Quantcast

Dimon's Role on N.Y. Fed Board Sparks Fierce Debate

MAY 18, 2012 6:20pm ET
Print
Email
Reprints
(2) Comments

WASHINGTON — It's the perception problem regulators at the Federal Reserve Board would rather go away.

The fallout of JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s $2 billion trading loss has reignited old worries of just how close Wall Street is to one of its top regulators, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Politicians and consumer activists have called for Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's chairman and chief executive, to resign from his position as a board director at the New York Fed.

Yet most observers agree that the perceived conflict of interest is just that — a perception that is a far cry from reality. Neither Dimon nor other directors from financial institutions have any role in the Fed's regulatory activities.

Still, the situation begs the question of whether the central bank should do more to distance itself from the institutions it regulates, especially when it comes to bankers who sit on the boards of all 12 Federal Reserve banks.

"Just because it's a perceived conflict of interest doesn't mean it's a real one," said Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics Inc. "It's a perception, but the reality isn't there. The question is: Does the Fed need to cleanse itself even of the perception that isn't right?"

The issue was stirred up again after Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard professor who helped set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is now running for Senate in Massachusetts, called for Dimon's ouster from the New York Fed.

"After the biggest financial crisis in generations, the American people are frustrated that Wall Street has still not been held accountable and does not appear to consider itself responsible," said Warren, in a statement issued shortly after the bank's CEO appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. "Dimon should resign from his post at the New York Fed to send a signal to the American people that Wall Street bankers get it and to show that they understand the need for responsibility and accountability."

Spokespersons for the New York Fed and JPMorgan Chase declined to comment for this article.

The issue is far from new for Fed officials, who have always tried to strike a balance between keeping the institutions the central bank regulates at arm's length, while also gaining the necessary information it needs to make important policy decisions.

"The Fed has always made the decision that the value it gets from the information outweighs the political cost of the perceived conflict," said Petrou. "If the decision is still right, it's really their call because no one else I think can make that political judgment."

But calls for a change are growing louder.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, a former president of the New York Fed, suggested that the structure of the Fed might be worth reforming.

"The perception is a problem," Geithner said in an interview with PBS NewsHour's Jeffrey Brown on Thursday. "And it's worth trying to figure out how to fix that."

Stalwarts of the Fed disagree, saying such calls are "misguided" and "fairly ignorant" given the Fed's existing structure established by Congress.

"I don't see Jaime Dimon's conflict of interest," said Ernest Patrikis, a partner with White & Case LLP and former general counsel of the New York Federal Reserve. "What's the conflict? He's expected to represent the banks' view, the lenders' view."

Since the Fed's inception in 1913, there has always been a misperception that bankers have controlled the Board of Governors. While there might be influence, observers says it's not so.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(2) Comments

SEE MORE IN

 

 
Kumbaya Moment for Banks, CUs; Brown-Vitter as WMD: Week's Best Quotes
The most notable quotes from American Banker stories of the previous week. Readers are encouraged to add their own observations in the Comments fields at the bottom of each slide.

(Image: Fotolia)

Comments (2)
Semantics and Politics --
I would much rather invest my money with Mr. Dimon. ( The losses JPM have sustained will not materially impact his company but were large enough to taint his image - he will learn from that)
As for Elizabeth Warren, the damage she has done and will do to our economy through the over reaching actions she birthed with the CPFB will make the $2 to $3 billion loss JPM took look small.
Posted by Watchdog1 | Monday, May 21 2012 at 1:00PM ET
I really don't see what all the hand wringing is about. The public is still angry about 2008 and is demanding that some heads role. Simple as that! Meanwhile that old boys club, we call the FED/SEC, is busy covering for one another, or that's how the the public sees it.

Sorry lads but it's time to line up and draw straws, in situations like this, nothing else will do. Of course if there is still true honor in banking then establishing a Bushido and insisting on Seppuku when members fall short of code would go a long way towards restoring public faith in the banking system.
Posted by china_bob | Thursday, May 24 2012 at 10:17AM ET
Add Your Comments:
You must be registered to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.

Email Newsletters

Get the Daily Briefing and the Morning Update when you sign up for a free trial.

TWITTER
FACEBOOK
LINKEDIN
Marketplace
Fiserv is a leading global provider of information management and electronic commerce systems for the financial services industry.
Learn More
Informa Research Services is the premier provider of competitive intelligence, mystery shopping, and compliance testing services to the financial industry.
Learn More
CSC is a leader in private-label, third-party loan servicing with 30+ years of proven experience in delivering effective, cost-effective solutions.
Learn More
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.