JPMorgan Chase Spends $500 Million On a Data Center

1sockchuck writes "JPMorgan Chase spends $500 million to build a data center, according to CEO Jamie Dimon. That figure places the firm's facilities among the most expensive in the industry, on a par with investments by Google and Microsoft in their largest data centers. Dimon discussed the firm's IT spending in an interview in which he asserts that huge data centers are among the advantages of ginormous banks. Dimon also offered a vigorous defense of the U.S. banking industry. 'Most bankers are decent, honorable people,' Dimon says. 'We're wrapped up in all this crap right now. We made a mistake. We're sorry. It doesn't detract from all the good things we've done. I am not responsible for the financial crisis.'"

Comments

Line Item

[Galactic Dominator]

It doesn't detract from all the good things we've done.

Can I get a line item listing of these "good things"?

Re:Line Item

[jhoegl]

1) Then why did so many get sub-prime loans, ending up in people still losing houses today because their payments have continuously gone up? Risk.... none to bank, all on person.
2) So then with this argument you just refuted your previous one... GG there AC... GG
3) How did the Fed create an artificial market when the market was based on supply/demand? Demand went up because people were buying houses, people were buying houses due to sub-prime loan offers not understanding the full implications
4) Yes they did, but they were thinking about the people paying them more, not walking away from the house or bankrupting themselves. The banks actually won out because they are still owed that money by the initial person, they resold the house at auction, and they can get in on the auction loans.
So yes... they do own these people for the rest of their lives or until they pay it off. Wasnt it once said, discover a way for people to keep paying you and you will be rich?
Guess what...
Oh and dont come on here all AC and spout your gibberish.

Re:Line Item

[khallow]

How many new substantial business ventures do you think got off the ground or went public in the last several decades without a loan?

Quite a few. For example, high tech start ups don't bother with loans for the most part. And family investors generally are a lot easier to get, more forgiving, and more generous than bank lenders. Loans really are for businesses that have a stable, predictable business model with decent ROI and a need for a lot of capital.

Re:Line Item

[timeOday]

1) Nobody makes money making sub-prime loans. It's trivial for any idiot to understand that loaning money to people who can't pay it back is a dumb idea.

False! Extending a loan (or owning a mortgage-backed security) to anybody is a great idea so long as I get my commission (or sell it at a markup) and no longer own it when it goes kaboom.

In your imagination, the only party willing to buy those bad loans was the government. In truth, most everybody bought them. Partially this is because the ratings agencies gave these mortgage-backed securities the highest ratings. But the notion this was a wholly government-created situation is just libertarian wishful thinking. Nations in which banks were deregulated the most did worst (see also Ireland), and those where time-tested regulations were preserved did best (see Canada - where average net worth is now higher than in the US).

Re:Line Item

[kqs]

You know how much lobbying money the banks spend, and yet you believe that the banks would have let such a theoretical law be passed? Wow.

The federal government passed laws which prevented banks from discriminating against low-income people if they could pay the loan amount, but the approval terms were set by the banks. The banks found that they made more money in the short term if they approved bad mortgages and collected those fees. And they know that they'll be held blameless because somehow people believe the banks when they say "it wasn't me, man, it was the government". The perfect scam.

"I am not responsible"

[TimHunter]

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Oh, shut up

[realmolo]

'We're wrapped up in all this crap right now. We made a mistake. We're sorry. It doesn't detract from all the good things we've done. I am not responsible for the financial crisis."

Actually, it *is* your fault, and it *does* detract from everything you've done.

It's like a daycare provider saying "Sorry that we sold your kids' organs. It seemed like a good investment. But it shouldn't detract from the great job we were doing before that!"

Banks are supposed to MAKE money, not lose it. And they lost money on a MASSIVE scale due to incompetence and especially greed. Everything they do is tainted, forever.

Re:Oh, shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it wasn't a mistake... it was premeditated fraud.

"The peak of financial innovation was the ATM"

[nweaver]

Sorry, Jamie: your company has become largely a parasite. For the average American, you provide no more benefit than 10 banks 1/10th your size: when you get so big, you have negative economies-of-scale.

But your salary is dictated by being big.

If you were serious about preventing such disasters in the future, you'd reform your compensation schemes and endorse restoring Glass-Steagal.

Re:"The peak of financial innovation was the ATM"

[jhoegl]

But regulations are bad!
They hurt job creators ability to create jobs in other countries, or make our kids work!

Riiiiight

[Nerdfest]

I am not responsible for the financial crisis.

No raindrop feels it's responsible for the flood.

Really.

[rickb928]

"I am not responsible for the financial crisis."

No, but the people who work for you were. And you're supposed to be in charge.

Too Big To Fail

[cpm99352]

Remind me again how many "too big to fail" banks/finance firms/etc. have been broken up since 2007?

Re:JPMorgan's Blythe Masters

[udachny]

Do you have problem concentrating? ADHD?

NAKED shorts, as in - nothing was borrowed to sell.

Re:Huh.

[NemosomeN]

That dastardly Obama and his accomplice, George W. Bush, who signed it into law in December of 2008 before Obama was in office. The union vote would have certainly gone to the Republicans had Obama not intervened!

The auto bailout was stupid, and although Bush had little to no choice, (Why veto a bailout that's going to get signed a month later, and cost more because of the wait?), the idea that it was to secure the union vote when signed into law AFTER Obama was elected but BEFORE he took office is absurd. The Democrats had the union vote already, and they'll have it this year, too. No action necessary. The Republicans don't even want the union vote. Yes, additional, larger bailouts were approved afterwards by Obama, but again, he already had their votes, and would still have them now even if he didn't bail out the automakers.

Re:Huh.

[glodime]

The case of AIG created all sorts of systematic and regulatory trouble. More questions were raise than answered in the handling of AIG.

Talking of blood

[Taco Cowboy]

That $500 million price tag tells me one thing - someone is making a killing !

Re:Huh.

[slimjim8094]

I happen to know personally that JPM didn't have any interest in the government money (who wants government debt?) and didn't need it (they didn't get into subprime stuff) but they agreed that it was necessary to take it to prevent a panic. They paid it back in full as soon as they were allowed to.

There's a lot of hatred at banks around here, and most of it is fair. But frankly JPM isn't one of them. They're even in favor of tougher (and substantive!) regulations because the uncertainty of crashes hurts them as much as the rest of us.

Uhhhhh

[manaway]

"(they didn't get into subprime stuff)"

According to Reuters, in 2007 JPM was involved in subprime lending: "JPMorgan's first-quarter subprime mortgage originations, through Chase Home Finance, jumped 11 percent to $3.02 billion, according to Inside Mortgage Finance." So your knowledge may be more personal than reliable. And as of 2012, according to other sources, is still involved in Credit Default Swaps so there is reason to continue distrusting banks.

Do you hear of any US banks that want Glass-Steagall reinstated? No? Banks want regulations that protect them with a facade of trust, not restrict them from unlimited salaries and shareholder profits. But hey, at least they'll be hiring some database and network admins.

Re:We're Sorry...

[drkstr1]

Thanks for the warning.

Re:Dimon should go to jail!

[Enigma2175]

This one day will stop, once the general public understands what is going on.

Have you met the "general public"? You seem to have a much higher opinion of them than they deserve. As long as there is bread and circuses the public is NEVER going to understand what is going on. These banks own the politicians and regulators - they are never going to be punished.