janet tavakoli. thanks so much. > > thank you. thank you bill. still ahead, what it means for your money if the u.s. edges over the fiscal cliff. that's next. fears about the so-called fiscal cliff are growing among big- time money managers. jeff glenzer, who represents the association for financial professionals, joins us this morning with the result of a new survey of around 1,000 financial leaders. good morning. what's the top economic concern? > > the top economic concern really is that fiscal cliff. that's coming up very quickly, and our members are very concerned about its impact if it's not addressed. 75% of them believe that if the fiscal cliff were to occur, that the economy overall would suffer, and 50% believe that their own businesses would suffer under those circumstances. > > how much of a role do money managers think the upcoming election will play? > > it's interesting, our survey doesn't really think it's the outcome of the election that matters so much as it is that they get past the election and the administration, whoever's ad

janet tavakoli is president of tavakoli structured finance. here is the heart of j.p. morgan's admission today regarding its near $6 billion trading loss. in the release today, the reason we discovered information raises questions about the integrity of the trader marks and sx*pgs that certain individuals may have been seeking to avoid showing the full amount of the losses being incurred in the portfolio during the first quarter. who is accountable for this? >> well, tom, first of all, that's the bomb shell. j.p. morgan just said what they said -- is that the whole situation suggests that traders were knowingly mismarking their books. now that's criminal behavior and that's fraud. so it looks as if they're going in the drek of prosecuting people. now they've already fired people. they're clawing back bonuses. but it looks as if it's going further. so the individuals involved, of course, they are responsible. now the question is, who in upper management, including jamie dimon, will be held accountable, and it seems jamie dimon should be losing his job over this. this un

janet tavakoli. thanks so much. > > thank you. thank you, bill. still to come, how decisions on capitol hill impact your portfolio. how to make it work in your favor, next. how much does congress play into your portfolio? perhaps more than you think. eric singer is the author of the new book "trade the congressional effect." he shares the secrets behind his congressional fund. how does your fund work? > > i went back and looked at the stock market going back to 1965 day-by-day, and i found that on the 7900 days that congress is in session, the market went up less than 1% annually in price. and on the 4100 days they were on vacation, the market has gone up 16% in price. so i launched a mutual fund to mimic that, and that's the strategy of the fund. we only invest in the market on the days when congress is on vacation. > > that's interesting. your fund is up 2% for the year. what does that say about our lawmakers? > > it says that this year they're having a little bit better year than most years. but, while the fund invests on a day-to-day basis, it

. >> safer: janet tavakoli is an analyst specializing in derivatives, the exotic financial instruments the meltdown. she argues that the bad mortgage loans that fueled the crisis were repackaged by investment banks, sliced into increasingly complex derivatives, and resold to other investors, even though the underlying mortgages were often virtually worthless. >> you had various traders buying each other's products to artificially keep the prices up so that the bubble didn't collapse. >> safer: not only that, but the mortgage derivatives being traded were so mind-numbingly complicated, nobody understood them fully, certainly not the pigeons, the buyers at banks, mutual funds, pension funds and insurance companies who wound up holding a bag full of worthless paper. these guys are smart guys. they're all graduates of the finest business schools in the country, correct? >> yes. if they were gullible, they're sophisticated investors. so they can't really go back to the investment banks that sold them this product and say, "we've been had," because they held themselves out to be experts in t