Dear Valued Visitor,

We have noticed that you are using an ad blocker software.

Although advertisements on the web pages may degrade your experience, our business certainly depends on them and we can only keep providing you high-quality research based articles as long as we can display ads on our pages.

To view this article, you can disable your ad blocker and refresh this page or simply login.

We only allow registered users to use ad blockers. You can sign up for free by clicking here or you can login if you are already a member.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM): Why It Needs Jamie Dimon in Both Roles

Page 1 of 2

Over the weekend, news got out that JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM)‘s board of directors was actively lobbying its largest shareholders to keep Jamie Dimon in his dual roles of chief executive officer and chairman: This in the wake of growing discontent over how Dimon handled last year’s London Whale trading incident, and in response to a shareholder proposal to separate the roles of CEO and COB.

PMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM)

Though I normally argue the opposite, in this situation, the board is absolutely right, and is on the side of investors.

The case against the same person as CEO and COB
The pitch I’m used to making goes something like this: CEOs in any business are the top dogs, essentially dictators. Their word is typically the final word on all things.

Ideally, of course, these dictators are open-minded people whose egos are in enough natural check to not only hire smart people to advise them, but to actually listen to them, as well. This is the “benevolent king” model. But because absolute power can corrupt absolutely, this model doesn’t always work out.

So, corporations have boards of directors, which are headed by chairmen. Because chairmen of the board (COBs) — in concert with the boards — have the power to hire and fire CEOs, they’re in the ideal position to check the absolute power of CEOs who have run amok.

On a less menacing note, an independent chair can also offer CEOs unfiltered and perhaps even uncomfortable advice on running the business they might not get from underlings who fear that speaking their minds may cost them their jobs.

Theoretically, then, separating the roles of CEO and COB should make a business healthier and more profitable.

The case for Jamie Dimon in both roles
It’s an old argument, and possibly a dangerous one, but I’m going to make it anyway: Jamie Dimon is so good at what he does, that the benefits of him simultaneously occupying the positions of CEO and COB outweigh the potential dangers.

Dimon became president and chief operating officer at JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) when the superbank merged with Bank One in 2004, where Dimon had been also been CEO and COB. He became CEO at JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) in 2005, and COB in 2006. It was those middle years of the 2000s — when the most dangerous part of the housing bubble formed — that Dimon proved his mettle as the bank’s leader.

As qualified homebuyers began to run out, banks turned to unqualified applicants — or subprime borrowers — to keep the mortgage-securitization machine humming and big profits rolling in. But Jamie Dimon was (and still is) a risk control freak, and he kept the bank’s subprime shenanigans to a minimum. This kept JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) not only solvent during the financial crisis, but actually strong — strong enough to be able to buy Bear Stearns as it was collapsing under the weight of its own toxic mortgage debt in March of 2008.

And JPMorgan has generally been on a roll ever since, racking up big revenues and big profits even when other big banks — like Bank of America Corp (NYSE:BAC) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) — continue to struggle not only with their own crisis-damaged balance sheets, but with the difficult economic conditions their own risk-fraught behavior helped create.

And now we come to the proximate cause of the shareholder proposal to pry apart the roles of CEO and COB at JPMorgan: the London Whale, last year’s botched derivatives trades that have racked up more than $6 billion dollars in losses. Dimon’s original, and now infamous, comment on the then-developing scandal was that it was a “tempest in a teapot.” I’m going to back him up on that.

Page 1 of 2
Loading Comments...