EX : Crowd-intelligence, a free of charge asset : an example

My tool plugs-in on the free of charge asset in companies, some countries even use it for very important issues in politics such as a constitution, ..Dangerous? Or highly efficient? An example of how in Iceland, contact me if you want more information on aplying this in your company ( or country :-) )  !



http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/iceland-crowdsourcing-new-constitution

Iceland | Crowdsourcing a new constitution

BY Antonella Napolitano | Wednesday, June 15 2011

In the past few years Iceland, a small island closer to Greenland than to Europe, has been known mostly for the collapse of its economic system and for the eruption of its volcanoes.
But despite the very difficult situation, the country firmly believes in public participation and in the power of social media to be *the* medium to better shape it. Now its government has decided to ask its citizens to share ideas on the new constitution, or “Charta”, for the country and to use social media to collect and organize ideas from them.

The “crowdsourcing body in charge” is a council of 25 members elected by popular vote from a field of 522 candidates over the age of 18. The process has been shaped from the start to involve people from the start and throughout the whole procedure, as reported by the Guardian:

In creating the new document, the council has been posting draft clauses every week since the project launched in April. The public can comment underneath or join a discussion on the council's Facebook page. The council also has a Twitter account, a YouTube page where interviews with its members are regularly posted, and a Flickr account containing pictures of the 25 members at work, all intended to maximise interaction with citizens.

[...]The crowdsourcing follows a national forum last year where 950 randomly selected people spent a day discussing the constitution. If the committee has its way the draft bill, due to be ready at the end of July, will be put to a referendum without any changes imposed by parliament – so it will genuinely be a document by the people, for the people.

The council is basing its work on a 700-page report prepared by a committee that took into account the recommendations of the National Forum.
Recommendations need to be approved by local staff before being passed on to the council and posted online for discussion, but then, when approved by the council, they are added to the draft of the document.
The process is taking place in one of the most computer-literate countries in the world. As ABC News noted, “two-thirds of Icelanders are on Facebook, so the constitutional council's weekly meetings are broadcast live on the social networking site as well as on the council's website”.

Iceland: a story of participation

"To me, it has long been clear that a comprehensive review of the constitution would only be carried out with the direct participation of the Icelandic people"

Iceland's Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir

After the collapse of the banks, Wikileaks burst onto the scene, publishing documents that exposed the corruption of people that profited from their connections with Iceland’s Kaupthing Bank.

The banking crisis that brought down the Icelandic economy, paradoxically created space for opportunities: the scandal made the Icelandic government decide to adopt a new and more open way to legislate in order to create a better relationship with citizens, outraged by the corruption of their country.

One of the steps was to start working with Wikileaks’ founder, Julian Assange, who became an advisor to the Icelandic government on the draft of a law that aims to create a media haven for freedom of information and expression, the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI).
The IMMI caught the attention of the world and was widely covered by European newspapers, also because the proposal was adopted unanimously by Parliament one year ago. It is expected to became a piece of legislation by mid-2012 (in a set of 13 different laws).

Now, the “crowdsourcing for a constitution” process seems to be an extension of Iceland’s willingness to try new ways of doing things.
But will it succeed in giving Icelanders a feeling of being part of a new start for their troubled country?

It is legitimate to have doubts but also hope, as Curt Hopkins points out at ReadWriteWeb:

It is far from guaranteed that this process will give Icelanders a sense of investment in, and responsibility for, the new constitution, and whether it protects against the kind of walled-off and disconnected government that allowed all the major Icelandic banks to fail. But, given the country's needs, its recent history, its ancient history and its extraordinary level of online participation, it is surely worth a try.

EX : Hierarchical info filtering,Nobelprice winner, Stiglitz (unconsciously) supports my statement

Vele economieën zijn kwetsbaar voor natuurrampen: aardbevingen, overstromingen, wervelstormen, tsunamis – des te tragischer is een ramp die door mensen wordt gemaakt”...
”Indien de euro overleeft, zal het tenkoste zijn van hoge werkloosheid en enorm lijden, vooral in de landen in crisis”. "Met als gevolg dat het meest waardevolle bezit van een maatschappij, zijn menselijk kapitaal, verspild wordt, en zelfs vernietigd. Jonge mensen die lange tijd een deftige job missen – en de jeugdwerkloosheid in sommige landen nadert of overstijgt de 50 procent en was reeds onaanvaardbaar hoog sedert 2008 – geraken vervreemd. Wanneer ze uiteindelijk werk vinden zal het aan een veel lager loon zijn”.
Dit zijn enkele uittreksels uit het artikel 'After Austerity' van prof Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University, voormalig vice-voorzitter van de Wereldbank en winnaar van de Nobelprijs Economie 2001) van 7 mei op de website Project Syndicate - A World of Ideas.
Zijn artikel is een aanklacht tegen het domme Europese besparingsbeleid ('austerity' laat zich moeilijk vertalen, het betekent letterlijk 'gestrengheid', de vertaling 'besparingen' is niet helemaal correct maar is wel de term die in het Nederlands meest gebruikt wordt, nvdr), omdat groei - waar iedereen nu wel om roept - nooit kan voortvloeien uit verminderde vraag, waar immers dalende productie op volgt en dus meer werkloosheid. Europa, zo zegt hij, is niet eens in zo'n slechte fiscale toestand (hij bedoelt dat de overheidstekorten niet zo dramatisch zijn als wordt voorgesteld). De schuldenberg is in de VS in verhouding tot het bruto nationaal product immers nog groter.
In enkele zinnen legt Stiglitz uit hoe de macro-economische crisis door een vicieuze cirkel toeneemt: "werkloosheid, en de vrees dat ze zich gaat uibreiden, duwt de lonen omlaag, dus de inkomens, en de consumptie – en dus de totale vraag. Uitstel van gezinsvorming – jonge Amerikanen bijvoorbeeld, gaan in toenemende mate weer bij hun ouders wonen – drukt de woning- en huurprijzen en leidt tot nog meer huisuitzettingen. Zelfs (deel)staten met een begroting in evenwicht worden nu verplicht te lenen omdat hun belastingsinkomsten dalen. Hoe kan groei gestimuleerd worden wanneer strenge soberheid haast zeker een verdere afname van de totale vraag betekent, die productie en werkgelegheid nog lager duwt”.

Wat zou Europa dan wel moeten doen?

"Geld lenen en dat weer uitlenen ten dienste van uitgaven die groei en werkgelegenheid bevorderen. De kosten van het schuldbeheer zouden dalen. De Europese Centrale Bank (ECB) en de Europese Investeringsbank (EIB) moeten meer uitlenen, vooral aan kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen, die de belangrijkste bron zijn van jobcreatie".
In een recent editoriaal pleit The New York Times voor het aanbieden van euro-obligaties. Daar moet Merkel volgens de krant toe verplicht worden. Met deze obligaties zou de enorme spaarpot van veel Europeanen kunnen aangesproken worden. Ermee speculeren op de beurs zou zinloos zijn, omdat Europa ze in hun geheel zou waarborgen, dit in tegenstelling tot eventuele speculatie tegen staatsobligaties van individuele landen.
De nieuwe Franse president François Hollande gaat dat idee opnieuw op de agenda plaatsen. Meteen voegen journalisten daar echter aan toe dat “probleemlanden te gemakkelijk toegang tot teveel kredieten zouden krijgen”. (Die 'stoute' probleemlanden moeten daar volgens mij voor gestraft worden).

Paul Krugman op 17 mei

Krugman was ook laureaat voor de Nobelprijs Economie. Zijn artikels wijzen al maandenlang op de waanzin van het huidige Europese beleid. De redding van de euro "zal vereisen dat de Europese leiders, in ’t bijzonder Duitsland en de Europese Centrale Bank, helemaal anders beginnen te handelen dan ze de voorbije jaren deden. Ze moeten stoppen met moraliseren ('wie boven zijn stand leeft moet gestraft worden').
"De Griekse kiezers die begrijpelijkerwijze kwaad zijn op het beleid dat 22% werklozen heeft opgeleverd – meer dan 50% bij de jongeren – hebben zich gekeerd tegen de partijen die hun dit beleid hebben opgelegd. De ECB moet zijn obsessie met prijsstabiliteit laten varen ('inflatie tenhoogste 2%') en moet gedurende meerdere jaren 3 of 4 % inflatie aanvaarden, zelfs aanmoedigen en met nog een hoger inflatiecijfer in Duitsland. De ECB en de Duitse regering verfoeien dat idee echter”.

Waarom handelen de Europese leiders zo?

Stiglitz, Krugman, De Grauwe, ze noemen de Europese Commissie (EC) en de ECB kortzichtig, dom en misdadig. Ze reageren zoals een professor die tijdens een examen foute antwoorden krijgt van een student. Angela Merkel is natuurlijk helemaal niet dom. Ze wordt omringd door ministers en raadgevers die waarschijnlijk de standpunten van deze Nobelprijswinnaars wel kennen. Dat geldt ook voor Manuel Barroso, Herman Van Rompuy en de Europese commissarissen. Die hebben een leger van raadgevers die uit de financiële middens komen en diploma's hebben van de beste handelsscholen.
Er moet dus een andere verklaring zijn voor hun beslissingen over inkrimping van de overheidsuitgaven, die ambtenaren, werklozen, sociale wetgeving, pensioenen, onderwijs, openbare voorzieningen...het gelag doen betalen. 'Fiscale consolidatie' wordt dat genoemd. In feite is het collectieve verarming.
Het artikel van Stiglitz geeft een aanwijzing: "Wie uiteindelijk werk vindt, zal een veel lager loon krijgen". Dit is al een feit in Portugal, Ierland, Italië, Griekenland en Spanje (de PIIGS-landen). Zelfs in Duitsland is de succesvolle export van de laatste jaren onder meer te danken aan de 'working poor' met maandlonen van 800 euro of nog minder. Hier bij ons horen we elke week opnieuw dat de loonkosten te hoog zijn, dat "onze competitiviteit" eronder lijdt.

Meer winst, maar niet voor de werkende bevolking

Mooi discours levert dat op: "De fundamentele oplossing is dus te zoeken op de arbeidsmarkt. We moeten die soepeler maken met meer mobiliteit en grotere loonflexilibiliteit" (Gert Peersman, prof UGent in De Morgen). Immers: "Lagere loonlasten vertalen zich daarna in lagere prijzen, zelfs met verhoogde btw blijft de koopkracht voor de Griekse burger dan constant".
`Wie dat gelooft steunt op theoretische modellen die door de feiten tegengesproken worden. Lagere lonen zorgen voor hogere bedrijfswinsten, dat is zonneklaar. Dàt zou wel eens het echte doel kunnen zijn van de Europese Commissie, de banksector en vele experten. Maar nee, in ons land zitten de werkgevers met die vervelende collectieve arbeidsovereenkomsten die het moeilijker maken om aan loonmatiging te doen. En dan is er nog die vervloekte indexkoppeling!
Stiglitz spreekt ook over ondragelijke werkloosheid en 'lijden'. Nu is iedereen bezorgd over de werklozen. De oplossing die veel politici, de patroonsorganisaties en de financiële sector hiervoor zien, is echter dat de werklozen aan het werk moeten worden gezet. Zoniet volgen er sancties: van verlaging van de uitkering tot schorsing. De werkloosheid moet dus opgelost worden door de werklozen zelf, zo eenvoudig is dat. Een O-VLD-politica zei onlangs: "Waarom scheppen de mensen hun eigen werk niet? Ze dragen toch ook verantwoordelijkheid."

Het probleem is werkloosheid én armoede

Stiglitz is bezorgd over het lijden van werklozen en van mensen die onder de armoedegrens leven. In de crisislanden stijgt hun aantal snel. Niet iedereen ligt daar wakker van. 'Armoede? Die is er toch altijd geweest? Die mensen hebben veel aan zichzelf te danken.
Ken je dat discours? Gelakte nagels en drie TV-toestellen, elk jaar op reis. Alle dagen horen en lezen we het. Voor deze categorie gaan de grote beleggers, de CEO's en bankdirecteuren hun fiscaal en economisch beleid niet wijzigen. Er is toch nog het OCMW?

Het is een kwestie van waarden

Het ziet er naar uit dat de professoren Stiglitz, Krugman en De Grauwe een andere waardenschaal van prioriteiten en maatschappijvisie hanteren dan de Europese leiders. Bij deze laatsten gaat het over de belangen van de bedrijfswereld, waaronder de banken (die zo zwaar te lijden hebben, nietwaar!) tegenover de belangen van de gewone mensen.
Paul De Grauwe beschrijft in een gedocumenteerd artikel de interne devaluatie die heeft plaatsgegrepen in Griekenland, Ierland, Spanje, Portugal (de PIIGS-landen). Hij schrijft: "Ze ging gepaard met grote nadelen inzake verlies aan omzet en werkgelegenheid. Bovendien liggen nog meer verlies van productie en werk in 't vooruitzicht. Echter, de 'rijke', surpluslanden hebben geen interne revaluatie (stijging van de lonen) doorgevoerd, d.w.z. de asymmetrie wordt geheel bekostigd door de arme landen. De achteruitgang van de Europese economie zal verder gaan". De Grauwe besluit: "De Europese Commissie is de agent geworden van de rijke ('creditor') landen; hun tyrannie zal niet snel verdwijnen".
Zelfs in een worst-case-scenario hebben de echte bazen hun schaapjes op het droge. Zelfs indien de consumptie in elkaar stort, de fabrieken sluiten, de beurskoersen kelderen zullen ZIJ geen boterham minder eten. Betogingen, stakingen? Die zijn er al zoveel geweest. Die verminderen zelfs de loonkost! Indien het uit de hand loopt hebben we nog altijd de politie, desnoods het leger.

Het gevaarlijke idee van François Hollande

Daar is nu wel de nieuwe Franse president François Hollande, en Obama, zelfs de Britse eerste minister Cameron en de Deense eerste minister Thorning-Schmidt, de Japanners, de Chinezen, en de Braziliaanse president Dilma Roussef: die begrijpen dat een Europese ineenstorting ook voor hun economie ongewenst is. We moeten hopen dat ze Angela en al de financiële experten het mes op de keel zetten.
Hollande heeft alvast een idee dat 'de banken schrik aanjaagt'. Hij belooft om het bedrag dat Franse spaarders belastingvrij en met een staatsgarantie onderbrengen bij de al 200 jaar bestaande staatsholding Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC) te verdubbelen. Tevens stelt hij een aantrekkelijke rente in het vooruitzicht die hoger ligt dan de inflatie.

De nachtmerrie van de privébanken: een actieve overheidsbank

Momenteel mag er op een spaarboekje 'Livret A' per persoon maximaal 15.300 euro staan en op een boekje 'duurzame ontwikkeling' tot 6.000 euro. De rente bedraagt op beide boekjes 2,25 procent. Hollande wil met dit geld, dat bij de CDC wordt ondergebracht, infrastructuurprojecten financieren zonder dat dit een weerslag heeft op de Franse begroting en de overheidsschuld. Eind maart beheerde de CDC 295,1 miljard euro deposito's. Dit geld dient onder meer voor de financiering van de bouw van spoorwegen, ziekenhuizen en sociale huisvesting.
Waarom jaagt dat de bankensector schrik aan? Omdat het miljarden zijn die de bankiers zouden kunnen gebruiken, tiens. Dat zeggen ze zelf. Zo wordt het nog eens duidelijk om welke keuzes het gaat: nog meer geld voor de financiële sector (die in meerdere landen de overheid al gepluimd heeft) of integendeel meer geld voor maatschappelijke projecten ten bate van de bevolking.

De Algemene Spaar- en Lijfrente Kas (ASLK), weet je nog?

De CDC doet mij met weemoed terugdenken aan onze goede oude openbare bank ALSK-CGER (geprivatiseerd tot Fortis). Met medewerking van bepaalde socialisten werd ze verkocht aan de privésector (Heer, vergeef ons want we wisten niet wat we deden), om roemloos en vergeten tenonder te gaan samen en opgeslokt te worden door BNPParibas

PV : Management is a tool

Management is the support tool of a company.µ

There is just a smal part of management that is really setting the company policy and direction (the top 5 let's say). All the rest  is support, looking for opportunities, efficiency and helping the workforce to able them to get to value adding! ... don't tell the workers what to do, just tell them what you want and then support them with all they need !
All management should just guide, not lead !

PV : Understand first, change later ! A bottom-up perspective, free of charge…

Understand first, change later ! A bottom-up perspective, free of charge…

So many things we want to see changed.

The way we work, the way we are paid, the way we treat environment, what we do with our time, how our children grow up, politics, economy, and so on …

If it could be done with a flick of the finger we would probable do it today (I hope) if we could do it in a 3-5 year plan we would say it’s impossible (and I say we can) , and so we muddle on a bit.

We , as a joined society , are ok with mediocrity, with “good enough” , with having our share and not caring about anything or anybody else.

Yes, I’m saying we are all egoistic, self-centered, lazy ,cowards, me included  !

It’s a fact , and if you look with an open mind and look at the details you’ll see, as I see.

Even the most social people, holy men, social workers, firemen, Buddhist monks really all of us.

But for the record , it’s ok, that’s human nature! If you look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs , that’s what I mean.  

And this is exactly how we function in an organization as well! First us , than the rest (company, colleagues, not in that particular order.)

When we work in an organization (small and big, which for me is the same because of my fractal thinking) ,we tend to fall back in different , lower, levels when we are confronted with some things we are not used to…So procedures should work with this given fact and not try to punish or neglect these point. And “softskilling”  can help but, please, there are better ways for getting there,.

Have company goals, mission statement and values that are clear to everybody and ACT ALWAYS ACCORDINGLY , don’t stray, don’t devalue , don’t neglect, don’t ignore , and if you need to (because there is a NEED to) communicate that, tell your people why, how and what. I promise you, they will understand… ! and if you wonder the money (budgeting) is the first everybody sees !

Don’t think workers are dumb, even the most idiotic person in your company is going to know when he gets lied to or when he has to do things that are really inefficient ! That’s where you  get structural laziness , alienation and anomy. Where you will provoke conflict, I have a concept named “The heroic fireman” , ask me what it is, I’ll explain, until then , …..

EX : Focus inversion : "The little Dutch Boy Strategy"

An example of focusing on the result in stead of the cause "Focus-inversion and some "Good news Show" as well  : Harvard Business Review

Apple and the "Little Dutch Boy" Strategy

8:55 AM Friday May 11, 2012
by Gregory Unruh |

Apple is the latest company to execute what I like to call the "Little Dutch Boy" approach to CSR strategy. The apocryphal Dutch legend tells of a boy who, upon seeing a trickle of sea water coming through a hole in a dyke, pokes his finger in to stem the flow.
Many companies have taken a similar approach to CSR. Instead of acknowledging the rising tide of social expectations on the other side of their corporate PR bulwark, executives respond reactively to each individual activist or community complaint. Apple is the latest example of this. The story begins in 2006 and continues to this day.
Accustomed to being perceived as the forward-thinking company that could do no wrong, Apple was blindsided by a 2006 Greenpeace sustainability ranking that placed it near the bottom of computer manufacturers in terms of environmental performance. The response from Apple was defensive and ham-handed with executives calling Greenpeace's work "bullshit." However, in 2007 Steve Jobs belatedly poked his finger in the dyke by posting an "open letter" laying out the case that Apple wasn't an eco-laggard.
Fast forward to 2009 and the news that a Foxconn worker in Shenzhen China committed suicide after losing an iPhone4 prototype. The harbinger was ignored and 14 additional suicides followed in 2010. Then came an 86-page university report documenting the conditions in Foxconn factories as inhumane and abusive. After sustained pressure, Apple was again compelled to stick a finger in the dyke and commission a study by the Fair Labor Association that this year confirmed abuses. Last month, an agreement was announced between Apple and Foxconn to improve working conditions.
Now Apple has been challenged on the environmental-friendliness of its cloud. Last month Greenpeace published a report entitled "How Clean Is Your Cloud" and singled out Apple for having some of the dirtiest cloud computing data centers. Unfortunately for Apple, it apparently had the chance to plug this leak before it sprung. The company claims to have data that could show the environmental performance of their cloud is better than Greenpeace estimates. But for whatever reason, Apple failed to stem the bad publicity.
With so many holes in its CSR dyke, Apple is running out of fingers. The only solution now is to admit that the leaks are caused by a tidal wave of social expectations about corporate responsibility, not one-off anomalies. Apple needs to get serious and commit to a comprehensive CSR strategy. For a number of reasons Apple has been able to avoid this step up until now.
Apple has benefited from a Teflon reputation fostered by the public's love of its products, its iconoclastic brand promise and its charismatic leader, Steve Jobs. But while reputations have inertia, like Wile E. Coyote they can't defy gravity forever.
Apple's success means it is now the biggest kid on the block. Having displaced Exxon, Apple can no longer claim to be the "Think Different" David battling the Goliath of Microsoft. In fact, for many people Apple has become Microsoft, a quasi-monopolistic behemoth. As that perception takes hold, activist and competitive complaints against Apple's impacts will begin to stick in the public's mind.
With the passing of Steve Jobs, Apple has lost its Chief Reputation Officer and its most eloquent spokesperson. Jobs was able to plug the company's reputational holes single-handedly. But as many other companies have found, the Little Dutch Boy approach to social responsibility can't hold back the rising tide anymore. Instead, Apple needs to get out there and show that they are not only innovating to serve their customers, but that they are innovating to serve society and the planet as well.

Ex : JP Morgan Chase

Another example of Hiërarchical info filtering (and other) which leads to bad decisiontaking
I UNDERLINED THE SENTENCES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO ME AND WHICH ARE "TO BE PROCESSES&CONTAINED" , MY TOOL CAN TACKLE THESE ISSUES, CONTACT ME FOR MORE INFO... 

JPMorgan Discloses $2 Billion in Trading Losses

By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and PETER EAVIS

JPMorgan Chase, which emerged from the financial crisis as the nation’s biggest bank, disclosed on Thursday that it had lost more than $2 billion in trading, a surprising stumble that promises to escalate the debate over whether regulations need to rein in trading by banks.
Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan, blamed “errors, sloppiness and bad judgment” for the loss, which stemmed from a hedging strategy that backfired.
The trading in that hedge roiled markets a month ago, when rumors started circulating of a JPMorgan trader in London whose bets were so big that he was nicknamed “the London Whale” and “Voldemort,” after the Harry Potter villain.
For a bank that earned nearly $19 billion last year, the trading loss, which could go higher, will not cripple it in any way. Still it demonstrates how a market blunder can shake even a financial giant that celebrates its “fortress balance sheet.” Close

It is a rare blow to the reputation of Mr. Dimon, 56, a native New Yorker known for his hands-on management style and a confident swagger. After successfully steering his bank through the market turmoil of 2008 and the recession, he is perhaps the most influential bank executive in the country — and a vocal critic of the efforts to write rules under the Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul.
The setback for JPMorgan may strengthen the hand of regulators in Washington who are now writing the rules for Dodd-Frank — in particular the Volcker Rule, which restricts banks from trading with their own money.
JPMorgan’s setback “casts doubt on Jamie’s opposition and adds fuel to anyone who has been pushing for greater regulation,” said Mike Mayo, an analyst with Credit Agricole Securities. “Oh, how the mighty have fallen.”
Throughout the debate around the Volcker Rule, which is named after Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, Mr. Dimon has said the rule goes too far. Mr. Dimon told CNBC earlier this year that under the Volcker Rule, “if you want to be trading, you have to have a lawyer and a psychiatrist sitting next to you determining what was your intent every time you did something.”
Questions over whether banks have been engaging in such trading for themselves while calling it “market-making” or “hedging” came into focus last month, when the reports emerged that a trading unit of JPMorgan in London was taking such large positions in the name of hedging that they were distorting the market.
At the time, Mr. Dimon played down concerns about that trading, in what the bank calls its chief investment office, telling analysts in an April 13 conference call that it was “a complete tempest in a teapot.”
In a hastily organized conference call with analysts on Thursday, Mr. Dimon sounded more humble, saying that “egregious mistakes” were made. “They were self-inflicted and this is not how we want to run a business.”
Yet while conceding that the bank had “egg on its face,” Mr. Dimon refused to concede that the losses necessitated a stronger regulatory framework. Although he did says that it “plays right into the hands of a whole bunch of pundits out there.”
And he defended the trading unit, saying that “the C.I.O. has done a great job for a long extended period of time.”
The troubles are expected to weigh on the bank’s broader earnings. For example, the corporate group, which includes the chief investment office, is now expected to lose $800 million in the second quarter, the company said in the filing. Previously, JPMorgan estimated that the group would report net income of about $200 million.
Shares of JPMorgan tumbled 6.7 percent in after-hours trading. Its Wall Street rivals were also down sharply.
The $2 billion loss came from a complicated trading strategy that involved derivatives, financial instruments that derive their value from the prices of securities and other assets. JPMorgan said the derivatives trades were part of a hedge, meaning they were set up to offset potential losses on the bank’s large holdings of bonds and loans. But, in the sort of nightmare situation that bankers dread, the ostensible hedge backfired, producing losses of its own.
Since the financial crisis, several financial institutions have been rocked by risky trading, although under very different circumstances. At UBS, $2 billion in trading losses was attributed to a rogue trader, while MF Global collapsed not because of its bet on troubled European sovereign debt, but as a result of a loss of confidence that trade produced.
But JPMorgan’s trade was not so obviously fraught with risk. It produced large losses even without extreme movements in the derivatives markets or underlying bond markets. Indexes that track derivatives tied to corporate bonds have recently increased — reflecting a gloomier outlook for corporate bonds — but the move has not been jarring.
JPMorgan likely structured the trade in such a way that effectively magnified losses. Specifically, the bank bought insurance against losses on corporate debt through credit derivatives that increase in value if the underlying creditworthiness of companies is perceived to have deteriorated. But JPMorgan stumbled when it tried to modify that trade by also making an opposite bet with credit derivatives. Mr. Dimon said that the strategy “to reduce the credit hedge” was “poorly constructed and poorly monitored.”
The trades took place in the chief investment office of JPMorgan. These big trades are designed as hedges. Last month big derivatives trades executed in London by the unit appeared to be throwing markets out of kilter. The trades were reportedly put on by “the London whale” — a French trader, Bruno Iksil. On Thursday, Mr. Dimon said losses on the trade could grow.
The loss-making trades will further stoke the debate over whether banks make big bets under the guise of hedging. An old market adage says the best way to hedge is to simply sell an asset, rather than offset it with potentially dangerous derivatives. The Volcker Rule attempts to distinguish between true hedging and trading.
The losses will also raise enduring questions about JPMorgan’s ability to manage its risks. When it reported first-quarter earnings in April, it released a metric of risk-taking in the chief investment office that made it look as if the unit was taking risks in line with other parts of the bank. But on Thursday, the bank released a new measure of risk-taking that was nearly twice as high.
“JPMorgan Chase C.E.O. Jamie Dimon has been a relentless critic of financial reform,” said Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, which supports tougher regulation of banks. The surprise loss, he said, “proves him wrong.”
Michael J. de la Merced contributed reporting.

Ex : Berlusconization (Net-not-working)

How bad networking gets a Nation into trouble, for companies this is also true !!! Networking is a potential threat !

http://www.economist.com/node/13576329

IF ANYBODY is having a good recession, it is the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Italy is certainly suffering: the IMF expects GDP to fall by 4.4% this year, a bigger drop than in Britain, France or Spain. But Mr Berlusconi remains significantly more popular than most other European leaders. His approval rating this month, measured by IPR Marketing for La Repubblica’s website, actually rose to 56%.
Part of the explanation is that, after more than a decade of underperformance relative to the European Union, Italians are used to economic distress. And since their banks were less enterprising (or reckless) than those in America and Britain, none has collapsed so far, sparing Mr Berlusconi the politically lethal fallout from using taxpayers’ money to save the hides of rich financiers. Yet his approval rating had been slipping—until the earthquake that hit L’Aquila on April 6th.
Mr Berlusconi’s response to the earthquake seems to explain the latest uptick. He spent almost a week in the disaster zone and even offered to accommodate some survivors in his own homes. On April 23rd he went a daring step further, saying he would switch the venue of the G8 rich-country summit in July to L’Aquila, partly so as to divert funds towards the city’s reconstruction. On the same day he announced a seemingly generous €8 billion ($10 billion) in aid for the earthquake zone (it has since emerged that this will be spread over no less than 22 years).

---

Mr Berlusconi’s response to the earthquake highlights another factor that his supporters claim explains his poll ratings. As one minister puts it, “this is the first government since the second world war to give Italians decisive leadership of a kind that is entirely normal in Europe.” That contrasts with his previous period in power in 2001-06, when he had to deal with repeated internal revolts. Many were caused by the centrist Union of Christian Democrats, which split from the centre-right coalition before the April 2008 election that returned the right to power.
Mr Berlusconi’s present government is far more homogenous. In March its two biggest components—his own Forza Italia and the National Alliance, which grew out of the neo-fascist movement—united in a single entity, the People of Freedom. Of the two other coalition parties, only the Northern League has the parliamentary clout to bring the government down.
To Mr Berlusconi’s critics, the explanation of his popularity is quite different. It is that he is reaping the benefit of a long-term influence on the views of his compatriots that no contemporary politician can rival. Every Italian under 30 has grown to political maturity in a country where Mr Berlusconi and his family control half the television output, one of four national newspapers, one of two news magazines and the biggest publishing house.
His hold on the media has changed attitudes and even the meaning of words. When he entered politics in 1994, few gave credence to his claim to be a victim of conniving communist judges; now it is widely believed. Fifteen years ago, an azzurro represented Italy in international sporting competitions and a moderato was a centrist. Today, an azzurro is somebody who represents Mr Berlusconi in parliament; a moderato anybody who votes for him.
The subtle Berlusconisation of Italy may help to explain a trend that has swept the country in the past 12 months. It is not only that the opposition has divided and the unions are split. It is that a conviction has gripped much of society that the prime minister will stay in power indefinitely. “I have to say that I see no alternative to Silvio Berlusconi,” declared Gabriele Muccino, a film director and one of several intellectuals and artists who have recently voiced similar opinions. This is ironic in a country whose politicians spent 15 years working towards a two-party system. It augurs ill for future economic reforms, in which Mr Berlusconi has shown little interest. And it is also troubling in any democracy, especially when seen in the context of the prime minister’s own words and actions.
His new party is as undemocratic in its form as Forza Italia was. He was acclaimed, not elected, leader at a founding congress last month that empowered him to appoint the executive. Mr Berlusconi routinely denigrates the judiciary and, since returning to power, has become increasingly dismissive of the legislature as well. His government’s use of procedural devices to cut short parliamentary debate has even been criticised by his ally, Gianfranco Fini, former leader of the National Alliance and now speaker of the lower-house Chamber of Deputies. Mr Berlusconi has sought to justify this by arguing that the myriad checks and balances in the system make Italy ungovernable. But, as President Giorgio Napolitano retorted recently, such views pointed to “authoritarian solutions”. After all, the system was put in place precisely to prevent the return of a dictator like Benito Mussolini.
Few believe that there is a serious risk of reverting to those dark days. But several recent books have highlighted the extent of Mr Berlusconi’s ascendancy and asked questions about how he intends to exploit it. Massimo Giannini, author of one, argues that his aim is “not a dictatorship in the classic sense, but…a modern form of post-ideological ‘totalitarianism’”.
The most powerful reason to worry comes in Mr Berlusconi’s own words. At his new party’s inaugural congress, he reminded the 6,000 or so delegates that “sovereignty belongs to the people”. But he also claimed that his was “the only party that defines the identity of our people”. In fact, he said, “we have to be a people even more than a party”. That smacks of pure populism.
Mr Berlusconi’s supporters dismiss all such misgivings, insisting that his sole long-term objective is the presidency (albeit, perhaps, after a constitutional reform to make it more powerful). On April 25th, the day when Italians mark the 1945 Allied liberation, the prime minister offered support for the view that he aspires to lead the nation, not just the right. He took part for the first time in the celebrations. Later he withdrew a controversial bill that would have given honours and pensions to Mussolini’s diehard militia.
But Mr Berlusconi also took the opportunity to suggest that the name of the holiday should be changed. It should not be the day of liberation but of freedom. As in, for example, the People of Freedom?