JPMorgan Chase slashed CEO Jamie Dimon's bonus by 53%, citing the fallout from the bank's so-called London Whale trading losses. 
 
 Dimon will take home $11.5 million, including a $10 million bonus. Last year, he was the best paid bank CEO with a $23.1 million pay package that included a $21.5 million bonus. 
 
 JPMorgan's board also decided to push back Dimon's eligibility to sell $79 million of JPMorgan's stock for 18 months. Roughly 2 million shares were eligible for vesting on Jan. 22. 
 
 "As Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Dimon bears ultimate responsibility for the failures that led to the losses in CIO and has accepted responsibility for such failures," the board said in regulatory filing. 
 
 At the same time, the board also noted that JPMorgan has reported record profits for three consecutive years and praised what they called Dimon's forceful response to the trading problems. 
 
 Related: Why is JPMorgan's board unchanged? 
 
 JPMorgan reported fourth-quarter net income of $5.7 billion, or $1.39 a share, beating forecasts, while revenue of $24.4 billion was in line with estimates. 
 
 The bank's strong results were driven by a sharp uptick in new mortgages, with mortgage originations increasing 33% year-over year. Fees from mortgages jumped 181% from the prior year. 
 
 While the housing recovery is underway, Dimon said on an analyst call that he expects mortgage revenue to bounce around over the next several quarters. 
 
 Revenues in all of the bank's business line, including investment banking and consumer banking, increased from last year. Investment banking fees jumped 52% in the fourth quarter. 
 
 JPMorgan reduced its staff by 1,500, or roughly 0.5%, to end the year with 258,965 employees. Even with the cuts, compensation expenses jumped 12% from the prior year. 
 
 For the full year, the bank earned $21.3 billion, or $5.20 a share, on revenue of $99.9 billion 
 
 Related: Hey Wall Street, get ready for more layoffs 
 
 Still, investors weren't thrilled by the bank's results. Shares of JPMorgan Chase (JPM) straddled the breakeven line Wednesday. So far this year, the bank's stock has gained more than 5%, after rallying 35% in 2012. 
 
 Going forward, Dimon said JPMorgan expects to buy back less stock in the coming quarters to shore up its capital reserves. The bank still plans to buy back up to $3 billion of stock during the current quarter, but will ask regulators for permission to repurchase fewer shares after that. 
 
 Since the financial crisis, the largest banks have been required to prove to the Federal Reserve that they have sufficient capital reserves to withstand another financial crisis. DImon said that the bank will spend this year building up its reserve related to international regulatory guidelines known as Basel III. 
 
 JPMorgan managed to generate profits during each quarter of 2012, despite recording a $6.2 billion loss from the so-called London Whale trade -- the massive bet on credit derivatives made by one of the bank's London units that went terribly wrong. 
 
 Since the trading losses were revealed, JPMorgan has shaken up its executive ranks and appointed a new chief financial officer. The bank has also fired executives and traders responsible for the losses and has said that their pay is subject to clawbacks. 
 
 In October, the bank filed suit against Javier Martin-Artajo, the former boss of Bruno Iksil, the trader who made the bad bets and came to be known as the "London Whale." A source familiar with the case said Wednesday that the suit had been settled, with Martin-Artajo agreeing to return some of his pay via the clawback mechanism in his contract. 
 
 Martin-Artajo could not be reached for comment. The news was reported earlier by Reuters. 
 
 The fallout from the London Whale continued this week, when the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ordered JPMorgan to improve its risk management procedures. 
 
 In November, the bank said other agencies -- including the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission -- were also investigating the matter. 
 
 On a call with journalists early Wednesday, Dimon said he expects it to be "non-issue" very soon. "We're getting near the end of it," he said. 
 
 JPMorgan is the second major bank to report earnings. Wells Fargo (WFC) kicked off bank earnings season last Friday and Goldman Sachs (GS) reported fourth-quuarter profits that topped expectations early Wednesday. 
 
 Bank of America (BAC) and Citigroup (C) will release results Thursday morning, and Morgan Stanley (MS) reports early Friday. 
 
 CNNMoney's James O'Toole contributed to this report. ||||| New York Stock Exchange Diehm 
 
 Everybody on Wall Street is talking about the new piece by New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman, entitled "The End of Wall Street as They Knew It." 
 
 The article argues that Barack Obama killed everything that was joyful about the banking industry through his suffocating Dodd-Frank reform bill, which forced banks to strip themselves of "the pistons that powered their profits: leverage and proprietary trading." 
 
 Having to say goodbye to excess borrowing and casino gambling, the argument goes, has cut into banking profits, leading to extreme decisions like Morgan Stanley’s recent dictum capping cash bonuses at $125,000. In response to that, Sherman quotes an unnamed banker: 
 
 "After tax, that’s like, what, $75,000?" an investment banker at a rival firm said as he contemplated Morgan Stanley’s decision. He ran the numbers, modeling the implications. "I’m not married and I take the subway and I watch what I spend very carefully. But my girlfriend likes to eat good food. It all adds up really quick. A taxi here, another taxi there. I just bought an apartment, so now I have a big old mortgage bill." 
 
 Quelle horreur! And who’s to blame? According to Sherman's interview subjects, it has nothing to do with the economy having been blown up several times over by these very bonus-deprived bankers, or with the fact that all conceivable public bailout money has essentially already been sucked up and converted into bonuses by that same crowd. 
 
 No, it instead apparently has everything to do with the Dodd-Frank bill, and specifically the Volcker rule banning proprietary trading, which incidentally hasn’t gone into effect yet. 
 
 He quotes Dick Bove, the noted analyst who last year downgraded Goldman Sachs. Bove’s quote on the bonus sadness: 
 
 "The government has strangled the financial system," banking analyst Dick Bove told me recently. "We’ve basically castrated these companies. They can’t borrow as much as they used to borrow." 
 
 When I read things like this I’m simultaneously amazed by two things. The first is the unbelievable tone-deafness of people who would complain out loud, during a time when millions of people around the country are literally losing their homes, that their bonuses – not their total compensation, mind you, but just their cash bonuses, paid in addition to their salaries and their stock packages – are barely enough to cover the mortgage payments for their new condos, the taxis they take when walking is too burdensome, and their girlfriends with expensive tastes. 
 
 The second thing that amazes me is that Sherman is buying all this. I don’t know this reporter at all, and I’m happy to concede that he probably hangs out with more Wall Street people than I do. But I’m still in touch with plenty of people in the business, and I have yet to have any investment bankers crying on my shoulder about how the Dodd-Frank bill is forcing them into generic breakfast cereals. 
 
 Now, I’m sure if you put it to them the right way – "Hey, Mr. Habitually Overpaid Banker, do you think Barack Obama and the Dodd-Frank bill are ruining your bonus season?" – you’ll get a good percentage of people who’ll take that cheese and cough out the desired quote. 
 
 But in reality? Please. Wall Street people complain a lot, but in the last six months, the grave impact of Dodd-Frank on bonuses hasn’t even been within ten miles of the things these people are really panicked about. The comments I’ve heard have been more like, "My asshole has been puckered completely shut for four months in a row over this Europe business," or, "If the ECB doesn’t come up with a Greek bailout package, I’m going to have to sell my children for dog food." 
 
 Bonuses are indeed down this year, especially when compared with the bonuses of recent years, but let’s be clear about why. It has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank. We can posit three other factors: 
 
 1. Banks have unfortunately had to give up the practice of simply printing trillions of dollars out of thin air by selling off worthless mortgages for huge profits and/or making millions of synthetic copies of those same worthless mortgage assets; 
 
 2. After twice being saved from the execution chamber by Ben Bernanke’s Quantitative Easing programs, which printed trillions of new dollars and injected them straight into Wall Street’s arm, Wall Street was rocked this summer when Helicopter Ben decided to temporarily forestall QE3; 
 
 3. Europe, a slightly more than minor factor in the global financial picture, is imploding, causing mass hoarding of assets all over the world, severely impacting the business of investment banks everywhere. 
 
 Now, Sherman barely even mentions Europe in his article, which is interesting, because the banks on whose behalf he wails so loudly in this piece have mostly all pointed to Europe as more or less the sole reason for their reduced revenues of late. 
 
 Take for instance Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman, Sachs. Lloyd has the most famous reduced bonus on Wall Street – he’s making $7 million this year (it was $12.6 million last year) as his bank, Goldman, had a disastrous fourth quarter. Goldman’s $6.1 billion in revenues was down 30% off last year’s fourth quarter. To what does the big Lloyd attribute this sad development? 
 
 "This past year was dominated by global macro-economic concerns which significantly affected our clients' risk tolerance and willingness to transact," Blankfein said, "While our results declined as a consequence, I am pleased that the firm retained its industry-leading positions across our global client franchise while prudently managing risk, capital and expenses. As economies and markets improve – and we see encouraging signs of this – Goldman Sachs is very well positioned to perform for our clients and our shareholders." 
 
 Translation: Europe is such a mess right now that all our biggest clients are sitting on their money instead of letting us steal it from them. However, once Europe rebounds, as we expect it to, we will be well positioned to start stealing from them again. 
 
 Goldman’s numbers offer a hilarious counterpoint to Sherman’s piece. The bank’s earnings in total for last year were $4.4 billion, down some 65% off of last year’s numbers. Its revenues for the year were down 26%. Despite these bummerific numbers, Goldman reduced bonuses and compensation by only 21%, down to (a mere) $12.2 billion. If the era of outsized bonuses is over, how come the biggest banks aren’t even cutting them to match revenues, much less profits? One could even interpret Goldman’s numbers as a major increase in the size of the bonus pool, relative to earnings. 
 
 But what about other banks? Well, Citigroup also saw a drop in revenues for the year (although its net income actually went up, from $10.6 billion to $11.3 billion). But what was most concerning was the bank’s crappy fourth quarter, when it suffered an 11% drop in earnings. 
 
 So where did CEO Vikram Pandit lay the blame for the lost revenue? Dodd-Frank? Reduced leverage? Uh, no. He blamed Europe, too: 
 
 "Clearly, the macro environment has impacted the capital markets and we will continue to right-size our businesses to match the environment," Pandit said. 
 
 How about JP Morgan Chase? The bank’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, was breathlessly quoted in the Sherman piece, and in fact had this to say to Sherman about the culture change: 
 
 "Certain products are gone forever," Dimon tells Sherman. "Fancy derivatives are mostly gone. Prop trading is gone. There’s less leverage everywhere." 
 
 So it’s prop trading and derivatives that’s the problem? That’s not what Wall Street analysts said, when Chase posted a 23% drop in earnings in the fourth quarter. While Dimon in a Q&A; last month did go off on the potential problems the Volcker rule might inspire in the future, he was careful to note that those problems are still very much future problems ("I'm going to put Volcker aside, okay, because that really hasn't been written yet"). 
 
 Instead, virtually every headline about Chase's fourth-quarter earnings drop pegged Euro troubles. "JPMorgan Chase (JPM) ended a long run of profit gains when it logged a steep drop in fourth-quarter earnings Friday, as weakness in Europe contributed to a decline in investment banking revenue," wrote Investor’s Business Daily. 
 
 The Telegraph commented thusly: "JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon struck a positive note on the outlook for the US economy even as Europe's debt crisis dragged down the bank's quarterly profits." 
 
 And Dimon himself seemed to go along with his counterparts at Goldman and Citi in blaming macro troubles for the recent drop, talking about issues with the "current environment": 
 
 The bank's third-quarter profit fell 4% as its businesses were hit hard by Europe's financial woes and the fragile recovery in the United States... "All things considered, we believe the firm's returns were reasonable given the current environment," said Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan's chairman and chief executive. 
 
 When I look at the revenue and bonus numbers on Wall Street this year, I see a number of companies that, despite being functionally insolvent in reality and dependent upon a combination of corrupt accounting and cheap cash from the Fed to survive, are still paying out enormous amounts of money in compensation. 
 
 In fact, when one considers the lost billions and trillions from the end of the mortgage bubble scam and the expiration of the quantitative easing program, it’s pretty incredible (one might even call it an inspirational testament to the industry's dedication to the cause of high compensation) that bonuses are even in the same ballpark as they used to be. 
 
 *** 
 
 And all of this is just looking at things from a bottom-line, Wall-Street-centric point of view. Looking at the question from the point of view of an ordinary human being, however, Sherman’s thesis is even more nuts. He’s written a sort of investment-banking version of Jimmy Carter’s "malaise" speech, complaining about a lost era of easy money, when in fact there are two damning realities he’s ignored: 
 
 1. He’s wrong. See the above argument about Europe, QE, etc. 
 
 2. Even if he wasn’t wrong, which he is, his reaction to the "news" that Wall Street’s outsized bonuses are dropping is all wrong. If it were true, it would be good news, not bad news. 
 
 Since 2008, the rest of America has suffered a severe economic correction. Ordinary people everywhere long ago had to learn to cope with the equivalent of a lower bonus season. When the crash hit, regular people could not make up the difference through bailouts or zero-interest loans from the Fed or leveraged-up synthetic derivative schemes. They just had to deal with the fact that the economy sucked – and they adjusted. 
 
 This ought to have been true also on Wall Street, but in a curious development that is somehow not addressed in Sherman's piece, the denizens of the financial services industry managed to maintain their extravagant lifestyle standards in the middle of a historic global economic crash that, incidentally, they themselves caused. 
 
 After suffering one truly bad year – 2008, in which the securities industry collectively lost over $42 billion – Wall Street immediately rebounded to post record revenues in 2009, despite the fact that the economy at large did nothing of the sort. The numbers were so huge on Wall Street compared to the rest of the world that Goldman slashed its 4th-quarter bonuses, just so that the final bonus/comp number ($16.2 billion, down from what would have been $21 billion) didn’t look so garish to the rest of broke America. 
 
 What Sherman now argues is that Dodd-Frank has so completely hindered Wall Street’s ability to magically invent profits through borrowing and gambling that, unlike those wonderful days in 2009, its fortunes are now reduced to rising and falling – heaven forbid – along with the rest of the economy. Things are so bad, his interview subjects argue, that one is now more likely to make big money going into an actual business that makes an actual product: 
 
 "If you’re a smart Ph.D. from MIT, you’d never go to Wall Street now," says a hedge-fund executive. "You’d go to Silicon Valley. There’s at least a prospect for a huge gain. You’d have the potential to be the next Mark Zuckerberg." 
 
 Once upon a time, Sherman argues, banking was boring. "In the quaint old days, Wall Street tended to earn its profits rather boringly by loaning money, advising mergers, and supervising bond issues and IPOs," he writes. But then, in the eighties, the business became "turbocharged" when new ways to create leverage were introduced. A sudden surge in credit turned this staid business into the realm of super-compensated superheroes: 
 
 Credit was the engine that powered the explosion in bank profits. From junk bonds in the eighties to the emerging-markets crisis in the nineties to the subprime mania of the aughts, Wall Street developed new ways to produce, package, and sell debt to willing investors. The alphabet soup of complex vehicles that defined the 2008 crash – CLO, CDO, CDS – had all been developed to sell more credit. 
 
 But all of this leverage led to problems, Sherman grudgingly concedes, and those problems led to reforms, and now Wall Street is being threatened with a return to those "quaint" days of loaning money and supervising bond issues and such. 
 
 Such a return is being demanded by the 99-percenters, much-loathed by Sherman’s interview subjects and portrayed as a bunch of ignoramuses who don’t understand where their bread is buttered. In New York especially, it’s the regular people, he argues, who benefitted from all that crazy leverage. Why, without ginormous leverage-generated bonuses, New York would be … Philadelphia! 
 
 Consciously or not, as a city, New York made a bargain: It would tolerate the one percent’s excessive pay as long as the rising tax base funded the schools, subways, and parks for the 99 percent. "Without Wall Street, New York becomes Philadelphia" is how a friend of mine in finance explains it. 
 
 Sherman then goes further: 
 
 In this view, deleveraging Wall Street means killing the goose. 
 
 Look, the financial services industry should be boring. It should be quaint. Let’s take the municipal debt business. For ages, it was a simple, dull, low-margin sort of industry, in which banks arranged municipal bond issues and made small but dependable profits as cities and towns financed improvements and construction projects. 
 
 That system worked seamlessly for decades, until people like Sherman’s interview subjects suddenly decided to make the business exciting. You know what happens when you make municipal debt exciting? Jefferson County, Alabama happens. Or, on a macro level, Greece happens. 
 
 When making a few points on mere bond issues stops being enough, and you have to cook up crazy swap schemes and indices to bet against those schemes, ingenious scams allowing politicians to borrow billions of dollars that they will never in a million years be able to pay back, you might end up getting a few parks, schools, and subways in New York. 
 
 But what you get everywhere else is a giant clusterfuck that costs the rest of us years and even more billions of tax dollars to remedy. 
 
 This is what the protests are all about – it’s anger that Wall Street has been profiting from an imaginary economy that leaves bankers overpaid, but creates damage everywhere else. Sherman doesn’t get this. He seems to subscribe to the well-worn straw-man position that protesters are simply upset that bankers and financiers make a lot of money. Take for example his view on John Paulson, the hedge fund titan who was involved in Goldman’s infamous Abacus deal: 
 
 In October, a thousand protesters stood outside John Paulson’s Upper East Side townhouse and offered the hedge-fund billionaire a mock $5 billion check, the amount he earned from his 2010 investments. Later that day, Paulson released a statement attacking the protesters and their movement …. The truth was, Paulson was furious that the protesters had singled him out. Last year, he lost billions of dollars on bad bets on gold and the banking sector. One of his funds posted a 52 percent loss. "The ironic thing is John lost a lot of money this year," a person close to Paulson told me. "The fact that John got roped into this debate highlights their misunderstanding." 
 
 Hey, asshole: nobody misunderstands anything about John Paulson. They’re not mad that he made billions the year before, and they’re not happy that he lost money this year. They’re mad that the way he made his money in previous years – which involved putting together a born-to-lose portfolio of toxic mortgage bonds and then using Goldman Sachs to dump them on a pair of European banks, who in turn had no idea that Paulson was betting against them. 
 
 At least part of this transaction was illegal (so ruled the SEC, anyway), and all of it looks pretty damned underhanded. And if the benefit to society from this sort of work is the tax money New York City received from the proceeds of this fleecing, well, we’re willing to go without those taxes, thank you very much. 
 
 Listening to Wall Street whine about how it is misunderstood is nothing new. It’s been going on for years (often in that same mag). But if Sherman’s piece heralds a new era of Wall Street complaining about how it is not only misunderstood but undercompensated, you’ll have to excuse me while I spend the next month or so vomiting into my shoes. 
 
 The financial services industry went from having a 19 percent share of America’s corporate profits decades ago to having a 41 percent share in recent years. That doesn’t mean bankers ever represented anywhere near 41 percent of America’s labor value. It just means they’ve managed to make themselves horrifically overpaid relative to their counterparts in the rest of the economy. 
 
 A banker's job is to be a prudent and dependable steward of other peoples’ money – being worthy of our trust in that area is the entire justification for their traditionally high compensation. 
 
 Yet these people have failed so spectacularly at that job in the last fifteen years that they’re lucky that God himself didn’t come down to earth at bonus time this year, angrily boot their asses out of those new condos, and command those Zagat-reading girlfriends of theirs to start getting acquainted with the McDonalds value meal lineup. They should be glad they’re still getting anything at all, not whining to New York magazine. ||||| The CEO of JPMorgan Chase survived a shareholder push Tuesday to strip him of the title of chairman of the board, five days after he disclosed a $2 billion trading loss by the bank. 
 
 Hillsborough Sheriff deputies patrol outside the gate of JPMorgan Chase annual stockholders meeting held Tuesday, May 15, 2012, in Tampa, Fla. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon will speak to shareholders... (Associated Press) 
 
 Protestors hold signs outside the gate of JP Morgan Chase annual stockholders meeting held Tuesday, May 15, 2012, in Tampa, Fla. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, facing shareholders five days after the... (Associated Press) 
 
 A poster of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is covered with eggs thrown by protesters, outside the gate of JP Morgan Chase annual stockholders meeting, Tuesday, May 15, 2012, in Tampa, Fla. JPMorgan Chase... (Associated Press) 
 
 Hillsborough Sheriff deputy patrols outside the gate of JP Morgan Chase annual stockholders meeting held Tuesday, May 15, 2012, in Tampa, Fla. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon will speak to shareholders... (Associated Press) 
 
 An employee checks in outside the gate of JPMorgan Chase annual stockholders meeting held Tuesday, May 15, 2012, in Tampa, Fla. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon will speak to shareholders five days after... (Associated Press) 
 
 CEO Jamie Dimon also won a shareholder endorsement of his pay package from last year, which totaled $23 million, according to an Associated Press analysis of regulatory filings. 
 
 Dimon, unusually subdued, told shareholders at the JPMorgan annual meeting that the company's mistakes were "self-inflicted." Speaking with reporters later, he added: "The buck always stops with me." 
 
 Most of the shareholder ballots were cast in the weeks before Dimon revealed the trading loss. 
 
 His pay package passed with 91 percent of the vote. The vote to strip him of the chairman's title won only 40 percent support. The bank did not announce separate results from before and after the loss was revealed. 
 
 Dimon was confronted at the meeting by shareholders upset about the trading loss, which has rattled investor confidence in the bank and complicated JPMorgan's efforts to fight tougher regulation of Wall Street. 
 
 Rev. Seamus Finn, representing shareholders from the Catholic organization Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, said that investors had heard Dimon apologize before for the foreclosure crisis and other problems. 
 
 "We heard the same refrain: We have learned from our mistakes. This will never be allowed to happen again," Finn said. "I can't help wondering if you are listening." 
 
 Lisa Lindsley, director of capital strategies for an influential union of public employees that is also a major JPMorgan shareholder, said independent board leadership was in shareholders' best interest. 
 
 "An all-powerful CEO is his own boss," she said. "Looking for an infallible CEO is a fool's errand." 
 
 Investors have pummeled JPMorgan's stock price since the loss was revealed. The stock lost 12 percent in two trading days and lost almost $20 billion in market value. It bounced back on Tuesday, rising 3 percent. 
 
 Dimon said he did not expect the trading loss to jeopardize JPMorgan's quarterly stock dividend, which is 30 cents per share. 
 
 There was a heavy police presence at the meeting, in an office park east of downtown Tampa. Protesters were there as well, including some who threw eggs at a poster with Dimon's picture on it. 
 
 "We wanted to let Jamie Dimon know how we feel about what big banks have done to our economy," said Marilyn Lyday, a member of the protest group Occupy Orlando. 
 
 Dimon got something of a vote of confidence from President Barack Obama, who appeared on ABC's "The View" for an episode airing Tuesday. Obama used the appearance to press for tighter regulation of Wall Street. 
 
 "JPMorgan is one of the best-managed banks there is," the president said. "Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we got, and they still lost $2 billion and counting." 
 
 Obama said the bank was "making bets" in the market for the complex financial instruments known as derivatives. Dimon has said the bank was hedging against financial risk. 
 
 A part of the 2010 financial overhaul legislation known as the Volcker rule would restrict banks from some trading for their own profit. Dimon and critics of the industry have disagreed over whether JPMorgan's trading would have violated that rule. 
 
 In Washington, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said JPMorgan's trading loss strengthens the case for tougher rules on financial institutions, as regulators continue writing rules from the 2010 law. 
 
 Geithner said that the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Obama administration are "going to take a very careful look" at the JPMorgan incident as they implement the rules. 
 
 "I'm very confident that we're going to be able to make sure those come out as tough and effective as they need to be," Geithner said. "And I think this episode helps make the case, frankly." 
 
 At the annual meeting for the investment bank Morgan Stanley, which took place Tuesday in upstate New York, CEO James Gorman appeared to allude to the JPMorgan trading loss when he said: "Events of the last few days remind us that risk levels remain high in the global markets." 
 
 He noted twice that Morgan Stanley has jettisoned or is in the process of dumping all of its businesses that do proprietary trading, or trading for the bank's own profit. 
 
 Gorman also said, unprompted, that the bank maintains the right to take back pay from executives who act improperly. Gorman was confronted by shouting protesters who said the loss at JPMorgan was proof that banks are out of touch with their customers. 
 
 On Monday, Ina Drew, JPMorgan's chief investment officer and one of the highest-ranking women on Wall Street, left the bank. Drew oversaw the trading group responsible for the $2 billion loss. 
 
 ___ 
 
 Pallavi Gogoi reported from New York. AP Business Writer Christina Rexrode contributed from New York and Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor from Washington.
– That sound you're hearing is probably Wall Street's tiniest violin playing for Jamie Dimon. As many expected, JPMorgan Chase's board slashed the CEO's salary in response to the "London Whale" disaster, dropping his incentive pay a backbreaking 53.5% to $10 million, leaving him a mere $11.5 million with which to feed his family, CNN Money reports. "As Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Dimon bears ultimate responsibility for the failures that led to the losses," the board wrote. Of course, the New York Times notes that the firm had an excellent year despite the Whale episode, with fourth quarter profit up 53% year-over-year. Maybe Dimon can cry on the shoulders of Morgan Stanley's traders and investment bankers, thousands of whom will be getting IOUs instead of cash bonuses this year, the Wall Street Journal reports. In response to the financial crisis, the bank is now breaking bonuses into four chunks, the last of which will come in 2016—if the employees are still with the bank. "I don't think there will be a lot of cheers on the trading floors of Morgan Stanley," one former Fed official remarked.