Serpo
24th March 2014, 01:43 PM
Martens: Ghouls of Wall Street - JP Morgan Bets BillIons On the Death of its Workers
"Plunderers of the world, when nothing remains on the lands to which they have laid waste by wanton thievery, they search out across the seas. The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they create a desolate wasteland, they call it peace."
Tacitus, Agricola
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-58HcpvLkqG8/UzCFd2BLR9I/AAAAAAAAyeQ/aDfzBkWyCVM/s1600/zombie02_standard.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-58HcpvLkqG8/UzCFd2BLR9I/AAAAAAAAyeQ/aDfzBkWyCVM/s1600/zombie02_standard.jpg)
IF the Banks are self-insured, and IF they are offering death related benefits to the employees for which this employee insurance is strictly a hedge, then this might make some moral and legal sense. But it does not appear to be the case.
And certainly for years companies have taken out life insurance on key employees, whose loss would be a blow to the company, as the article acknowledges. But they go on to point out that this program is not related to key employees, but is widespread, and continues on even after they leave their employment with that firm.
It seems that there is some perverse loophole in the tax laws and insurance calculations that makes it profitable for a corporation to 'bet' on the deaths of its employees, for its own profit, as this article implies, and not as any hedge against the loss of their talent. And if they are doing the insurance and reinsurance through subsidies, they may be moving any losses from book to book in order to further game the tax laws, similar to the methods by which multinationals create 'income' in subsidiaries located in tax havens offshore.
The point is not that this is nefarious, but that it epitomizes the kinds of government subsidies for non-public-beneficial activities that corporations exploit.
The failure of the Fed and the Regulators in general is in not aligning the interests of the Banks with the success of Main Street. Banks are not making loans that encourage capital investment in sound projects and activities. Instead the Banks are incented to game the system, play the markets, and invest their innovation and energy into the financialisation of nearly everything, including the deaths of their own employees.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/martens-ghouls-of-wall-street-jp-morgan.html
"Plunderers of the world, when nothing remains on the lands to which they have laid waste by wanton thievery, they search out across the seas. The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they create a desolate wasteland, they call it peace."
Tacitus, Agricola
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-58HcpvLkqG8/UzCFd2BLR9I/AAAAAAAAyeQ/aDfzBkWyCVM/s1600/zombie02_standard.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-58HcpvLkqG8/UzCFd2BLR9I/AAAAAAAAyeQ/aDfzBkWyCVM/s1600/zombie02_standard.jpg)
IF the Banks are self-insured, and IF they are offering death related benefits to the employees for which this employee insurance is strictly a hedge, then this might make some moral and legal sense. But it does not appear to be the case.
And certainly for years companies have taken out life insurance on key employees, whose loss would be a blow to the company, as the article acknowledges. But they go on to point out that this program is not related to key employees, but is widespread, and continues on even after they leave their employment with that firm.
It seems that there is some perverse loophole in the tax laws and insurance calculations that makes it profitable for a corporation to 'bet' on the deaths of its employees, for its own profit, as this article implies, and not as any hedge against the loss of their talent. And if they are doing the insurance and reinsurance through subsidies, they may be moving any losses from book to book in order to further game the tax laws, similar to the methods by which multinationals create 'income' in subsidiaries located in tax havens offshore.
The point is not that this is nefarious, but that it epitomizes the kinds of government subsidies for non-public-beneficial activities that corporations exploit.
The failure of the Fed and the Regulators in general is in not aligning the interests of the Banks with the success of Main Street. Banks are not making loans that encourage capital investment in sound projects and activities. Instead the Banks are incented to game the system, play the markets, and invest their innovation and energy into the financialisation of nearly everything, including the deaths of their own employees.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/martens-ghouls-of-wall-street-jp-morgan.html