2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss
||This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. (September 2013)|
In April and May 2012, large trading losses occurred at JPMorgan's Chief Investment Office, based on transactions booked through its London branch. The unit was run by Chief Investment Officer Ina Drew, who has since stepped down. A series of derivative transactions involving credit default swaps (CDS) were entered, reportedly as part of the bank's "hedging" strategy. Trader Bruno Iksil, nicknamed the London Whale, accumulated outsized CDS positions in the market. An estimated trading loss of $2 billion was announced, with the actual loss expected to be substantially larger. These events gave rise to a number of investigations to examine the firm's risk management systems and internal controls.
In February 2012, hedge fund insiders such as Boaz Weinstein of Saba Capital Management became aware that the market in credit default swaps was possibly being affected by aggressive trading activities. The source of the unusual activity turned out to be Bruno Iksil, a trader for JPMorgan Chase & Co. Heavy opposing bets to his positions had been made by traders, including another branch of JPMorgan, who purchased the derivatives that JPMorgan was selling in such high volume. Early reports were denied and played down by the firm in an attempt to minimize exposure. Major losses of $2 billion were reported by the firm in May 2012 in relation to these trades. On July 13, 2012, the total loss was updated to $5.8 billion with the addition of a $4.4 billion loss in the second quarter and subsequent recalculation of a loss of $1.4 billion for the first quarter. A spokesman for the firm claimed that projected total losses could be more than $7 billion. The disclosure, which resulted in headlines in the media, did not disclose the exact nature of the trading involved, which remained in progress as of May 16, 2012 as JPMorgan's losses mounted and other traders sought to profit or avoid losses resulting from JPMorgan's positions. As of June 28, 2012, JPMorgan's positions were continuing to produce losses which could total as much as $9 billion under worst-case scenarios. The trades were possibly related to CDX IG 9, a credit default swap index based on the default risk of major U.S. corporations that has been described as a "derivative of a derivative". On the company's emergency conference call, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said the strategy was "flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed, and poorly monitored". The episode is being investigated by the Federal Reserve, the SEC, and the FBI.
On February 2, 2012, at the Harbor Investment Conference, speaking to an audience of investors, Boaz Weinstein recommended buying the Markit CDX North America Investment Grade Series 9 10-Year Index, CDX IG 9. This is a derivative that measures the spread (difference in interest rates) between the interest rates of investment-grade worthy companies and the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). This was a derivative which Weinstein had noticed to be losing value in a manner and to a degree which seemed to diverge from market expectations. It turned out that JPMorgan was shorting the index by making huge trades.  JPMorgan's bet was that credit markets would strengthen; the index is based on 121 investment grade bonds issued by North American corporations. Investors who followed Weinstein's tip did poorly during the early months of 2012 as JPMorgan strongly supported its position. However by May after investors became concerned about the implications of the European financial crisis the situation reversed and JPMorgan suffered large losses. In addition to Weinstein's Saba Capital Management, Blue Mountain Capital, BlueCrest Capital, Lucidus Capital Partners, CQS, III, and Hutchin Hill are hedge funds which are known to have benefited from taking the other side of the trade to JPMorgan. A separate unit of JPMorgan was also on the winning side.
The $2 billion loss came from three positions which partially offset each other. It occurred when the world's financial markets were in relative calm. Had quality spread curves twisted or worldwide economic distress been more pronounced the loss could have been much higher.
The Financial Times "Alphaville" analysis suggests that these positions were not volatile enough to account for the full losses reported. They suggest that other positions are likely involved as well.
The internal investigation concluded in July 2012. It involved more than 1,000 people across the firm and outside law firm WilmerHale. A report issued in January 2013 made the following "key observations"
- "CIO judgment, execution and escalation in the First Quarter of 2012 were poor"
- "The Firm did not ensure that the controls and oversight of CIO evolved commensurately with the increased complexity and risks of certain CIO activities"
- "CIO risk management was ineffective in dealing with synthetic credit portfolio"
- "Risk limits for CIO were not sufficiently granular"
- "Approval and implementation of CIO Synthetic Credit VaR Model were inadequate"
JPM organizational structure, risk systems, accounting and internal control
The trades occurred within the Chief Investment Office (CIO), where staff were reportedly "faithfully executing strategies demanded by the bank's risk management model". This unit is reported to have very wide latitude in otherwise unsupervised trading. The company had been without a treasurer for five months during the time of the trades and had a relatively inexperienced executive in charge of risk management in the CIO.
On May 10, Dimon announced loss of at least $2 billion through "egregious mistakes" in trading.
Impact on Volcker Rule implementation
The Volcker Rule, part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, bans high-risk trading inside commercial banking and lending institutions. The Volcker rule is sometimes referred to as a modern Glass-Steagall firewall that separates core banking system from higher-risk, hedge fund-style proprietary trading. The rule's implementation has been repeatedly delayed however, with analysts now predicting implementation in 2014 and lobbyists simultaneously pushing to delay it longer. The final version of the Volcker Rule is passed on December 10, 2013, which will be implemented in July 2015.
Lobby efforts and government relations
Bloomberg News and Robert Schmidt identified several people at JPM involved in the lobbying and its government relations response.
References and sources
- "JPMorgan discloses $2B in losses in 'flawed' hedging strategy". NBC. 10 May 2012. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
- Azam Ahmed (May 26, 2012). "The Hunch, the Pounce and the Kill: How Boaz Weinstein and Hedge Funds Outsmarted JPMorgan". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 May 5013.
- Celarier, Michelle (16 May 2012). "The man who beached 'Moby Iksil'". The New York Post. Retrieved 16 May 2012.
- Zuckerman, Gregory; Burne, Katy (April 6, 2012). "'London Whale' Rattles Debt Market". The Wall Street Journal.
- Azam Ahmed (May 15, 2012). "As One JPMorgan Trader Sold Risky Contracts, Another One Bought Them". The New York Times. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
- Jesse Eisinger (May 16, 2012). "In Scrutiny of JPMorgan Loss, Bigger Questions Left Unanswered". The New York Times. ProPublica. Retrieved May 17, 2012.
- Jessica Silver-Greenberg (July 13, 2012). "JPMorgan Fears Traders Obscured Losses in First Quarter" (Dealbook blog). The New York Times. Retrieved July 13, 2012. "On a conference call with analysts on Friday, Mr. Dimon said that the trade could result in another $1.7 billion in losses in the future, but added that the estimate was considering a worst-case situation."
- Nelson D. Schwartz; Jessica Silver-Greenberg (May 16, 2012). "JPMorgan’s Trading Loss Is Said to Rise at Least 50%". The New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2012.
- "JP Morgan's $2 Billion-Plus Loss Came On Three-Legged Trade". Dow Jones.
- Jessica Silver-Greenberg; Susanne Craig (June 28, 2012). "JPMorgan Trading Loss May Reach $9 Billion". The New York Times. Retrieved June 28, 2012.
- Katy Burne (April 10, 2012). "Making Waves Against 'Whale'". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
- Farah Khalique (May 11, 2012). "Chart of the Day: London Whale trading". Financial News. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
- "Crony Capitalism: After Lobbying Against New Financial Regulations, JPMorgan Loses $2B in Risky Bet". Democracy Now!. May 15, 2012. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
- Jessica Silver-Greenberg; Peter Eavis (May 10, 2012). "JPMorgan Discloses $2 Billion in Trading Losses". The New York Times. Retrieved May 16, 2012.
- "Two Billion Dollar Hedge" Financial Times.
- "More Bad News as FBI gets involved" Forbes.
- "JPMorgan's future losses at the mercy of an obscure index". The Economic Times. Reuters. May 17, 2012. Retrieved May 27, 2012.
- Julia La Roche (May 18, 2012). "I Was In The Room When Boaz Weinstein Revealed His Trade That Creamed JPMorgan". Business Insider. Retrieved May 27, 2012.
- Lisa Du (May 19, 2012). "To Understand JPMorgan's Trading Fiasco You Have To Go Back To 2005". Business Insider. Retrieved May 27, 2012.
- Jacob Wolinsky. "How Hutchin Hill Took Down JPMorgan". Retrieved July 9, 2012.
- FT Alphaville High-Yield Tranche
- FT Alphavile Tracking Trades Down
- "Cold Eye Over 'Whale' Probe - J.P. Morgan Board Picked 'Tough as Nails' Director to Head Trading Inquiry". WSJ. August 20, 2012. Retrieved 22 August 2012.
- "Report of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Management Task Force Regarding 2012 CIO Losses", January 16, 2013. Accessed 25 June 2014
- Fitzpatrick, Dan; Steinberg, Julie (May 18, 2012). "Key Void at Top for J.P. Morgan". The Wall Street Journal. p. C1. Retrieved May 19, 2012.
- "Analysis: JPMorgan to be haunted by change in risk model". Reuters. Retrieved 5 May 5013.
- "Senate JPMorgan Probe Said to Seek Tougher Volcker Rule". Bloomberg. Retrieved 21 September 2012.
- "JPMorgan Drafts Republicans for Damage Control". Bloomberg / Business Week. 12 June 2012. Retrieved 12 June 2012.
- Further reading
- Levine, Matt (11 May 2012). "The Tale Of A Whale Of A Fail". Dealbreaker.
- External links
- JP Morgan Chase Whale Trades: A Case History of Derivatives Risks and Abuses: Hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, March 15, 2013, Vol. 1 Vol. 2