article? >> i don't remember if i read the bloomberg article. >> it's an article that said there's $100 million limitation that traders at the cio had to close position once they lost $20 million and that would seem like that would stick out as a pretty big deal. >> it wouldn't stick out to me. it happened many years ago. i would pay virtually no attention to it. bl thank you. your time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for being here today, mr. dimon. before you were seated we had a first panel where we had five regulators. and the two things that really struck me out of that panel were something mr. alvarez from the federal reserve said about capital. that's a theme today about how your strong capital position saved this from causing j.p. morgan to have a big problem and it ensures that it won't cause the rest of the system a problem. the other thing was risk

management that's your questions that you got from mr. grimm and miss hayworth. is there anything in your internal review other than capital and risk management that are lessons learned that other institutions should know? >> i think some things about models and implementation of models. making sure risk committees are independent minded not just having coffee. they'll be more than just that. >> yes, sir. mr. frank talked a little bit about smart regulation that you referred to earlier. we had the five regulators sitting in the seats before you. not one of them really is in charge of the others. they don't really coordinate a lot of questions about how they share communication. in fact, no questions came up from any of the previous panel about harmonizing the regulations between europe that they passed in march on march 29th with the u.s. regulations and there don't appear to be any lessons learned that are shared

with other firms after what you go through to make sure there's real shared knowledge. do you want to comment anymore about what smart regulation means to you? >> when dodd frank was done, one of the things it has was f stock. like an oversight committee to make sure no gaps in the system and the learnings are shared. we supported that. it was set up with virtually no teeth. the legislatures had to change it. someone should tell them who's responsible for mortgages, who's responsible for volcker as opposed to five people in the jurisdiction. you see how complex it gets. how long it takes to work it out with foreign regulators. so i think simplifying it, clarifying it, adjudicating sis duties and giving authority and responsibility to the same people would be a good thing. >> do you want to comment a little bit about how the impact on a multinational financial firm like yourself with regulations in europe and regulations here that are not harmonized? >> so we talk about dodd frank which has 400 rules.

we have to accommodate basel which has hundreds of different things. we're not against them all. liquidity, capital, et cetera, the rules out of brussels fsa in the uk and several others. and cftc, sec, we have to deal with a lot, we're going to. we're going to. i wish it was a little more coordinated and we dealt with important ones first and not treat everyone like they're all the same like they're equally each important tom a hammer everything is a nail. that's what we're doing. >> some questions have come up earlier today. i'm going to make a statement instead of asking you this. there have been a lot of questions about too big to fail. i'll say too big to fail happens when policymakers let it happen. i'm not asking you to comment on that. that's a fact. i do want to talk to you about the volcker rule a little bit. you had some questions about it before. but it really, you know, the key thing on the volcker rule will be getting it right.

i don't want financial institutions that can run to the fed funds window borrowing money and then putting it in trading account and, you know, essentially gambling with it. >> we don't. >> but at the same time, you have to be able to risk to hedge your positions. so i hope that we can work with the regulators as policymakers here and with the industry to craft something that makes sense. and if you have any ideas for us, i've got a minute and four seconds, i'll let you tell us if you have any ideas on how to make that happen. >> the only idea i have is people should get in a room, talk about what we want to accomplish, go through the specifics and not pretebd it's for or against volcker. sit the process of the law of the land. you may want to get rid of it, but we have to deal with it. it's a very detailed thing. i remind people we do have the best capital markets in the world. you should go home at night and say that we sit upon the best any in the world, the best capital markets in the world. the best job creator in the

world. we need to start doing jobs again and fix the mortgage market. do a lot of things. if we do it, we'll help this economy recover quicker not slow herb. >> one of the things mr. ginsler said earlier today, the one thing he did talk about is the advantage europe has being in a time zone between asia and the u.s. and there have been a lot of questions about why certain trades go to london. and i know you need to follow your customers who are global, too. isn't there some advantage to that time zone? >> thank you. your time is up. >> i think is answer is yes. >> yes. >> mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman, welcome mr. dimon. good to have you. i want to start off by paying you and your operation down in georgia a tremendous compliment. georgia's number one in home foreclosures. we had a great home foreclosure event down there and i want you to say a good word for your folks down there in georgia.

mr. david bahlau and todd williamson. your chase homeownership center. good job. we saved over 1,785 homes. many of them yours. so good work. let me just wait for a moment. i think it's very important for us to set the stage here. i think that we in the united states of america and probably the world economy dodged a bullet. and we dodged a bullet basically because of your size. because of your largeness. you were able to handle and absorb this loss. but there's much we can learn frit. i think if i get my hands around this correctly, one was not enough attention was paid early on in the game. is that correct? would you say that's one of the major reasons? >> yes. >> and your reporting was

diluted in the aggregate which caused a problem as well. the fundamental issue here is so buck learn from the future is your risk management tool is referred to as value at risk. that was your model. and it is one of the reasons it was used to effectiveness. but it's basically predicated on a large financial institution. you are the largest financial institution in the world. certainly in the united states of america. and that's why we are still profitable tax payers didn't lose anything on this and it was effective. here's the question, would smaller firms have been able to have those same protections using the same risk at value model as chase? >> we use lots of protections.

one of many things we do to manage risk. community banks do a great job. j.p. morgan chase is one of the biggest banker to banks. the history of j.p. morgan was to bank banks. i think some of them can. i can't go through each one. they have different business models. each one should do what they need to do for their own business. >> let me ask you this, as a result of this, should one of the things we do now, should banking entities like chase morgan bank, j.p. morgan bank be allowed by our regulators to hedge only on positions specific basis as opposed to on an aggregate or portfolio basis? >> if i were the regulator i would allow prort folio aggregate. i want to give one example.

j.p. morgan himself used to love italy and would go there. we have exposures to italian companies that you can't get out of tomorrow. if you were on my board of directors and said i don't want italian exposure. there's only one way to do it and that would be to do port foreyellow hedging. if you said do it by individual name, it would be impossible. >> mr. dimon, i think the american people would want to know when this 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, that i think we've been hurt other bankers. it causes a lot of commotion inside the company.

soul searching. my opinion is let's fix it. we have to make changes. it's a very tough time for us. however, it does affect it, it shouldn't attract us from our mission of serving clients. we have 82 chase home offices. weapon opened them all in the last three, four years. we'll do all we have to do to serve the clients right. >> 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. i think everyone agrees we have to get rid of that. >> you said get rid of too big to fail. >> we have to eliminate too big to fail. therefore allowing a 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 ways that would allow it to take place. >> thank you. two minutes and that will then conclude our hearing. >> mr. dimon, i want to go through a calendar here. on april 6 bloomberg had an article you're familiar with that article. >> yes. >> i think "the wall street journal" had an article that same day. >> um aware that i don't know if they came or we called them. we share everything with them. i do believe some of our people spoke with the regulators and described to them what we thought about it. >> it's reported on tuesday april 1010th, that particular position lost $300 million that day and subs subsequently on the next tuesday and wednesday with smaller losses.

were you familiar with those? >> yes. >> on april 13th, then you made a statement that it's no big deal, it's just a tempest in the teapot. >> was that an accurate reflection of that transaction? >> it's totally a positive and accurate reflection of what i believed at the time because folks had done work to look at the additional stress. that was the first trading day after the article. so part of that was expected since we showed the world our hand a little bit. on april 13th, i believed it was a tempest in the teapot. i obviously was dead wrong. it won't be the first time i'm wrong. it won't be the last. i was dead wrong. the concern i had was that was a couple days after the $300 million pop. that's a pretty big pop even in

your organization, isn't it? >> our folks looked a reports about how bad it can get. i may have seen them, the report to me doesn't show to be that much worse. if that's what we believed, i would have considered that a small thing for j.p. morgan. >> thank you. mr. green for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i'll be quick. mr. dimon thank you for appearing today. is it fair to say that you probably had more than 50 meetings concerning that issue that we're talking about today. >> 50 what? >> meetings. meetings with people. talking on the phone about this. >> yes. >> probably 100. >> yes. >> more than 100. is it fair to say that you are amenable with meetling with and talking to various people about these things and other things associated with their business and you meet with congress and talk to them about these issues. >> i talk to people if

appropriate. we operate under a lot of rules of what i can and can't say. >> if appropriate do you meet with congress people? >> yes. >> i'm asking this because i want to talk to you about a cob september that's near and dear to my heart. we've been talking about too big to fail. i want to talk to you about a concept that i have called a concept that's too small to live off. that's something that is happening in this country. we have in houston,texas, some persons who are janitors and they are paid $8.35. i know this is very small compared to what we've been talking about. i think you made about $19 billion in 2011 thereabout, is that right? >> yes. >> your fourth highest paid person made about $4 million in 2011. i won't mention the name. there's a reason for picking the fourth highest. with persons making this kind of money, by the way, i salute you for it. i am a capitalist. i commend people for making the

money that they make within the rules, of course. but what i want to talk to you is this. $47,000 is what it costs a family to four to live off in houston. the poverty level is $23,000 a year. the average janitor working full time will make about $18,000 a year. that's working full time and living below the poverty line. i'd like to heat with you and talk to you about too small to live off. and i'll pay my way. i won't use congressional funds. i'll be willing to do it any place that you'd like. can you and i meet and talk about too small to live off, mr. dimon. >> yes, we can. >> i'd be honored to do it. i'll talk to you after the meeting. >> or maybe tomorrow or the next day or within the next -- >> i'm going to miss the vote. >> thank you. >> this concludes the hearing. the chair thanks our panelists for his testimony. the chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel.

which hay may wish to submit in writing without objection the hearing record will be held open for 30 minutes for members to submit written questions to those witnesses and to place their responses in the record. this hearing is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. >> this hearing has been adjourned.

for the second time in less than a week, j.p. morgan ceo jamie dimon has been called up to capitol hill to testify about the firm's $2 billion trading loss in london in the derivatives market. he's just wrapping up here with the house financial services committee. last week before the senate banking committee. we're going to spend a few minutes here getting your reaction. here are the numbers to use. if you're a republican 202-737-0001. democrats 202-7370002. independents and others 202-628-0205. make sure you mute your television or radio when you call in.

if you've called in to c-span in the last 30 days, give others a chance to call in this afternoon windchill reminder, too, we'll show too. >> we also will take a look at twitter, too. we're keeping an eye on the #dimon. we'll take a look and see what the reaction on twitter is. let's go to carmino on the independents line. >> hello? >> my name is carmino from springfield, massachusetts. >> i would like to talk about immigration and the question is the following. and this day here. >> you're a little off topic. we're talking about jamie dimon, and we're talking about the hearing loss and let's go to richfield springs, new york, on the republican line. alexander, go ahead. yes, i'm first-time caller.

i watched mr. dimon's performance today in the house, and quite frankly, as a conservative republican i'm not a tea partier, but i'm fiscally conservative. as far as that goes it's irrelevant to what i am, but sa justice. i saw massive bailouts in the financial system in this country. we deserve better and i don't think we're too big to fail. >> he wasn't asked to take an oath. so you're saying he should have been asked to take the oath. >> the question was raised by a minority member of the committee about taking the oath. the chairman from alabama said

it was customary in their committee hearings to do that and saw no reason to have him do this. >> let's go to oceanside, california. jack on our democrats line. >> yea, you know, i think one of the problems that they really didn't explore was that according to dimon's testimony this is a bank that does business in many different countries. i think he said about 80 different countries and the derivative position himself was taken in london and i don't believe i should be ensuring those type of debts or insuring business he does in any other countries. so my takeaway is that these big banks that would also deal with too big to fail should be broken up because when they do business outside of the united states those would be separate branches that are fdic insured and what

people don't understand is they're already backed into the bank because before senator dodd took office tlafs 500 line of credit with the treasury department for the fdic. the and should a big bank fail they would have to use that credit line in treasury and that would be a de facto bailout. >> they testified in the first part of the hearing and we'll show that to you later in the program schedule. next up, union, new jersey and -- no, not union, new jersey. we'll go to seattle, washington. barbara on our democrats line. welcome. >> hi. i'd like to ask you if anybody in the country understands the

policy that the united states has had in the last 50, 60 years, that is the marshall plan and the g.i. bill where we capitalized countries that organized their production to help create jobs for people that produce good steel and to get an education. >> how does that tie in to today's hearing, barbara? >> because both the democratic and republican party has subsidized bankers which is the opposite of subsidizing individuals. corporations are not people. >> keeping an eye on twitter this afternoon to use the hash tag dimon. occupy wall street tweeting, this jamie dimon session on capitol hill is making politicians sound clueless about financial markets. north brook, illinois, is next and welcome to ruth on our independent line.

i watched most of the hearings and i was wondering what does this morph into and when did it morph? >> you didn't hear that answered in the members' question? >> no, i missed about ten minutes of the hearing, but maybe somebody knows that or somebody heard it i don't know. >> sounds like you're keeping an eye on this story from what you've read or heard or where do you think the problem lies? >> well, i've heard from somebody who was actually on c-span that jamie dimon knows what it morphed into and that he gave the order to make this fund rather than a hedge into a profit making fund.

>> the hill reports about some of the funding in the 2013 appropriations process. and they write the house appropriators today voted to cut funding for the commodity futures' trading commission which is charged with enforcing a dodd frank. the appropriations committee provided for next year and 140 million and that's far less than the administration requested. they requested according to the hill 308 million. bradenton, florida, is next and hank is on the republican line. go ahead. >> hello, thanks for receiving my call. the hearing today was very interesting. i think it pointed out two and they don't appear to understand what they're supposed to do. the second issue is when jamie

dimon came on there was only one and he was far more intelligent and able to answer questions far better than anything done previously. if we had more congress persons that had the intelligence and knowledge of jamie dimon we'd be far better off. >> thank you, hank. here's peter in baltimore on the democrats line. go ahead. >> hi. there was one question where the person asked, do you think it was wise to cut 25 million from the budget? >> he should have said what is the budget of j.p. morgan because as payrolls in wall street keep increasing and their assets in their investments keep increasing it doesn't mick any sense to be cutting government regulators. >> he was asked the question about the so-called clawbacks

that the board of j.p. morgan will look at, that the reduction of salary and benefits the board will consider some time this summer. this is jan, independent line. >> hi. i think that we have a big problem with the financing system in this country that needs more regulation. i'm not usually a person who likes the government to regulate all kind of aspects of our lives, but when business gets this big no business should be too big to fail. everything has to be done on its own merits. it would have perhaps made the financial crisis a little bit worse at the beginning, but it would have leveled the playing field than now because no one has been held accountable for everything that happened on wall street and we have government representatives that seem to be cow towing to this executive and

asking questions that they should know the answers to already if they had any financial expertise to begin with. i'm disappointed in the representativis and believe mr. dimon should be asked to resign from the board of the federal reserve because that's like putting the fox in the henhouse. thank you. >> a couple of callers have mentioned to federal regulators. i want you to note we had a technical ♪ note with all of the regulators and i want you to know that we will show that to you later in the program schedule for you. just a quick look on twitter and some of the reaction on the jamie dimon testimony. cnbc says dimon kept his cool. that's in quotes. he was testy throughout. some of the twitter reaction this afternoon. here's santa fe, paul is on our republican line. go ahead, new mexico. >> hi. thanks for taking my call. as far as mr. dimon