local level, but not on the national level. I thought as you did, but I checked it out on OpenSecrets.org and it turns out that the banks historically have given more $$ to the Republicans than the Democrats. I was stunned. This does not hold true for Senate races, however, where the opposite is actually the case. Go here and scroll down to see the historical trends for banking donations by party. The tabs at the top of the section are elucidating as well.

totherightofthem on May 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Just goes to show you they are the same.

dom89031 on May 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Of course, I’m speaking of Banks, not bankers. Individually, the CEOs and other execs might be jumping ship, but I’ll wait to see if that holds true over the next 4 months or so.

totherightofthem on May 16, 2012 at 3:11 PM

These banks should be made public utilities. They have taken enough tax money to warrant it.

If romney is smart he will demand accountability from these crooks and pass laws that will string these bastards from a high tree if they cant manage their monies responsibly.

The occpuy movement and the tea parties agree that crony capitalism turning this country into a thrid world country. Romney needs to address this and demand separation of government and financial institutions…..not a cozier relationship.

rickyricardo on May 16, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Top individual donors and the organizations with which they are/were associated. If you click on the individual or organization, you’ll see the party split by person. A cursory look indicates that wealthy individual donors favor Democrats.

totherightofthem on May 16, 2012 at 3:14 PM

bayam on May 16, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Did your mother use a lot of drugs while carrying you in her womb?

Every word you said is a lie, including “the” and “and” – with apologies to Mary McCarthy.

Adjoran on May 16, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Maybe I am being too machiavellian here, but the 180 change around from Obama supporters to Romney supporters seems too dramatic to pass the smell test (especially for Goldman Sachs).
Couldn’t it be that the financial industry is throwing funding at Romney (at the behest of Obama) in order to solidify the illusion that the Republicans are the Party of Big Money, in order to nudge people toward Obama, who wants to be “hard” on the financial industry?

This seems like too much of a slam-dunk meme on a silver platter:

“There’s no doubt that there’s been a big diminution of support for the president,’’ said William M. Daley, Obama’s former chief of staff and a former top JPMorgan Chase executive. “People in the financial services sector are saying, ‘The president has been too tough on us, both in policy and on rhetoric.’ “

jwally on May 16, 2012 at 3:32 PM

These banks should be made public utilities. They have taken enough tax money to warrant it.

If romney is smart he will demand accountability from these crooks and pass laws that will string these bastards from a high tree if they cant manage their monies responsibly.

The occpuy movement and the tea parties agree that crony capitalism turning this country into a thrid world country. Romney needs to address this and demand separation of government and financial institutions…..not a cozier relationship.

rickyricardo on May 16, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I guess i’m alone in my opinion reading the comments so far,

Can someone explain to me why bankers are crooks?

Can someone explain how all of you know which banker is a crony capitalist and who isn’t?

I just don’t get why people (conservatives included) love to pile on bankers, They take huge risks, and sometimes they get hugely rewarded

The reason they got bailed out, is because the government forced their hands to give all these loans to those who couldn’t afford it,

(and not to mention that every business that kept more then 100,000 in the bank would have lost their capital, and God knows how much disaster that would have caused)

OrthodoxJew on May 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM

the illusion that the Republicans are the Party of Big Money,

jwally on May 16, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Oh, for heaven’s sake. There is nothing “illusory” about the GOP being the party of Big Money. For a long time, and now more than ever, that is 100% fact.

Drew Lowell on May 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Hubby and I have had accounts with Chase for many years. That’s going to change given this information. Any suggestions for alternatives? I’m thinking maybe Wells Fargo.

natasha333 on May 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You’ll want to stay away from Wells-Fargo as well. They bought out Wachovia, and all the “bombs” that caused Wachovia to go under have been transferred to Wells. I still have a small account with them but I keep the deposits in it low because I have zero confidence in our banking system.

Basically all the big banks are in serious trouble and are relying on government largesse to keep active. If you want to use a bank, I’d recommend a small local credit union. I’d recommend doing what research you can and making sure they didn’t gamble on garbage like subprime loans.

Or you can be your own bank, but of course that has its own set of risks.

Doomberg on May 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Drew Lowell – they BOTH are.

But, we are in the middle of a presidential campaign here, where each side is trying to sell it’s illusion….

jwally on May 16, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Awww, I call BS, they’re not doing that. After all Romney put that dog on top of his car, the heartless bastige….and he’s a Mormon. It’s all just vast right wing conspiracy propaganda. And Scott Walker’s gonna lose too you wingnuts.

Oldnuke on May 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

OrthodoxJew on May 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Thank you.

People seem to have forgotten how the banks got so much overvalued and under-examined bad debt in the first place, and whose social-engineering-based laws and policies made it inevitable.

hillbillyjim on May 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I just don’t get why people (conservatives included) love to pile on bankers, They take huge risks, and sometimes they get hugely rewarded

OrthodoxJew on May 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM

When we bail out failure time and time again THERE IS NO RISK. When you cover losses you’re not minimizing risk, you’re maximizing it.

If I have to go to Vegas with my own money, I’m not putting everything I own down, and I’m not taking big risks. I’ll sit at the $5 blackjack table and play conservative for a bit; or maybe the $1 slots… but that’s it.

If I go to Vegas with your money, and the knowledge you’ll give me back everything if I lose… I’m putting it on the biggest payout I can find, because there is no risk TO ME. #23 on the Roulette table with everything you gave me? AWESOME… I’m either up 36 times what I had; or you’ll cover it and I lose nothing.

Why should anyone be impressed with me taking that risk with your money that you have to cover?

And why do you think that this should be impressive?

gekkobear on May 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM

I just don’t get why people (conservatives included) love to pile on bankers, They take huge risks, and sometimes they get hugely rewarded

OrthodoxJew on May 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM

There was a time when bankers took risks by issuing loans to promising businesses… and as those businesses grew and hired more employees, the banks would benefit by selling those businesses lines of credit, short-term investment vehicles, and other financial services. The job of bankers was to identify risks and manage those risks to ultimately protect their depositors while providing an invaluable service to the overall economy. It provided well-run banks with healthy revenue and growth opportunities.

Now it’s about finding the fastest way to big bonuses by placing large bets on the stock market. It’s about embracing risk instead of managing it. Lending is downright boring in comparison. And why not- the FDIC insures those depositor funds, so what could possibly go wrong in a worse case scenario?

bayam on May 16, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Whatever you do, stay the heck away from Bank of America. I’ve heard nightmare stories about that place.

Dack Thrombosis on May 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM

If you have so much as $100 in an account there, get it out. Now.

The horror stories are LEGION.

MelonCollie on May 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Oh, for heaven’s sake. There is nothing “illusory” about the GOP being the party of Big Money. For a long time, and now more than ever, that is 100% fact.

Drew Lowell on May 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM

But it’s also no secret that the Democrats are the party of Big Welfare.

MelonCollie on May 16, 2012 at 8:04 PM

These banks should be made public utilities. They have taken enough tax money to warrant it….. Romney needs to address this and demand separation of government and financial institutions…..not a cozier relationship.

rickyricardo on May 16, 2012 at 3:11 PM

You probably don’t realize that these are contradictory, mutually exclusive positions.

SD on May 17, 2012 at 9:15 AM