BankThink

Editor's Note: Morning Scan will not publish on Monday, May 27, in observance of the Memorial Day holiday.

Sharp bookkeepers could spot a kite in progress, but, more often than not, they were too hurried to give the ledgers a second look.

With a litany of bipartisan reasons to oppose FATCA, ranging from privacy and sovereignty to U.S. economic competitiveness, it is startling that the legislation has advanced as far as it has.

Receiving Wide Coverage ...Fed's Mixed Message: The Federal Reserve sent a "garbled message" about the fate of its QE3 program on Wednesday. First, Chairman Ben Bernanke endorsed ongoing stimulus efforts while testifying at a congressional hearing, though he did reveal the central bank could begin to slow down bond-buying in its "next few meetings," labor market conditions permitting. Then, just hours later, April meeting minutes revealed some Fed officials were hoping to pare down the program as early as June. Markets spiked, and then tumbled as a result of the information, illustrating "the communications challenge facing the Fed as it ponders the next steps for its historic stimulus efforts," the Washington Post reports. Now that the dust has settled, some analysts are predicting the slowdown — which, Bernanke noted was different than a complete wind-down of the program, since the Fed could always raise purchases if the economic outlook worsens — will begin in a few months, most likely around September. Several news outlets cite this statement William C. Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, made on Bloomberg TV as evidence of this scenario: "I think three or four months from now you'll have a much better sense of is the economy healthy enough to overcome the fiscal drag or not." Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg

The more that compensation designs depart from well-grounded pay-for-performance principles, including appropriate metrics and actual financial results, the less effective they are as an incentive

The most effective housing reform would let the GSEs do what they do best: act as a conduit for private capital to enter the residential lending market.

As much as David Fiderer and others try to defend the GSEs and the policies that drove them into insolvency, the taxpayers who bailed them out are unlikely to be fooled.

The tech company's new services represent a virtual slap in the face for the likes of banks and PayPal. If added to Google Glass, they potentially represent a knockout punch.

Receiving Wide Coverage ...Dimon's Big Day: The votes are in and it's Jamie Dimon by a landslide. After all the hoopla, the still chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase won the support of 68% of shareholders who rejected a proposal to strip him of the dual roles. For those keeping score, that means 32% voted in favor of separating the titles, a decrease from the 40% of shareholders who supported a similar proposal last year. "Vote Strengthens Dimon's Grip" at JPM, this Journal article proclaims. "The victory leaves Mr. Dimon, 57 years old, in a stronger position to grapple with his No. 1 priority: getting [the bank] through a thicket of regulatory problems threatening to hamstring the company for years." What led Dimon to such a decisive victory? Lobbying efforts? No doubt. Threats of resignation? Those could have helped, but Washington Post columnist Jena McGregor offers this explanation: "Despite big questions about Dimon's role in the 'London Whale' trading scandal and potential changes to the make-up of JPMorgan's board, the bank still posted record profits last year even after posting huge losses. And JPMorgan's shares have risen by more than 50% in the last 12 months." Still, it's not all sunshine and roses at JPM. While Dimon won his vote, three board members — David Cote, James Crown and Ellen Futter, who was conspicuously absent from the meeting — drew less than 60% support, leading many news outlets to predict a board shake-up may be on the way. "The vote created enough waves that JPMorgan might have to do something," the FT's Lex column argues. "Both JPMorgan's board and management are implicated in the Whale debacle (and presumably responsible for the bank's long-term success) but board members are more expendable." And the bank "is facing inquiries on multiple fronts," another Washington Post article notes, including, but not limited to a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission probe into its bidding practices and a lawsuit from California Attorney General Kamala Harris over alleged credit card abuses. As for Dimon himself, some news outlets note he still has a reputational issue to overcome. "The vote's outcome can't erase the months of harsh spotlight it focused on Dimon's power, his board's composition and governance style, and the London Whale trading losses that, a year later, continue to nip at Dimon's once-pristine reputation as the industry's best CEO," American Banker reports. But others see the vote as a sign that JPM's exec is made of Teflon. "No matter what happens, it seems that as long as Jamie Dimon is making money for JPMorgan, he can get away with basically anything," New York magazine columnist Kevin Roose concludes. And others were quick to label the proposal's failure an overall defeat for corporate governance. "The episode perfectly illustrates the common sense behind separating the two roles," write Agnes T. Crane and Antony Currie at the Times.

Advance America responds to One PacificCoast Bank.