testimony of jamie dimon. >> the analogy really doesn't hold true. we're trying to do obviously better than that. i know you gave testimony here and back to the senate. your exact quote i had with regard to the role of regulators, what they could and couldn't do, i think you have to give regulators realistic objectives. i don't think you can stop something like this from happening. it was purely management mistake, misinformed a little bit and not purposely misinforming them, too. it was 100 regulators, working full time, embedded, waking up everyday to go to your firm for work. aren't we in a case there's a little bit of charade with the american public with regard to what it is the regulators after 2200 pages of dodd-frank are able to do in these circumstances, they're not able to get into the detail, granular nature of things without modifications to the rules?

>> i think i mentioned before. realistic assumptions help, realistic goals. they candice s disseminate good information and make sure there are fewer mistakes and far between. i would never blame them for a mistake we made. maybe what they learn from us will stop someone from making a similar mistake. >> i know the ranking member of the full committee were somewhat taken aback by some of your responses to dodd-frank and legislation implemented. that's fine. i concur your part is to lobby for, if you will the position for your firm on positions of these issues and something more than that, what's best for the interest of your investors, too, correct? >> no. my highest most important to me is united states of america.

i look back, anything i say in the interest of the united states of america and not the interest of jpmorgan chase. i feel jpmorgan chase willful the rules and regulations and continue to serve our clients. >> the answer to the first question was yes. part of the reform we may need in this area is what? the extra territorial effect of some of the rules we've had so far. we've done that in a bipartisan matter. we had a member not helping here now, mr. hines from connecticut has legislation from us to try to reform it. you see at the same time, the previous panel, cfdc chair coming out with their proposed regulation, actually not regulations but guidance, coming up with various standards, security based swap dealers. a, is that the appropriate manner we should have?

purely guidance rules coming out you don't do a cost benefit analysis before and should there be a closer relationship between the cftc promulgating rules? >> we should have one set of rules of derivatives and swaps and competing sets of rules that haven't been defined yet. thinking what makes sense and cost benefit is always the way to do it. hard for me to imagine to do something better than that. >> you would agree we haven't seen that since dodd-frank has been passed into law? >> there may have been places it was done. i'm unaware of it. >> just to close then, i thought your answer would be slightly different to the volcker rule when you said things may not have been different had the volcker rule been fully implemented here. i thought the answer would be, had the volcker rule been law at the time, there simply would not have been trades going on

because of the uncertainty not only by the regulators but institutions such as yours as to how is it going to be implemented and what trade is permissible and not permissible. >> i think on portfolio hedging the minor part of volcker, it's the market making that allows these great capital markets of america to remain healthy, finance companies at a very cheap cost to investors and issuers. that, to me, is the more important part. there are like 170 things written around that and there's concern that will stifle the capital markets here if not done right. they may well be done right. the regulators want to get them to the right place. it's very hard to do. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. first, i want to tell you, i've agreed with a lot of the statements you made. i know that may surprise some people. it shouldn't. first of all, i welcome your voice in the discussion about

what is appropriate regulation. there's no golden answer any of us -- i don't come to the table thinking i know the answers. you think, try, talk to people like you, does this work or not work? i agree with you in the final analysis. i particularly agree in the analysis of title ii of dodd-frank. you have clearly stated you are not too big to fail. is that a misinterpretation? >> no. >> i agree with you but wish some of my colleagues on the other side would finally hear that. i think we handled it in dodd-frank. you stated it, i agree with you. and agree with you on simplification of the regulators. i think we have too many. and i wish the larger institutions and organizations were nowhere to be found when we're having this debate during dodd-frank. i was on the side of trying to simplify the number of regulators, not because of what they're going to regulate, too many people doing the same thing. totally agree. i would work with you or anyone else to try to reduce the number

of voices at the table to try to make your job easier. that doesn't mean reduce the reg li lireglation. simplifying it. relative to competitiveness, we want to keep our financial institutions come pettive. i want to be sure i'm understanding you correctly. you're not arguing all financial institution, u.s. or others, should always seek the least regulated regimes, that's not your argument, is it? >> that's not my argument. >> i didn't think so. i wanted to be clear. i would suggest clearly you're not wrong about competitiveness. not my goal or anyone else's to regulate you into a competitive disadvantage. i think that's what the world is trying to accomplish now. basel 3 is an example. trying to get all the different major countries around to have similar approaches towards financial institutions.

there are still loopholes, whether you take advantage of them or not, they exist in london and elsewhere, why people are there. you may not be there for that reason. i don't know and don't really mind whether you are because you're one institution. the institution of jpmorgan in and of itself is of little interest to me. what i'm interested in the entire system and the u.s. competitive advantages we might have. when you have a loophole in london or any place else people take advantage of for regulatory schemin schemes, we need to talk about it openly, whether they're better or worse than us and how we can work them together so the loophole is not just for you and also so your competitors don't give them an advantage. when you say you're looking for the best deal, you're right. the truth is if it was only best deal you'd be loaning the money on the street somewhere because they get a better tedeal than y

do. they loan it at better rates than you do. but less secure. when you talk about best deal, not just about bottom line, the ability to get the loans back, you're not just looking -- >> i was referring to best deal for the client. we're not going to win the business if we give them not the best deal. >> right. but the best deal is more than lowest common denominator. security, operations under the rule of law, so you know the deal you're making is one you can enforce. is that a fair way to say it? >> yes. >> i told you, we're not that far off -- we may have difference of opinion where we do. i want to talk about what's happening today as we speak, another committee meeting, the last i read news reports reporting they will cut out $25 million from the cft's ability to pay their staff. do you think that's a smart thing for us to be doing to be cutting the ability of regulators to do their job? >> i have never looked at the

cftc budget. we said we have a cftc and scc in duplication. i'd prefer we fix it than throw money at it. that's what i do at my company. i can create more staff but not necessary the right thing to do. >> i agree with the analysis. with the regulatory system we have today, not what we want but do you think it's a smart idea to cut one of the legs off a major regulator? >> i won't defer on that because it's not my area. >> the only reason i ask because you expressed other opinions. >> i know nothing about their budget or employees they have. i know nothing. >> i'd like you to learn it and maybe get back to us on the answer. the truth is i'd like to hear your answer before we vote on the floor. thank you, mr. dimon. >> you do know we're- >> we will take a quick break and return with more of mr.

dimon's testimony. the dow jones industrial 126 points almost all areas solidly in the green. t's or sun burn cream later. oh, somebody out there's saying, now i get it! take beano before and there'll be no gas. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about how some companies like to get between ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you and your money. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 at charles schwab, we believe your money should be available ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 to you whenever and wherever you want. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 which is why we rebate every atm fee worldwide. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 and why our mobile app lets you transfer funds, ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 execute trades, even deposit checks just by ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 taking a picture, right from your phone. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 so talk to chuck and put those barriers behind you. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 [ engine turns over ] [ male announcer ] we created the luxury crossover and kept turning the page, writing the next chapter for the rx and lexus.

see your lexus dealer.

welcome back. i'm bill griffeth at the new york stock exchange. we'll get back to jamie dimon. quick look at the markets. up 129 points.

the fed is meeting today and started meeting just before noon eastern time. we'll learn tomorrow what their expectations are for the economy and plan to do about it. it could be wall street is rallying anticipating some sort of help from the fed. the financials are the strongest gainers today, whether it has to do with the fed or not remains to be seen. we'll get back to the testimony in washington with jamie dimon. >> you look at the institutions and how they take risk. >> obviously, we failed in this regard. we need very strong risk committees, properly staff, independent minded, the job is to challenge management all the way to the ceo. why do we do that? why do we have more limits? what can go wrong, stress test it. that's what they're supposed to do, protecting the management from themselves sometimes. our risk committees do report independently. in this particular case, the

risk committee made the same lack of oversight i probably made a little bit down the line about this one activity. had pretty good disciplines in the other activity. the synthetic credit activity should have been much tougher. >> yes. in terms of jpmorgan has regulators in house who closely monitor your activities, is there an element of human nature that makes us to a certain extent comfortable with each other and how we do things that may lend a certain amount of hazard to these relationships over time? >> no, they're not -- they could be pretty tough on us. what happens sometimes is human nature is, i say it's okay. the next person doesn't spend that much time on it and the next person and everybody around the table says it's okay. >> because you have a track record? >> yeah. all of us. you can't be complacent about risk. it's about rigor. not that you trust the person, i trust a lot of people, has to be

independently verified. >> trust but verify. thank you, sir and thank you, chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. five minutes. >> mr. dimon, thank you for your testimony. the recent jpmorgan loss comes at a time when we have many in your industry complaining about the new regulations that were put in place with the dodd-frank wall street reform act. for good reason, the $2 billion plus loss has pressed the pause button on the constant stream of attempted rollbacks to dodd-frank. it seems to me, that with the recent conviction of a prominent wall street corporate director, wall street firm do not seem to be going out of their way to restore trust with the american people. i understand that jpmorgan will still turn a profit this year,

but the size of the loss and complexity of the trades in microhedging that caused the loss still gives cause for concern. there needs to be an evaluation of not only prudent regulations but also the broken culture on wall street. a culture that some believes provides perverse incentives to play fast and loose with other people's money. after the crisis, there should have been major self-reflection and reevaluation of wall street. mr. dimon, looking back at this loss, do you feel the compensation structure at jpmorgan might have created incentives or excessive risk? >> i don't agree with what you said about wall street, i'll be direct about it. i think there are lot of people you can trust on wall street, a lot of people you can trust anywhere. when anyone blankets a whole industry with the same thing we're making a mistake, like

when people blanket all of congress the same way, i think it's not fair. we try to have culture at the company where people have long term careers, they aren't paid just because of profits, paid because they're good manager, because they recruit, retain, open minded, independent, on risk committees, participate in the company, mentor younger people. that's what we do. not just financial results that drive people's compensation at jpmorgan. no one in this area had formulas. is it possible someone will say i was driven a lot by money. shouldn't be a great surprise to you or anybody else some people are driven a lot by money, some are not. >> next question. do you feel there's a problem with wall street culture? >> i think there might be a problem with some people on wall street. wall street, for the most part are honest decent hard working people and their clients trust them. to the extent we lose it, we

should earn it back. you talk to most of our clients e, jpmorgan does a good job for them. we make a mistake, we admit it, try to rectify it. all firms are different. i can't speak for every firm while i'm standing here. >> mr. dimon, what would you personally recommend be done by congress to strengthen the dodd-frank act, so that we can prevent actions with the complexity of trades and risky derivatives and macro hedging that caused the loss of at least $2 billion at jpmorgan, which brought us to this congressional hearing? we want to insure similar loss do not occur in other banks and i'd like to hear your recommendations. >> have lost this argument politically many times and will make it again. regulation is not binary, not

left or right, not democrats-republican. these are complex things that should be done the right way, in my opinion, closed rooms, i don't think you make a lot of progress in an open hearing like this talking about what works and doesn't work and collaborating with business who has to conduct it. we have as much invested interest for one that is safe than anything else and will do anything to make sure it's healthy and safe. i should point out it is a lot healthier and safer today. no vehicles or subprime mortgages or exotic vehicles. it is a much stronger system today. a lot has been accomplished. >> my time has ended and i yield back. >> thank you. mr. mchenry five minutes. >> before the next speaker takes to the microphone, we will take

a quick break. dow, nasdaq, s&p all up better than 1%. yield on spanish bonds have dropped dramatically on news greece may have formed a coalition government by midday tomorrow. it's very important to understand how math and science kind of makes the world work. in high school, i had a physics teacher by the name of mr. davies.

he made physics more than theoretical, he made it real for me. we built a guitar, we did things with electronics and mother boards. that's where the interest in engineering came from. so now, as an engineer, i have a career that speaks to that passion. thank you, mr. davies. that could adapt to changing road conditions. one that continually monitors and corrects for wheel slip. we imagined a vehicle that can increase emergency braking power when you need it most. and we imagined it looking like nothing else on the road today. then...we built it. the 2012 glk. see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial services. for exceptional offers on my journey across america, i found new ways to tell people about saving money. this is bobby. say hello bobby. hello bobby.

do you know you could save hundreds on car insurance over the phone, online or at your local geico office? tell us bobby, what would you do with all those savings? hire a better ventriloquist. your lips are moving. geico®. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. in here, great food demands a great presentation. so at&t showed corporate caterers how to better collaborate by using a mobile solution, in a whole new way. using real-time photo sharing abilities, they can create and maintain high standards, from kitchen to table. this technology allows us to collaborate with our drivers to make a better experience for our customers. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ welcome back. rick santelli here with a

welcome back. rick santelli here with a market update. you look at yields on the first of a two day meeting. we're up about 5 basis points. part of it may be what's going on in europe, part of it the fed. europe is leaning us to higher yields, closer to a one month high yield and this is how you can tell maybe it's accommodation. under the microscope, dollar index close to three -quarter's and 2.5% on june 1st. now, back to the hearing. >> during your hearing last week with the senate, you discussed the distinction between a resolution authority and bankruptcy. would you touch on that, your view preferable, the resolution in dodd-frank or bankruptcy. >> it's a lot of semantics. i would use the word bankruptcy,

implies the debt gets wiped out. a court manages the winddown of the company. you do need an expert like the fdic to manage the process, has the right people, right structures, right capabilities to manage the winddown. it should be rounddown and board of directors fired and the name should be buried in disgrace. that's what should happen. >> so that's called bankruptcy, right? >> you guys call it whatever you want. i won't get involved in a debate between bankruptcy and -- >> you're involved in the debate actually, sir. i don't know if you've been here as long as -- anyway, the distinction between resolution authority codifying too big to fail and the fact the government will lift you up if you fail, therefore these trading risks can be as risky as possible.

this is t this is the crux of the debate and why you're here today. >> they won't lift you up. management is wiped out, security is wiped out, we will have damage on the company. >> we'll put you on record as support of that. >> mr. miller for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. dimon, you were very dismissive last week with the senate about a bloomberg article. i think you told the senate committee not to believe everything they read that said the cio had change in the last two years from being a fairly sleepy cautious risk mitigation unit and had become much more aggressive, much more risk tolerant and profitable. it was your intention it become a profit center and in fact more than a quarter of the profits for 2010 came from cios trading. there was a question senator johnson asked you from that

article about a -- there had been a limit that traders had to liquidate, had to get out of any position they lost $20 million. you were very puzzled about that and said you knew nothing about it. have you inquired since then if there was such a limit and it was changed? >> no. >> you have not asked within your organization? >> i think you referred to something back in '07 or '08. i did not ask, no. >> you did say last week that the fail with these trades was not that it was rogue traders, they weren't violating the risk control. the risk control was not sufficient. that is correct, right? >> they were too low. they were too high. there should have been much more lower limits they had, yes. >> did they have any limits? last weaker you seemed to indicate not. >> it was a total of limits but

they didn't have its own and used the cio limits they eventually stopped it at this level of loss. >> a limit of $20 million loss and then you close the position, that would be a fairly granular risk control, wouldn't it? >> if that were true, depends where the area is but yes. >> you have been very critical of jpmc in this matter and said it was a significant risk management failure, poorly reviewed, flawed, poorly executed, poorly managed. on february 29 you filed a certification fired by law you had adequate risk controls in place, management's assessment, the firm determined there were no internal weaknesses over internal controls janly 31, 2011. i know you're entitled to rely upon your sub ordinance and sure you relied upon your

subordinates for that certification, was that certification correct? >> i believe it was, yes. >> it was correct? >> to my knowledge at the time. >> no, not based upon your knowledge at the time. based upon what you know now was nat certification correct? >> that's why we're having a review to make sure we have all the right things in place. that's what companies do when they have problems. they analyze them, review them and make determinations like that. the review is not done yet. >> who is entitled -- seems like that certification is intended for regulators, also intended for investors, isn't it? aren't they entitled to rely on representation there are risk controls. >> i don't know what you have in front of you. >> what is that? >> i don't know what you're referring to. we try to give proper disclosures to our investors. >> talking about certifications for risk controls. the certification is required by law and presumably for both regulators and also for

investors, isn't it? >> we try to disclose what we're supposed to disclose. >> all right. what inquiry did you make about risk controls at cio before you signed that risk certification? >> i believe at that time the risk controls were properly being done. they were properly being done. >> you were surprised last week about the question about the $20 million limit. you were here the first time and haven't inquired in the six days since then, whether that was true i notice you rely up upon -- you're entitled to rely upon your subordinates, you said that last week. it seems there must be a limitation on that entitlement if you noticed there might be something wrong. one of the ways you might get other information might be from the financial press. did you read the bloomberg article? >> i don't know whether i read

the bloomberg article. >> an article that said there was 1$100 million limitation --a $20 million limitation they had to stop once they lost $20 million. seems like it would stick out. >> it wouldn't stick out to me. it happened many years ago. i wouldn't pay much attention to i it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for being here. before you were seated the first panel was five regulators. the first thing that struck me was something mr. alvarez said about capital. obviously, that's a theme about how your strong capital position saved us from having jpmorgan from having a big problem and ensures won't cause the rest of the system a problem and mr. gruen berg from the fdic caused problems and questions you got

centered around risk management. is there anything from your internal view that have come out lessons learned other institutions should know? >> i think you all brought up things like models and implementation of models and making sure risk committee is independent minded not just sitting around having a cup of coffee, all those kinds of things. there'll be more than that. >> and mr. frank talked about smart regulation you referred to earlier. we had those five regulators sitting in the seats before you. not one of them really is in charge of the others, don't really coordinate. there were a lot of questions how they share communication. no questions came up from the previous panel about harmonizing the regulations they passed on europe march 29th with europe regulations and don't appear to be lessons learned with other

firms after what you go through to make sure there's real shared knowledge. do you want to comment more about what smart regulation means to you? >> when dodd-frank was done, it had an oversight committee to make sure there's no gaps in the system and learning are shared. we supported that. it was setup with virtually no teeth. the legislators have to change it. someone should tell them who's responsible for mortgages and volcker opposed to five people with jurisdiction. you see how complex it gets, it takes to work it out with foreign regulators. simplifying it. clarifying it. adjudicating disputes will be a good thing. >> do you want to comment how the impact on a multi-international firm like yourself with regulations in europe and here that are not harmonized? >> we talk about dodd-frank which has 400 rules. we have to accommodate basel,

hundreds of things to do, not against them all. liquidity, capital. and brussels, fsa and uk and several others and cftc and sec. we have to deal with a lot. we're going to. we're going to. i wish it was more coordinated and do the important ones first and not treat them all like they're each important. to a hammer, everything is a nail and that's what we're kind of doing. >> some questions came up i will make a statement instead of asking you this, there have been a lot of questions about too big to fail. i will say as a policymaker too big to fail only happens when policymakers let it happen. i'm not asking you to comment on that. that's a fact. i want to talk to you about the volcker rule a little bit. you had some questions about it before. the key thing on the volcker rule would be getting it right. i don't want financial institutions that can run to the

fed's window borrowing and putting it in a trading account and essentially gambling. but at the same time, you have to be able to risk -- to hedge your positions. i hope we can work with the regulators and policies makers, i have a minute and four seconds and let you tell us if you have ideas how to make that happen. >> the only idea is people should get in a room, talk about what we should accomplish, go through the specifics and not pretend they're either for volcker or against volcker. it is the process of the law of the land. you all may want to get rid of it. we have to deal with it. it's a very detailed thing. i remind people we have the best capital markets of the world we sit on the best economy of the world, best capital markets of the world, the best job creators of the world. we need to start doing jobs again and fix the mortgage

market. if we do, it will help this economy recover quicker not slower. >> one of the things mr. gensler said earlier today, not many things he said i agree with, one thing he did talk about advantage europe has being in a time zone between asia and the u.s. there have been a lot of questions why certain trades go to london. i know you need to follow your customers who are global, too. isn't there some vappiadvantage that time zone? >> thank you. your time is up. i think the answer was yes. >> yes. >> mr. scott for five. >> thank you. good to have you. >> we will take a quick break. the market has added on significantly to its advances, up 150 points on the dow jones industrial average and the yield on the 10-year is creeping up as the money flows out of the bond market into the stock market.

oh, somebody out there's saying, now i get it! take beano before and there'll be no gas. to provide a better benefits package... oahhh! [ male announcer ] it made a big splash with the employees. [ duck yelling ] [ male announcer ] find out more at... [ duck ] aflac! [ male announcer ] ...forbusiness.com. ♪ ha ha!

back back at the new york stock exchange. the stocks are higher, dollar is lower, energy is higher. ovary where you look, they're taking risk today as the

financial reserve meets and the committee continues its hearing on jpmorgan chase. they're not being quite as easy this week on the house financial services committee as the banking committee. having said that, jamie dimon is doing pretty well answering these questions. reretu we return now. >> i think the american people would want to know, when this happen happened, when you first got wind of this $2 billion loss, what was your initial reaction? >> when i fully realized it, i told our people that everything is going to happen from coming down to washington to questioning volcker. i think we've heard other bankers, it causes a lot of commotion inside the company, soul searching. my attitude, let's admit our mistakes, fix them, put our jerseys on and fix it. we have to make changes.

a very tough time for us. however, it does affect it, shouldn't detract us from our mission of serving clients. we have 82 chase home offices and opened them all in the last three or four years and will do everything to serve the clients rights. i don't want this detracting what our 262,000 people do everyda everyday. >> i can't let you leave without this question. the fundamental question going forward is this whole issue of too big to fail. how do you feel about that especially since you are the biggest of the biggest? >> our goal is not to be the biggest, to be the best. i think we -- i think everyone agrees we have to get rid of that in any incarnation. >> you said get rid of too big to fail. >> not have too big to fail. we have to eliminate too big to fail therefore allowing big bank to fail in a way that doesn't damage the american economy and the taxpayer never pays. i think we're on our way to

working through the things that allow that to take place. >> thank you. >> two minutes and that will conclude our hearing. >> thank you. i want to go through a calendar here. on april 6th, bloomberg had an article. you're familiar with that article. >> yes. >> i think the "wall street journal" had an article that same day. were you aware the regulators had come into your shop on april 9th and expressed concerns about this article in the tracdes? >> i'm aware. i don't know whether they came or we called them. we share everything with them. i believe some of our people spoke to the regulators and described what they thought about it. >> it was reported on tuesday, april 10th, that particular position lost $300 million that day and subsequently on the next tuesday and wednesday, smaller loss. were you familiar with those? >> yes. >> on april 13th, you made a statement that it's no big deal,

it's just a temp pest in a teapot. was that an accurate reflection of that transaction? >> it's totally a positive accurate reflection i believed at the time because folks had done work to look at the additional tress. that day, the loss of 300 million was the first trading day after the article. part of that was expected since we just showed the world our hand a little bit. the stress test showed it could be that dramatic. several people reported that to me. on april 13th, i believed it was a temp pest in the teapot. i obviously was dead wrong. it won't be the first time i was dead wrong and won't be the last. i was dead wrong. i deeply regret having said it. >> i think we all -- the only concern, that was a couple days after that $300 million pop. that's a pretty big pop, even in your organization, isn't it? >> our folks looked to reports

after that how bad it can get, we stress test it. some of the stress reports, i may have seen it but the report didn't show that much worse. no, if that's what we believe, i would have considered that a small thing for jpmorgan. we were going to have a very profitable quarter, you have to put things in relative size. >> mr. green for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be quick. mr. dimon, thank you for appearing today. is it favor ir to say you proba have -- >> we'll take a quick break and retu return, back in a moment. i'm not paying hidden fees or high commissions. i'm making the most of my money. and seven-dollar trades are just the start. i'm with scottrade. i'm with scottrade. i'm with scottrade. and i'm loving every minute of it. [ rodger riney ] at scottrade, we give you commission-free etfs, no-fee iras and more.

come see why more investors are saying... i'm with scottrade. our cloud is made of bedrock. concrete. and steel. our cloud is the smartest brains combating the latest security threats. it spans oceans, stretches continents. and is scalable as far as the mind can see. our cloud is the cloud other clouds look up to. welcome to the uppernet. verizon.

they're just wrapping up some of the final questions in the house services committee. that may have been the last questio question. >> the chair notes some members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing, without objection.

the hearing record will be held open for 30 minutes for members to smubmit written questions of those witnesses and place their response in the record. this hearing is adjourned. >> there you are. all finished. sue herera, will say, we were just discussing, the house financial services committee has that reputation. they are a fivesier bunch than the senate banking committee that held the hearing last week with jamie dimon but he held his own today. >> i think he did. some of the questions were a little bit more contentious, certainly, but the root of the questions was very similar in terms of tone and the issues jpmorgan is facing and mr. dimon was very consistent in his answers. >> meantime, markets continue to rally. dow up 152 points right now with nasdaq up 44, building on yesterday's rally and the s&p is up 1 1/3%.

joining me on the floor, from i-cap, watching it as i have. we noticed the financials are the strongest sector of the s&p just as last week when jamie dimon was testifying. coincidence or not? >> i think it's a jamie dimon rally. he was straight on. not bowing down, admitted the mistakes and said at some level there was stupidity there and moved forward. he was calm and collected. i thought he did a great job. >> the fed is meeting right now and we'll find out what they're planning. this market seems to be sensing they will get more help from the fed. >> i think that's exactly right. and i think they will get more help from the current program. >> and extend operation twist. >> easier to do that versus coming up with a whole new plan they have to sell to the u.s. public and congress.

>> if that happens, is it going to be a disappointment it's just an extension of the current program and some on the street expecting more from the fed. >> i think they will be disappointed. you see it at 150. you might get one more surge higher and then sell woo into it if that's all they get. if they come up with a blockbuster deal, i don't think they will do that, if they do, i think the market will move higher. >> negotiations continue in europe to try to form a coalition government in greece. yields on the spanish 10 eu-yea have come down. still above 7%. you go above 7%, it's armageddon. >> now, it's not. >> they went to 7 1/4. immediately, you had economists and strategists saying spain is a different company, bigger, up to 8% before it gets nervous.

they immediately came out to try to calm the markets. they succeeded. >> they bought themselves some time and gives greece some time. if they can form a coalition government by tomorrow afternoon, that may help. european stocks seem to think that's the case. perhaps that's overly optimistic given things they have to deal with. >> they might be. it's great headway and sense we're getting from the markets and news media. >> what do you do in the ar afternoon trade, kenny? would you go in long this market or take money off the table? >> i will add to that. i will point out, typically when you get a fed meeting, markets are pretty neutral, don't do a whole lot. they're making a statement today. >> between yesterday and today, i think you have to go into this afternoon taking some money off the table. once again, you don't want to be caught on the wrong side of this trade. you go home being long tonight

and fed comes out with operation twist. anybody playing the market, day trader types over the last couple days are better served taking mope oney off the table relatively flat or even if they're gutsy, relatively short. >> thank you. we will take a quick break and continue. i guess we now have control once again of our hour live so ""power lunch"" will continue. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about the personal attention tdd# 1-800-345-2550 you and your money deserve. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 at charles schwab, that means taking a close look at you tdd# 1-800-345-2550 as well as your portfolio. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 we ask the right questions, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 then we actually listen to the answers

tdd# 1-800-345-2550 before giving you practical ideas you can act on. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 so talk to chuck online, on the phone, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 or come in and pull up a chair. in every way, shape, and form. it's my dream vehicle. on a day to day basis, i am not using gas. my round trip is approximately 40 miles to work. head on home, stop at the grocery store, whatever else that i need to do -- still don't have to use gas. i'm never at the gas station unless i want some coffee. it's the best thing ever. as a matter of fact, i'm taking my savings so that i can go to hawaii. ♪ or treat gas with these after you get it. now that's like sunblock before or sun burn cream later. oh, somebody out there's saying, now i get it! take beano before and there'll be no gas.

we welcome you back to "power lunch." mary thompson is back on capitol hill. she just came out of the hearing with jamie dimon. i was struck by the consistency of mr. dimon's answers come paired to the hearing last week. also even though some of those questioners were not exactly friendly to him, he kept his cool. >> reporter: he did. we saw a similar performance to what we saw from mr. dimon last week. as you said, his answers were consistent. he apologized for the bank's loss. he said he wasn't sure if let's say the pending volcker rule would have changed anything.

he agreed with some parts of regulation and disagreed with others and essentially, little ground broken at the house hearing today. >> the whole purpose of this was to try to get to the bottom of the trading loss, obviously. i guess we can all agree, he didn't hurt himself in that regard. did they make any progress getting to the bottom of it or did he perhaps head off the possibility of even more regulation coming from congress as a result of this? >> let's go to the trading loss first. he said -- i'm not sure they got to the bottom of it. the bank will be disclosing more on july 13th. spencer bachus, the chairman of the committee actually came in to defend mr. dimon saying he can't talk about this anymore because it might give some kind of advantage to his rivals as they try to wind down this trade. not a lot there.

as far as the hearing goes and regulation, he said i'm not sure whether hearings like this can advance or improved regulation at all and probably better handled behind closed doors. >> mary thompson, appreciate it. we'll take a quick break and continue in a moment. [ male announcer ] trophies and awards lift you up.

but they can also hold you back. unless you ask, "what's next?" introducing the all-new rx f sport. this is the pursuit of perfection. who have used androgel 1%, there's big news. presenting androgel 1.62%. both are used to treat men with low testosterone. androgel 1.62% is from the makers of the number one prescribed testosterone replacement therapy. it raises your testosterone levels, and... is concentrated, so you could use less gel. and with androgel 1.62%, you can save on your monthly prescription. [ male announcer ] dosing and application sites between these products differ. women and children should avoid contact with application sites. discontinue androgel and call your doctor if you see unexpected signs of early puberty in a child,

or, signs in a woman which may include changes in body hair or a large increase in acne, possibly due to accidental exposure. men with breast cancer or who have or might have prostate cancer, and women who are, or may become pregnant or are breast feeding should not use androgel. serious side effects include worsening of an enlarged prostate, possible increased risk of prostate cancer, lower sperm count, swelling of ankles, feet, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs. tell your doctor about your medical conditions and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting. talk to your doctor today about androgel 1.62% so you can use less gel. log on now to androgeloffer.com and you could pay as little as ten dollars a month for androgel 1.62%. what are you waiting for? this is big news.

welcome welcome back. markets in rally mode. the fed continues to meet behind doors. the house committee with jamie dimon has concluded at this point. joining us on the phone, from capital markets, what do you think about this? is it the fed or driven by europe? >> i think it is europe and risk trades back on seeing some of the riskier names start to gather steam. it's one of those things of people feeling good and good headlines. >> what's the risk with the fed not only having its decision out tomorrow but the news conference

and any possible surprises in this market? >> i think the fed has been very accomodative for the market and the u.s. economy. i find it very difficult. most investors are probably looking for good news. continued monetary easing and low interest rates, discussions about qe-2 and qe-3 down the road. that's what's being played right now. >> are you expecting anything more than an extension of the current program? >> you know, i think the fed has been very smart how they word these things. what i tell people, continued monetary easing, continued low interest rates. that does very well for the overall market but it doesn't really help the banks earn money down the road. that's what i'm concerned about, with the continued flat curve, monetary easing, where does the bank fit in with making money? >> thank you very much. appreciate your thoughts today. as this market continues to trade and we see the