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

We're Sorry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya... they're sorry; sorry all the way to the bank!

Wait...

Re:We're Sorry...

[tooyoung]

Sorry to hitchhike on a top thread, but in case anyone came here for interesting discussion regarding a $500 million data center, there is not a single comment below dealing with the topic. Just partisan bickering about TARP, etc.

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

[rtb61]

Corporate executives on ludicrous bonus schemes make shit loads of money on loans destined to fail, in fact that was the whole problem. Immediate bonuses being paid all the way up and down the corporate executive line for shit loans, all schemed from the top down by psychopaths, who didn't care how much money their company lost, as they were all in a cosy conspiratorial relationship to protect each other from outside view.

Thanks to the whole principle of disposable labour, you now have disposable companies. At the highest levels it's all about squeezing out the maximum amount of money out of companies. From dirty off-shore off-balance sheet transactions, that while allowing the companies to cheat on taxes also allow those corporate executives to play all sorts of games with those funds, to cross company conspiratorial schemes to push around funds for no other reasons other than running up executive bonuses.

Pay close attention. It's not really companies corrupting the politics any more, it's corporate executives using company funds to corrupt politicians and government agencies, getting legislation rewritten not so much to benefit corporations but more targeted at generating more income for corporate executives regardless of the consequences for companies. Psychopaths in suits, they are every where at the top executive level.

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.

Re:Oh, shut up

[Trepidity]

And it's not like this particular fellow, Jamie Dimon, just got involved in the sector. He's got a long history doing all sorts of stuff, some of it more on-the-up and some of it more questionable.

"Decent, honorable people"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and serial killers are always described as real nice people by their neighbors.

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.

Re:Huh.

[cpu6502]

Yeah ProPublica is wrong. It's called an accounting trick. Borrow money from the government in loan #2, and then pay back the government on loan #1 (TARP). General Motors pulled the same schenanigans when it claimed to "pay back" the loans, but in fact is still deep in debt to the government.

It's reminiscient to how a certain president (I'll let you guess) claimed to "put 100,000 more cops on the street". In reality the law said 100,000 cops or 100,000 cop-equivalents... like new computers. Most departments spent the money on computers and only hired an additional ~500 actual cops.

When you listen to a politician or CEO or marketer you have to realize they are not lying to you. Instead they are redefining words on the fly (a "cop" is not really a cop... could be a computer), or omitting crucial information (we paid TARP, but we borrowed money to do it).

Re:Oh, shut up, but Remember

[afidel]

Quite the opposite, the CRA (of 1977!,) requires
CRA lending needed to be done "consistent with safe and sound operation." In 1999, banking regulators issued guidance concerning sub-prime lending and made the point that CRA lending needed to be responsible -- well underwritten, well priced, and understandable by the borrower.

Also

With respect to performance, Canner and Bhutta did three types of analysis. First, looking at mortgages originated between January 2006 and April 2008, they found that sub-prime and Alt-A loans originated in zip codes with incomes just below the level that "counts" for CRA purposes performed slightly better than those originated in zip codes with incomes just above the CRA level. They also looked at the performance of first mortgages originated under the affordable-lending programs of NeighborWorks America, most of which counted for CRA purposes, and found that these loans had delinquency rates lower than sub-prime or Federal Housing Administration loans, and foreclosure rates lower even than prime loans. Finally, they noted that only about 30 percent of foreclosure filings in 2006 took place in CRA-eligible zip codes. link

That's right, tightly regulated lenders making first mortgages under the CRA had a lower foreclosure rate than largely unregulated lenders making other types of mortgage loans including prime loans. Blaming the CRA for the foreclosure crisis is the reddest of red herrings and allows the true culprits (independent mortgage originators and their enablers in the securitization arms of the big banks and the credit rating agencies) to walk away scott free.