Is Jamie Dimon Really Master of the Universe?

rcwhalen's picture


“Questions swirl around the character and timing of Dimon's disclosures to shareholders. Given the widespread speculation about JPMorgan's potential losses, which proved to be accurate, it raises the question of why people outside of JPMorgan were more aware of JPMorgan's risk and potential losses than Jamie Dimon claims to have been. His public estimates of losses have been a fraction of reality, and it raises the issue of whether he has materially misled stockholders.”


Janet Tavakoli

“JPMorgan Raises Fraud Questions: Rising Trading Losses Top $5.8 Billion”

Huffington Post

July 16, 2012


Coming out of the JPMorgan analyst meeting, two thoughts were top of mind.  First and foremost, the surreal, “we’re in command” perspective that still governed at JPM despite the teapot tempest.  Second, the face of Ken Langone, sitting in the front of the room as CEO Jamie Dimon and his traveling circus buried us in “facts” about JPM’s massive breakdown in internal systems and controls.


Langone, who we will always love because of his defiance of the hypocrite Elliott Spitzer and also his defense of Dick Grasso, looked like a worried baseball team owner fretting over his starting pitcher, i.e. Jamie Dimon.  The JPM CEO is a prized asset in the view of many JPM shareholders, but let’s ask ourselves what kind of asset.  Is Dimon really the hands on operator guiding JPM through a sea of risk, or rather the source of instability in the enterprise by tolerating the bank’s heavy dependence upon derivatives?


To say that Dimon typifies the corporate “cult of personality,” to steal the phrase from Living Color, is an understatement.  As I noted in a discussion with Lauren Lyster on RTV, the officers and directors of public companies have no duty to shareholders under Delaware's medieval laws:


The numerous corporate and individual customers of JPM’s “fortress” balance sheet have also become the bank’s cheerleaders, openly mocking anyone who would suggest that the House of Morgan is anything less than invincible.  This was very much the tenor of last week’s meeting, but it also made us think back to some recent history.


 A risk trader we know as Nom de Plumber writes:


“Counterparties were asking why different parts of JPM were internally valuing the same CDS index differently, and then requesting inconsistent margin postings.   If true, this would reinforce how VAR risk modeling was irrelevant to the controls breakdown, and how the CIO culture barring independent risk-management scrutiny enabled financial reporting and employee compensation on an unchallenged assertion of ‘one plus one equals three’.  This internal-controls breakdown is most fundamental and simple, explaining the turnover of CIO senior risk managers, years before this London debacle.”


You see, if you accept the latest version of reality from JPM that the CIO losses were caused 1) during actions taken during 2012 and 2) that traders mismarked trades deliberately in an effort to evade JPM risk management, then the whole notion that VAR models are somehow relevant to this process is seen to be a tissue of lies.  This raises the more interesting question, namely did JPM management know the risks they were taking?  More, even if you accept the timeframe in the latest JPM investigation, the question still remains how this “trading” operation somehow escaped the notice of Dimon and his CSUITE.  The CIO office contributed significantly to income over the years, so how does this profit center somehow fly below the radar screen?


You see, we keep coming fact that a number of “traders” who worked in the CIOs office were let go by JPM because, they were told, their activities were not consistent with the Volcker Rule.  JPM personnel who were engaged in legitimate hedging activity were not fired, but the traders who were managing leveraged principal trading positions in the CIOs office were fired.  The London Whale and his rogue hedge fund was left intact, so the story goes, because the counsel at JPM believed that the UK domicile of these principal trading activities somehow escaped the as-yet incomplete Volcker Rule.


So let’s work on another hypothesis, namely that Dimon knew entirely what was happening in the CIOs office and that a good bit of the profit from this small, heretofore unnoticed business unit came from principal trades.  This is not such an unusual position for JPM nor is it uncommon for Dimon to literally bet the proverbial farm with the bank’s derivatives activities.  In fact, Dimon has a history of rolling the dice and missing risks that beg the question as to why he had not been removed by the bank’s board (and regulators).  Consider the failure of Bear Stearns & Co.  


It is widely assumed that JPM acquired the crippled broker dealer in March 2008 because it was the clearing bank for and credit provider to Bear Stearns, and this is true.  But the real reason, we have always believed, was that JPM had been aggressively selling credit default protection on Bear Stearns to its clients.  When the broker-dealer started to fail, the discussions with JPM became intense.  This intensity came not just because JPM holders were panicked, but also because JPM’s short book in CDS on Bear could have reportedly cost the bank tens of billions of dollars.  Instead, by purchasing Bear, JPM kept all the fees from the CDS sales on Bear’s default – and all of the nasty legacy of the Bear Stearns RMBS business.  


So the story goes, JPM bit the bullet and paid $10 per share for Bear Stearns and thereby avoided a default against the CDS position.  Saving Bear was not about systemic risk or saving civilization, as then Fed President Tim Geithner has us believe, but a more basic desire to avoid an event of default for JPM.  Bear management had leverage, in other words.  That JPM was willing to write default protection on Bear Stearns in the weeks before the firm failed might be considered a bold, if not reckless gamble.  But this assumes that the JPM CSUITE knew about the exposure and the open-ended risk in OTC products.   And had Bear filed bankruptcy, JPM would have suffered a large CDS loss in such a scenario.  


In the case of Bear Stearns and the CIO trading scandal, the senior management of JPM clearly should have known what was happening and who was taking the risk.  And in both cases, it is unclear whether the JPM CSUITE even knew what risks were being taken.  These decisions caused great financial and reputational loss to the bank.  The willingness of Dimon to put JPM in the path of vast, potentially catastrophic risk is something that the bank’s customers and investors ought to consider.  This is why, incidentally, I asked Dimon during the analyst meeting about his ability to risk manage these complex OTC derivative products.  Had to get that on the record.


Far from being an isolated event that was limited to the CIO office, JPM’s behavior in the credit markets seems to be part of a deliberate culture of risk taking by Dimon and his lieutenants.  One has to wonder, do the good citizens of the Wall Street establishment broadly defined understand the risks taken by the House of Morgan with their money?  And does Dimon himself fully comprehend these risks?  That is really the scary question.  







Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Disenchanted's picture



Jaime Dimon is simply an employee of the Masters of the Universe...he will make a useful scapegoat at some point in time.

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Well if Dimon wants to take credit for building shareholder value, however he thinks the market values it, he has to take credit for the big losses too.

Think whatever you want but I was actually sitting in on that conference call.

AldousHuxley's picture

Does anyone remember the names of bank CEOs 50 years ago?????


give it time....and tell your kids to spit on his grave.

4horse's picture

yes. that jamie dimon, master-of-the-universe  .  .  .


- Funded Cecil Rhodes in dominating the diamond and gold fields of South Africa.

 -Able not only to monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa as DeBeers Consolidated Mines and to build up a great gold mining enterprise as Consolidated Gold Fields, but assured his very own cheap labor into the bargain through an arrangement called apartheid
- Lent the British government the £4 million required to buy the Khedive of Egypt’s shares in the Suez Canal Company, in order to protect Britain’s sea route to India.
- Funded the Mormon Church in the late 19th century through Kuhn, Loeb, & Co.
- Funded and supported the Royal Institute of International Affairs; now called Chatham House, and took part in the Circle of Initiates  for The Roundtable Organization in 1891.
- Started His Own Country: Headed the campaign for Jewish settlers in Palestine, which coincided with Russian oil interests, which derived from Persia (Iran), and the Rothschild/Britain stake in the Suez Canal.
- Formed a copper enterprise following the collapse of the French Copper Syndicate in 1889; gaining control of the Boleo mine in Baja California and the leading Spanish copper mine, Rio Tinto; simultaneously maintaining significant control in the mining of other metals such as nickel, silver, and gold: whose golden rule along with all its allied projects were arguably the foundation of the then Triple Entente alliance between Britain, France, and Russia to combat the threat of Germany’s growing interests at that time.
- Financed the Harriman’s in Railroads
- Financed the Vanderbilt’s in railroads and the Press
- Financed Carnegie in the Steel Industry
- Headed the Paribas system: 400 of the 800 most important firms on the Paris stock exchange
- Controlled the lease to the Royal Mint Refinery from 1852 to 1967
- Owns Reuters, Associated Press, Havas, and Wolf
- Has controlling stake in ABCBSNBC etc
- Controls the London Bullion Market Association
- Controls all the wealth of The Vatican through various Swiss Banks, Trusts, and Holding Companies

- Owns the largest oil company in the world, Royal Dutch Shell

- Is the gold agent for the Bank of England

- Is The Bank Of England

- Is The City Of London

- IS BIS  .  .  .

.    .    .                                           .    .    .

oh jamie  . . .  what a looooonnnnngggg list you have
no wonder you're everybody's favorite, Inter-Alpha Male

AIB Group, Eire
Santander, Spain
Soc Gen, France
ING Bank, the Netherlands
Intesa Sanpaolo
KBC Bank, Belgium
Nordea, Denmark, Finland and Sweden
National Bank of Greece, Greece
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, UK

Venerability's picture

I prefer to call them Master Baiters of the Universe.

It helps to see them accurately.


4horse's picture

Mas B U.

student of romcom

if you don't know who the joke's on . . .


here's the punchline: 

and Last Laugh

alfred b.'s picture


   They say that behind every great man there's a great woman; but in Dimon's case, it's the barnanke and gaithner who are propping up this bankster while GS alumni gensler and dept of injustice's holder look the other way.

   Reset required!



catch edge ghost's picture

If you imagine the Global Financial Crisis as a scripted movie and JPM/Dimon as an immortal sword-wielding alien from Scotland, it will make more sense to you.

The Monkey's picture

Apparently the traders in question at JPM were not doing business the "Dimon" way (otherwise the trade would have been profitable).

This is the makeup of your NY Fed.

Burticus's picture

No piece on JPM's recent admitted loss is complete without an accompanying laundry-list of ZH articles on their perfect trading quarters/halves (post-Fed/UST-handouts) over the last couple years, as they and the giant vampire squid routinely sheared 50-100 million FeRNs a day "trading" against the hapless retail sheeple.

Such inconvenient facts are always conveniently omitted by the cheerleading parrots in the lamescream corporate media cartel.

NeedleDickTheBugFucker's picture


"Master of the Universe" is not equal to infallibility.

A major fuck-up at some point in time is inevitable.

Nobody For President's picture

So we got Jamie involved with the downfall of Bear Stearns, Jamie the Pirate helping along the demise of Lehman, Jamie getting JPMs cash out of MFG from vaporized customer account money - so he loses a lousy 2 or 5 or 9 billion on the CIO bets - he and JPM are still way the hell ahead.

And the prez cuff links are cool, and perfect for this amoral asshole.

Time to promote that man to SecTreas.

Or hang him from a Wall Street signpost.

Decisions, decisons....

dizzyfingers's picture
Regulators’ Shake-Up Seen as Missed Bid to Police JPMorgan By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and BEN PROTESS July 11, 2012, 9:35 pm  Thomas Curry, comptroller of the currency, who testified to Congress in June, said he was reviewing JPMorgan’s practices.

After the financial crisis, regulators vowed to overhaul supervision of the nation’s largest banks.

As part of that effort, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in mid-2011 replaced virtually all of its roughly 40 examiners at JPMorgan Chase to bolster the team’s expertise and prevent regulators from forming cozy ties with executives, according to several current and former government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

But those changes left the New York Fed’s front-line examiners without deep knowledge of JPMorgan’s operations for a brief yet critical time, said those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because there is a federal investigation of the bank.


Forced to play catch-up, the examiners struggled to understand the inner workings of a powerful investment unit, those officials said. At first, the examiners sought basic information about the group, including the name of the unit’s core trading portfolio.

By the time they got up to speed, it was too late. In May, JPMorgan disclosed a multibillion-dollar trading loss in the investment unit.

They “couldn’t ask tough questions,” said a former official who was based at JPMorgan.

The situation highlights the fundamental challenge of policing big banks, even after the crisis.

As regulators added to their ranks and aimed to increase the sophistication of their teams, the transition was not always smooth. The staff turnover at the New York Fed happened over several months, and regulators made a concerted effort to retain knowledge of the bank’s activities, according to other people close to the New York Fed who were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Even so, the current and former officials said the Fed examiners faced a daunting task, given that the bank has more than $2 trillion in assets.

Faced with overseeing large banks like JPMorgan, regulators cannot possibly comb through every loan document or trade. Instead, they rely primarily on a bank’s own analysis of its risk, a broad portrait that can mask problems.

“They aren’t examiners as much as they are overseers, forced to peer over the banks’ shoulders,” Bart Dzivi, who served as special counsel to the Federal Crisis Inquiry Commission, said in reference to the general state of large bank supervision.

The New York Fed’s shake-up only aggravated a continuing struggle between JPMorgan executives and regulators from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which supervises banks. For years, the agency, with dozens of its own examiners at JPMorgan, worried that the bank had been miscalculating how much money it could lose in extreme situations, according to the current and former officials.

Examiners challenged the executives who stonewalled, and the conflict left agency supervisors with an incomplete picture of the bank’s risk. At one point in early 2012, JPMorgan briefly stopped providing examiners with an important risk estimate for the chief investment office, the group at the center of the recent trading losses, the current and former officials said. Executives told examiners not to worry.

For their part, regulators say it is not their job to micromanage or remove risk altogether. Their goal is to protect the financial system broadly.

In a statement, the Comptroller of the Currency, Thomas Curry, said his agency was “reviewing the risk management practices at JPMorgan Chase, following the losses announced in May.”

The review, he said, referring to the chief investment office, “includes risk management policies and controls that govern both the C.I.O. and the rest of the bank. That information will be used to determine what supervisory actions and changes are appropriate.”

The JPMorgan trading losses will receive fresh scrutiny on Friday when the bank reports its quarterly results. It is expected to report a profit and detail the extent of the losses, which have reached about $5 billion, according to people briefed on the matter.

The bank’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, also might explain more about what went wrong. Mr. Dimon has shuffled staff, apologized before Congress and moved to unwind the complex trade related to the losses, which was tied to credit derivatives, complex financial instruments.

Both JPMorgan and the New York Fed declined to comment.

Years before the multibillion-dollar losses, the embedded staff from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency questioned how JPMorgan was estimating its risk.

In 2008, the agency’s examiners inside JPMorgan raised broad concerns about the bank’s internal stress test models, according to the current and former officials. The examiners said that they were worried that the bank’s analysis incorrectly calculated the potential effect on various businesses from a variety of conditions, including large market swings and sudden fluctuations in interest rates.

One report, for example, estimated that the bank’s chief investment office would lose no more than $400 million in a two-week period even under the most stressful market conditions, one of the government officials said.

Some of the agency’s examiners said they had battled to get senior executives at JPMorgan to share how the bank’s internal stress tests were structured. One of the former officials described the analysis as a virtual black box, in which the bank provided few details about the variables.

JPMorgan executives resisted providing any additional information about the stress tests, including how they chose the variables used to forecast potential losses. The bank routinely pushed back scheduled meetings to review the matter, the current and former officials said.

“We were most concerned with the fact that the stress test is one of the most important risk management reports,” said one of the former bank examiners, and the test’s methodology “had not been reviewed by regulators.”

Compounding their frustrations, Joseph Bonocore, the bank’s treasurer, left in October 2011. In the ensuing months, some of the examiners said they had less access to information about the bank.

That same year, the New York Fed was retooling its team at JPMorgan. The Fed saw an opportunity to rethink the way it policed the industry. It hired a new head of bank supervision, added staff with greater financial expertise and revamped the roster of examiners stationed at the banks.

But the transition came at a critical time for JPMorgan. In 2011, the once little-known chief investment office was swelling in size and taking on increasingly risky bets.

By early 2012, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency conducted a review of JPMorgan’s stress test models, months before reports emerged about potential losses in the chief investment office, according to the current and former officials. The examination revealed that the models needed upgrades.

At one point in the first quarter of this year, some of the examiners said that JPMorgan had simply stopped providing them with some metrics from the chief investment office. When they asked why the crucial value-at-risk measure had disappeared, executives did not give them a satisfying answer.

Around that time, the bank changed the value-at-risk measure for the chief investment office, which they did not disclose publicly for months. The switch would prove important.

By changing the metric, the bank could seemingly take on more risk. It all came to a head in May when the bank announced a $2 billion trading loss on a soured credit bet.

Since then, losses have multiplied to an expected $5 billion in the second quarter, a tally that could grow.


Investment Banking | Legal/Regulatory July 11, 2012, 9:35 pm

agent default's picture

Does this make Blythe the Mistress of the Universe? 

LMAOLORI's picture

buffet is just another obama backing Oligarch scumbag that we had to bail out, he's the one who got Spitzer to go after AIG but it was of course for personal reasons

strannick's picture

"JPM’s behavior in the credit markets seems to be part of a deliberate culture of risk taking by Dimon and his lieutenants. One has to wonder, do the good citizens of the Wall Street establishment broadly defined understand the risks taken by the House of Morgan with their money? And does Dimon himself fully comprehend these risks? That is really the scary question. ""

That stupid paragraph temporizes and scratches its beard, while ZH-style scathing irony and contempt for the actions of Dimon and his minions is more appropriate.

tony bonn's picture

dimon is a juvenile frat boy in desperate need of adult supervision. the jpm board clearly lacks the ability or judgment to furnish it.

it is also a hoot to claim that dimon did not know about the cio bets even if he did not understand their risks. it is not the personality of a frat boy to be terribly concerned with details because some how in the end it will all work out and someone else will clean up the mess.

no sir, you can bet your next bonus that dimon knew all about cio - what ceo would not be obsessed with a division accounting for 25% of its profits?? the internal controls flatulence is straight out of the bush crime syndicate book of deceptions and lies.

Benjamin Glutton's picture

I like the advice Buffet offered to Dimon on Bloomberg recently saying," I think if he(Jaime)keeps his head down(on the yoke?) he will be fine."

BeetleBailey's picture

Jamie Dimon needs to be taken out back and have the shit slapped out of him.

Slap the smirk off his lying face. The man needs a lession in humility - which he has none of.

Blankfein too - the little alien bastard. Slap the taste out of his little whiny lying mouth.

Don Diego's picture

The Top, the plantation owners, realize that a happy slave is more productive than a disgruntled slave. A man that thinks he is free, that has to give to the plantation owner “just” 50% of his income (through taxes and inflation) is way more productive than a slave who is not allowed to keep any of the income he generates. Besides you need guards to watch over the slaves, while the happy slaves that think are free men don’t think about leaving the plantation and will collaborate willingly with the guards.

jimmytorpedo's picture

meanwhile a feudal serf only had to give 10-15% of his production

I wish I was serfing

Bruce Krasting's picture

Catch a "lunker".


marathonman's picture

JP Morgan's business is based on fractional reserve banking, right?  They are as vulnerable as every other bank to crises of confidence.  With their levered trade book blowing out what little cash they actually have on hand they are even more vunerable.  That means nothing because in the end the Fed will bail them out, cheapen our currency, and let the muppets pay for saving JPM.  It's good to be the bank.  Dimon is vulnerable and expendable but like cock roaches after a nuclear blast when everything else is smoking ruins, JPM will still be there inflating away, buying politicians, and dining on muppets.

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

no JP Morgan's success is based on stealing money, breaking laws, buying law-makers and being part-owner of the Federal Reserve. All else is window-dressing. The instant they have a loss you'll find your own name signed on the dotted line for it faster than you cay say "fraud". Fractional reserve banking, bad as it is, is still just window-dressing in contrast to the actual crimes of JP Morgan.

Where is that MF Global money again? That's right...

disabledvet's picture

interesting assertions but unless and until Congress exposes in writing precisely why the Fed took the illegal actions it did relative to Bear Stearns this all remains STILL (amazingly) speculation at this point. Not that i'm disagreeing of course. The American people and certainly the principles in charge of fighting the war on terror have a need to know this of course. Claiming "privacy" in the age in which We the People are now being forced to live simply only makes further losses (such as the London Whale) inevitable. Once Congress realizes we need these banks to WORK and not just "do" then will the proper authorities be putting their interests on the right track...and with it the American People's. Having said that there seems to be "two banks." The actual "JP Morgan" Bank...whose numbers the market was impressed by thus bidding up the stock strongly last Friday...and "the Jamie Dimon Bank"...which is currently involved in so many scandals and "reverse psychologies" it's really hard to understand how anyone can know what end is up. I think when your institution is that big however "you're more like a Government Agency" at that to me the point is simple: is the task of the risk management division to mitigate the risk or be a profit division? If this view is correct (and no one in the media to my knowledge has asked this simple question of the Bank and their bonus hungry friends nor has it been done her by you Chris...but i think it ABSOLUTELY is) then clearly all the principles need to be fired and replaced and the basic functioning of the CIO unit needs to be "put back in the box." Clearly the interests of the Bank overall trumps the interests of a bunch of wilding cowboys "at the top" who apparently never intended on learning the lessons of 2008 but truly believe "your economy is our bonus and that's how it should be."

LawsofPhysics's picture

You are asking congress to restore the rule of law and consequences for bad behavior.  Unfortunately, in order to do that they would have to also indict themselves.  Therein lays the rub.  Where is John Corzine?

Withdrawn Sanction's picture

Hmm....the analysis of JPM and Bear is a new twist on things, and explains a lot (then AND now).

Jamie should have stayed in Ohio.  He's out of his depth.

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.  Jamie is mad w/hubris.

Coldfire's picture

Obviously he is not.

DeadFred's picture

I'd love to have tickets to be in the gallery when he gets to meet the one who is.

Tortuga's picture


The link supports that he is, with lot'sa comtemporaries.. Sounds plausible.

TrustWho's picture

If the universe is prison! The whale picture will be posted in all his peers' cells...I hope!

Don Diego's picture

Dimon is not part of the Top, he is on the level just below, the working level, together with Kissinger, Blankfein and other high-level operatives. On the level just below Dimon's you find the puppet politicians (Obama, Cameron, Hollande).

The Top don't hold any formal jobs or offices. The Top are usually described by the mass media as "philantropists".

sgt_doom's picture

Well spoken, my Lord Diego, well spoken, sir!

MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

These "levels" you speak of.

Are they something to do with Dante's Inferno? And are we discussing Circles 8 and 9 (for the malicious sins)?

I do hope so ;o)

Ghordius's picture

while I can't say I agree with you fully, you have put the finger in the MegaBankster's right wound: the "top-level" banksters are useful (sock-) puppets, chosen for their appeal (either good looks, the right connections or a good story of achievement) and making dozens of millions per year. Behind/"below" them are the guys making up to hundreds of millions per year, (often leaving the banks after a few years) in order to put up "successful" hedge funds and many other "orbiting" firms that feed off the bank's credit. Eventually they leave part of the active business and then engage in philantropy, also to better hide among the other philantropists and because political power flows in the direction of those who engage in charity and think-tank building.

for those who like conspiracies: sorry, IMO it's more of a system/racket, and a quite young one in this fashion, I'd say since 1994.

in the realm of politics, it's a bit different. some are pure puppets, some are a mixture of puppets and power-brokers, other are pure power-brokers.

In the case of the current President, there is a simple test: who chose the Presidential Dog (even though one of the girls seems to be allergic)?

But again, a politician's first job is to get elected, period. Just look how much a presidential campaign costs, nowadays vs. let's say twenty years ago. Does anybody remember how embarassing it was when some of Clinton's contributors where Chinese?

A pity there is no open market for shares of a Super-PAC, eh?

Don Diego's picture

occasionally, in emergency situations, a high level operative assumes the role of puppet politician, the last one is Mario Monti.

Ghordius's picture

nah, for this you have to understand Italian Politics and their republican city-states traditions. Even four hundreds years ago it was customary to call in a skilled thief - I mean skilled political operative - from the outside, someone every faction in the city would distrust equally and give him a spell at governing the city. The title was Podestà. Today it's technical government. It's quite customary in nearly every multi-party polity. Of course the British Press likes to lump technical with technocratic because it evokes distrust in the "unelected" EU bodies, this while "unelected" (by which they mean appointed) evokes images of the US judges that created so much havoc in the implementation of so many policies in the US. propaganda, as usual

Don Diego's picture

Let’s give some names now of the power structure.

1) The Top: banking dinasties (Schiff, Warburg, Rothschilds, Lazard) and selected royal families and nobility (anglo-dutch-german), they keep a low profile normally except in high-end charity events where they throw some crumbs to the plebes.
2) High level operatives. They implement or transmit the orders from the top to the lower levels, they also help design the system to keep the power structure in place. Some names, Kissinger, Draghi, Al Gore, Cheney, Blankfein, Dimon, Bernanke, Greenspan, Rahm Emmanuel, Mario Monti….a disporoportionate number of them are members of the Tribe. Their family origins are from lower levels but they can’t be “made” or promoted to the top.
3) Puppet politicians. Expendable assets. Most of them don’t know the Top, they get their marching orders through the high level operatives, in many cases those operatives are given subordinate roles in the government, in the USA they are usually Vice presidents or advisors to the President
4) Self made billionaires: Gates, Buffet, they are allowed to exist and prosper to give some hope to the plebes.
5) The plebes.

sgt_doom's picture

Oh wow, are you ever on top of things (sarcasm and snarkiness)!

Rothschild still has some pull in Europe, but let's not fail to mention Rockefeller family (owner of at least two states, probably more, in USA:  Montana and Virginia, et al.), plus the Morgan-Schilling family, plus the pesky Du Ponts (yeah, yeah, yeah, supposedly the disavowed any ownership to DuPont, after first shifting everything to their trusts and foundations (SOS!), the Mellon/Mellon-Scaife family, Pews, etc.

Isn't BP still owned by the British gov't, Rockefeller family, Rothschild family and the Mellon family?  (And who owns the UK gov't?  Prob. City of London Corporation, last time we checked!)

To understand that ownership, or breakups, only occur on paper, please check out the following studies (plus note that AT&T, even on paper, is back together again, but stronger and more powerful than before, and that ExxonMobil looks remarkably like the Standard Oil Company of yore):

Pujo Committee's study on "Mont Trust" (1913)

TNEC study (1937-1939, published 1941)

Wright Patman Report (1968)

Structure of Corporate Concentration (December, 1980)

We appreciate your concern.

JOYFUL's picture

yur throwing good solid punches, but they're not aimed at the part of the anatomy where the opponent can be taken down...

it's essential to clarify that Dimon, Blankfein,(and those yu mentioned) are Frankist\Sabbateans, not J\E\W\S...the smokescreen they use to keep the pretence of being victims of something they call anti-semiticism, and by means of which keep jews clinging to their leadership.

The late Rabbi Gunther Plaut pointed out that mainstream judaicism was hijacked by sionism and most of it's adherents exterminated in the course of a war of terror that pseudo-historians portray as a narrative of "The Second World War" - his book The Man Who Would be Messiah gives a biography of satanist Frank, along with compelling reasons to believe that Hitler a product of this millenialist movement.

"Adolf Hitler: Founder of Israel" (1974) by Heineke Kardel also takes aim at the myths surrounding the pseudo-Aryan Nazis, and exposing the truth of their Sabbatean geneology - Khazarians on a millenium-long quest for revenge against both jew and goy, both of whom they now control from their towers of privilege and power...always disguised, whether as christian[converso], jew[sionist], or muslim[doenmeh]...and control the upper echelons of the goy power structure by means of the bnaibriths' grip over the freemasons and the extortions possible because of that caste's peculiar pedophilia.

with an agenda of destroying all religions and cultures save their own...these Kabbalist Kapitalists have everybody dancing on their of the masks under which they hide and their "mastery" will be exposed like the hollow legs of Belasco, the evil genius of Roddy McDowells' classic HELL HOUSE...silly, insecure, little men of anatomical inadequacy, doomed to humiliation when exposed to the light of day.

Thisson's picture

Wow.  What a load of bollocks!!