It would be overly charitable to refer to me as a glass is half full kind of guy. I’m more inclined to worry that the glass will soon be empty and complain that the contents are not quite to my liking. Multiple people over the years have likened me to Alvie, Woody Allen’s alter ego in the movie Annie Hall. Indeed, when I performed stand-up comedy, a Village Voice writer who saw my routine referred to me as a “Canadian Woody Allen.”
Reading up on JPMorgan Chase’s $290 million settlement with Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse victims understandably made me angry, although not simply because of the bank’s continued relationship with the heinous felon after he was convicted. I’m also bothered by the lack of public and media outrage about the allegations that JPMorgan knowingly helped facilitate Epstein’s activities and that CEO Jamie Dimon will get a pass with his Sergeant Schultz “I knew nothing” defense.
Dimon has made billions because he is hailed as America’s most brilliant banker, yet a litany of wrongdoing has occurred under his supposedly close watch. That includes the $920 million penalty to settle criminal allegations that the bank defrauded the precious metals and U.S. Treasuries markets.
Reflecting on the Epstein settlement this morning, I was heartened by the heroes that have emerged in this unseemly story. Two of them are obviously David Boies and Sigrid McCawley, the litigators who pursued the settlement and made JPMorgan blink. As I noted in my commentary yesterday, Boies has flawed record, but McCawley’s impressive background suggests some genuine altruism.
Amid all the media reports detailing how JPMorgan profited from its relationship with Epstein, there have been mentions of bank executives with ethics and morals who voiced concerns, possibly to the detriment of their careers. One such executive was Ann Borowiec, JPMorgan’s former CEO – Private Wealth Management & Global Marketing Head for Wealth Management.
According to this report, Borowiec emailed Jes Staley, Dimon’s former senior deputy, with this subject line: “Epstein-please call me.” In the email, Borowiec said she had “concerns on risk mgt with this client” and “we have a bad track record internally on risk … as you know.”
According to her LinkedIn profile, Borowiec left JPMorgan in 2013, after having worked at the bank for more than two decades. It speaks well of Banco Santander that Borowiec subsequently joined that company’s board, where her various assignments included serving on the risk management committee.
Borowiec, who holds a Harvard MBA degree, serves on the boards of the open and closed end funds in the Delaware Mutual Fund Family. She also has served on the audit committee, the investments committee and currently serves on the nominating and governance committee.
As does McCawley, the litigator, Borowiec also has ties to an organization committed to promoting the welfare and advancement of children. Borowiec co-founded JerseyCAN, a research and policy education advocacy group focused on ensuring all NJ children have access to great schools. She co-chairs the board with former Governor Thomas Kean.
Borowiec is also co-chair of the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra. Borowiec’s values seem obvious given how she lives her life.
Another apparent JPMorgan conscientious Epstein objector was Catherine Keating, who according to this New York report didn’t want to retain Epstein as a client after his conviction. Keating, who holds a law degree from the University of Virginia, spent nearly two decades at JP Morgan Chase; Keating’s last position was Head, Investment Management Americas.
Keating is now CEO of BNY Wealth Management, which claims to be “relentlessly-client focused.” With Keating at the helm, seems a safe bet that BNY is particular about the clients it chooses to focus on.
The New York story I linked to also notes that JPMorgan’s head of enforcement investigated “whether or not Jeffrey Epstein was continuing to be involved in criminal activity, namely human trafficking,” and told top executives, “This is not an honorable person in any way. He should not be a client.”
It’s unfortunate the enforcement chief was mentioned by name; I’d welcome knowing if that person is still with JPMorgan Chase.
Lawyers for Epstein’s victims uncovered a sizeable electronic communications trail that reportedly readily indicates that JPMorgan’s top executives were well aware of Epstein’s activities and some had no moral or ethical qualms dealing with him. Charlie Gasparino, one of the few journalists who has noted Dimon’s Epstein culpability, said Epstein was known in Wall Street parlance as a “whale” — someone who brought hundreds of millions of dollars in fees because of his own substantial wealth and because he was a private financial adviser to various billionaires like Apollo’s former leader Leon Black and Les Wexner of L Brands.
It’s noteworthy that those who expressed qualms about continuing to do business with Epstein are no longer part of CEO Jamie Dimon’s executive management team. It would behoove an enterprising reporting to review all the court filings and make a list of JPMorgan executives who expressed misgivings about doing business with Epstein and those known to have turned a blind eye.
In the interim, we will likely be hearing more about JPMorgan’s unseemly relationship with Epstein. Proof that sharks eat their own, JPMorgan has filed a lawsuit against Jes Staley, who worked at the bank for more than 30 years and was often promoted in the media as a possible successor to Jamie Dimon, claiming the former top executive was the one responsible for the bank’s failure to stop doing business with Epstein.
Staley, who later joined Barclays as CEO, has denied liability and claims JPMorgan Chase is using him as “a public relations shield.”
The Wall Street Journal reported that Staley claims in court filings that for years he communicated with Dimon about the bank’s business with Epstein, a claim that Dimon denies. Makes me wonder about the document that lawyers for an Epstein victim uncovered after deposing Dimon and told a judge merited grounds for a follow up deposition.
JPMorgan quickly settled with Epstein’s victims after the document was uncovered.
——————–
From a June 14 Reuters report:
“General Motors “has signaled in a series of recent announcements on plant retoolings that it plans to keep its largest and most profitable combustion trucks and SUVs in production longer than expected – another 10 to 12 years, according to analysts and suppliers.”
Pardon my cynicism, but methinks GM CEO Mary Barra, who vowed she’d be selling more electric vehicles than Tesla by mid-decade, is hedging her bets.
Given Barra’s decision to continue peddling her gas guzzling trucks and SUVs mostly made with foreign parts and many proudly assembled in Mexico, it’s a wonder how anyone can take President Biden and his climate and energy minions seriously.
Biden in a speech last July declared, “I have a responsibility to act with urgency and resolve when our nation faces clear and present danger. And that’s what climate change is about. It is literally, not figuratively, a clear and present danger. The health of our citizens and communities is literally at stake.”
Seems to me, if the climate situation is “code red for humanity,” the Inflation Reduction Act should have included a provision dramatically limiting the sale of trucks and SUVs to those who have a demonstrated need for them. The Biden Administration had no qualms about curbing the civil liberties of Americans to protect them from Covid, so there’s ample precedence here.
GM is one of the biggest corporate taxpayer moochers, so the Biden Administration has considerable influence over the organization and its $29 million a year compensated CEO.
So far, there’s been nary a protest from climate change activists and EV cultists expressing outrage about Barra’s plans. I don’t hold myself out to be a pious environmentalist, but I’ve long wanted to own a pickup but avoided buying one because I couldn’t justify the unnecessary climate destruction I’d cause.
Speaking of Barra, anyone thinking of buying one of her EVs should read the latest on what hapless owners of GM’s Bolts are experiencing. EVs are supposedly about being green but many of Barra’s Bolt owners are seeing red.
——————–
Another Reason to Buy a Tesla
Just as I’d never order sushi at a Chinese restaurant, I’d only buy an electric vehicle from a company that specialized in making them and had decades of experiencing doing so. In my mind, Tesla is the only EV option Americans have. That said, I’d never buy a Tesla because I don’t like or trust Elon Musk and don’t wish to contribute to his personal enrichment.
Nevertheless, I must concede my awe of Tesla’s capabilities and services, some of which aren’t widely known.
Cousin Rob the other day noticed a tire on his Tesla Model S was losing air. He pinged Tesla on his app and within minutes received a response saying a technician would be promptly dispatched. A technician arrived within 20 minutes and promptly repaired the tire. The technician also installed the Tesla wheel locks Cousin Rob ordered online. No charge.
Los Angeles is Tesla’s second biggest market. The company has a fleet of about 20 trucks throughout the city with technicians promptly available to do tire repairs, a much-needed service in the City of Angels. The trucks are loaded with tires if replacements are needed.
Long story short: Within the space of an hour reaching out to Tesla, Cousin Rob had a tire repaired with virtually no interruption to his day. The cost: $100.
How Times Have Changed
Someone on social media flagged the linked commercial, which aired in the mid-90s when Alissa Heinerscheid, the Bud Light executive responsible for the Dylan Mulvaney debacle, was likely just a toddler and possibly not even yet born.
Imagine the controversy if Bud Light aired the commercial today.