A CEO is ultimately accountable for what goes on under his watch - unless you're Jamie Dimon, that is.
Oswald Gruebel stepped down from the helm at UBS in September 2011, after the Kweku Adoboli rogue trading affair. The bank lost around $2.3bn due to an unauthorised trading scandal, and Gruebel said that he thought it was his duty to assume responsibility for the affair.
And Barclay Group CEO Bob Diamond resigned last July over the bank's involvement in the manipulation of interest rates - even though, during the time of the wrongdoing, he was heading the investment bank (which wasn't responsible for the setting of interest rates). The bank was fined $439m.
Now Jamie Dimon's JPMorgan Chase lost $6.2bn over the London Whale authorized trading loss, a strategy which some feel breached the spirit of Dodd-Frank, and an affair which appears to be characterised by a lack of controls and transparency. To add to the drama, Dimon originally described the loss as a 'tempest in a tea-cup', surely demonstrating how out of touch he was.
So, how come Diamond and Gruebel fell on their swords, yet Dimon remains firmly entrench in his role as Charman and CEO at JPMorgan Chase ?