90s partly because they're less commercial than some of their rivals and never less book is on the short-term p and l because they had a rather bizarre internal corporate culture where the people joined jpmorgan and stayed for a long time like joining a diplomatic corps, they weren't bouncing bank to bank of the time. most of them joined and stayed there for 10 or 20 or 30 years and decorated a quite strong sense of team spirits. the luxury of being able to share ideas and an unusually collegiate manner. as a the broader attitude toward a risk and is very interesting in terms of the way that internal corporate cultures can actually change between banks but affect the outcomes so the older jpmorgan actually had quite a conservative attitude toward risk. but then they change disastrously and i treated disasters like enron. then one diamond ever i'm he brought with him a set of attitudes toward risk. in a strange kind of way or lucky can avoid the time the very well when there was a lot of existing risk management culture that was there amongst the old jpmorgan guys and from 2005 onwards they do a

they were less commercial than some of their rivals and they were less intensely focused on the short-term p & l and partly because they had this rather bizarre internal corporate culture where people joined there and stayed a long time. they joined the corps jp morgan weren't bouncing to bank to bank all the time. most of them joined straight off graduation and stayed there for 10, 20, 30 years and that created quite a strong sense of team spirit and it paid the luxury of being able to share ideas and the collegiate matter. i take a broader attitude toward risk than some of their competitors. it's interesting the way internal corporate cultures and the old jp morgan had quite a conservative attitude toward risk. but then they merged with chase, somewhat disastrously. and that created like enron. and when he brought with him a set of attitudes toward risk in a strange kind of way or a lucky kind of way timed very well a lot of the existing risk management culture that was there against the old jp morgan guide and so from 2005 onward, they do appear to have taken as far as i can tell on the j

partly because they were less commercial than some of their rivals and less intensely focused in the short-term p&l partly because they had a rather bizarre internal corporate culture where people would say there for a long time. by and large the j.p. morgan teams were not bouncing from bank to bank. most of them joined strait ad of graduation and stayed there for ten, 20, 30 years and that created a strong sense of team and spirit. it created a luxury of being able to show ideas in a collegiate manner and take a broader into the towards risk. very interesting in terms of the way the internal corporate coaches can change. the old j.p. morgan had clay a-- towards risk but then they-- summon disastrously and that created disasters like enron. then when dimond arrived, he brought with them a set of added towards-- attitudes towards risk which in a low-key way it was time very well in the risk management culture. so, they do appear to have taken, as far as i can tell, have been topped atlanta to the j.p. morgan guys and talk to other banks to take an attitude towards risk. they were much more systema