So, some big banks like JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup had to make plans on how they would stop working if they faced a big problem. These plans are called 'living wills'. But the people who watch over these banks (called regulators) found out that these plans were not good enough. They said the banks need to fix their plans by September, or else it might cause problems for everyone else in the world of money. Read from source...

1. The title of the article is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that regulators are harshly criticizing the living will plans of JPMorgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs. However, upon reading the article, it becomes clear that only the FDIC chided Citigroup for a significant deficiency, while the Fed assigned minor shortcomings to the other three banks. The title should reflect this nuance and not suggest a collective and severe censure of all four banks.

2. The article focuses too much on the details of the living will plans and the flaws found by regulators without providing sufficient context or background information. For example, it does not explain what a living will plan is, why it is required under Dodd-Frank, or how these plans are supposed to prevent another financial crisis. Readers who are unfamiliar with the concept might be confused or disinterested by the technical jargon and the specific shortcomings of each bank's derivatives contracts.

3. The article also lacks balance and objectivity in its presentation of the regulators' perspectives. It only quotes the FDIC and the Fed, but does not include any statements or opinions from the banks themselves, their investors, or other relevant stakeholders. This makes the article seem one-sided and biased against the banks, as if they are solely responsible for the flaws in their living will plans. A more balanced approach would have included the banks' responses to the criticisms and any mitigating factors that might explain or justify their shortcomings.

4. The article uses emotive language and negative phrases throughout, such as "chided," "shortcoming," "deficiency," "critics," "flaws," "problems," and "weaknesses." This creates a tone of criticism and disapproval that might influence readers' perceptions of the banks and their living will plans. A more neutral and objective tone would have been preferable, especially since the article is supposed to be informative rather than persuasive or opinionated.

5. The article does not provide any insights or analysis into the implications or consequences of the regulators' criticisms for the banks themselves, their shareholders, their customers, or the broader financial system. It simply reports the facts without making any connections or drawing any conclusions about what these flaws might mean for the stability and resilience of these institutions in times of crisis. A more useful article would have explored how these living will plans could be improved, what steps the banks are taking to address their shortcomings, and how the regulators' oversight can help prevent another financial crisis.

Negative

Explanation: The article discusses the shortcomings of the 'living wills' of four major banks - JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup. These living wills are required by regulators to ensure that these banks can be wound down in case of a crisis without endangering the larger financial system. The article highlights that all four banks have been chided by regulators for their weaknesses in this regard. This is a negative sentiment, as it indicates that there are concerns about the stability and risk management of these banks. Additionally, the article mentions that Citigroup has significant flaws in its resolution plan and has not addressed data integrity issues, which further contributes to the negative sentiment.

{create a table, summarize the main points}

The article discusses the shortcomings of the living wills of four major banks: JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup. These living wills are plans that outline how these banks could be wound down in case of a crisis without endangering the larger financial system. The regulators found flaws in their derivatives contracts and resolution plans, raising doubts about their feasibility. The FDIC chastised Citigroup most for its uncredible or problematic resolution plan. All four banks must report to regulators on how they will correct these issues by September.

Based on this information, I would recommend the following investment strategies and risks:

| Bank | Investment Strategy | Risks |
| JPMorgan | Focus on improving their derivatives contracts and resolution plan testing | Regulatory scrutiny, potential fines, loss of reputation |
| Bank of America | Strengthen the resilience of their derivatives portfolio and address data management issues | Similar risks as JPMorgan |
| Goldman Sachs | Enhance transparency in their derivatives transactions and provide more details on trade-level information | Same risks as above banks |
| Citigroup | Address the data integrity and resolution plan credibility problems, as well as the flaws in their derivatives portfolio | Higher risks due to more severe criticism from regulators |

To summarize, all four banks face significant challenges in improving their living wills and addressing the flaws in their derivatives contracts. Investors should monitor the progress of these banks in correcting their issues and be aware of the potential consequences, such as regulatory scrutiny or fines. However, if they can successfully overcome these challenges, there may be opportunities for growth and profitability in the long term.