NEWS,14.07.2012

JPMorgan Traders May Have Hidden Losses, Could Face Criminal Charges

 

JPMorgan Chase & Co said its traders may have deliberately hidden losses that have since climbed to $5.8 billion for the year, in a development that may result in criminal charges against traders at the bank.The losses came from bets on corporate debt now known as the "London Whale" trades made at JPMorgan's Chief Investment Office. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said that in the worst-case scenario the derivatives trades would lose another $1.7 billion, and that the bank has fixed the CIO problems.Investors cheered the bank for capping losses and taking steps to ensure it avoids similar bad bets in the future. JPMorgan's shares rose nearly 6 percent on Friday.Even with the trading losses, JPMorgan earned nearly $5 billion overall in the second quarter, thanks to its strong performance in areas such as mortgage lending.The trading losses may be mostly over, but with the disclosure that traders may have lied about their losses, regulatory and legal consequences will linger for some time. Blame for the problems at the CIO office may go further up the management chain to some of the most senior executives at the firm, lawyers said.A source said that federal criminal investigators are looking at people at JPMorgan in London, where the CIO's risky bets were placed. The criminal investigation began in earnest in the past few weeks after JP Morgan's internal investigation uncovered that CIO traders may have intentionally masked losses, the source said."I see little doubt that someone is going to get charged with fraud," said Bill Singer, a lawyer at Herskovits in New York who provides legal counsel to securities industry firms, and publishes the BrokeandBroker website.Authorities ranging from the FBI to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission are probing the bank. The SEC could charge JPMorgan with weaknesses in oversight and internal controls, said James Cox, a securities law expert at Duke University."I think the SEC will continue to look at 'What exactly did Jamie Dimon know and when did he know it?'" Cox said.An internal review found that some of the CIO traders appear to have deliberately ignored the massive size of their trades - and the difficulty in liquidating them - when valuing their positions. The result was not reporting the full declines in the value of positions, which is forcing JPMorgan to restate its first-quarter results. The bank is cooperating with authorities.The trading losses and possible deception from traders are a black eye for Dimon, who was respected for keeping his bank consistently profitable during the financial crisis. Dimon, who has criticized regulators for meddling too much with banks, has lost credibility because of difficulties in his own house."How do we know there are not more roaches in the kitchen?" said Paul Miller, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets, referring to the maxim that seeing a single roach typically means there are far more hiding in the woodwork.The Chief Investment Office became infamous in May when JPMorgan said bad derivatives bets had triggered about $2 billion of paper losses, a figure that turned into $4.4 billion of actual losses in the second quarter.One trader in the CIO, Bruno Iksil, took big enough positions in the credit derivatives markets to earn the nickname "The London Whale." He made at least some of the big bets that caused trouble for the bank, and has since left JPMorgan, a source said on Friday.Ina Drew, who headed the CIO, has also left, and offered to give back as much of her pay as the bank was contractually entitled take back, said Dimon, whose pay could be taken back as well. A spokesman for the bank said JPMorgan had accepted Drew's offer.The bank said it had moved the bad trades from the CIO, which invests some of the company's excess funds, to its investment bank. JPMorgan was one of the inventors of credit derivatives, and its investment bank is one of the biggest traders of the product on Wall Street.The CIO will now focus on conservative investments, JPMorgan said. The bank has taken a number of other steps to prevent these types of losses from repeating, including changing the way it limits risk taking in the CIO's office."People feel good that the loss is largely contained at this point," said Nancy Bush, a banking analyst at independent research firm NAB Research.JPMorgan said later on Friday that its former CIO risk officer, Irvin Goldman, had resigned. Goldman "behaved with integrity and we wish him well," JPMorgan said.JPMorgan's shares rose $2.03 to close at $36.07 on the New York Stock Exchange.THE TEMPEST LEAVES THE TEAPOT The bank posted second-quarter net income of $4.96 billion, or $1.21 a share, compared with $5.43 billion, or $1.27 a share, a year earlier.The derivative loss after taxes reduced earnings per share by 69 cents, the company said.JPMorgan said it expected to file new, restated first-quarter results in the coming weeks, reflecting a $459 million reduction of income because of bad valuations on some of its trading positions. The bank found material problems with its financial controls during the period.The bank said its internal investigation combed through over a million emails, tens of thousands of taped conversations, and other evidence. It learned that some traders may have intended not to value their trading positions at the proper levels.In particular, the traders recorded the value of their trades at current market prices, rather than prices they would get if they liquidated their large positions, in an effort to avoid reporting their full paper losses.The bank made trades that were intended to protect it against the credit markets tanking, but allowed those positions to morph into bets on credit markets getting better.Friday's financial report came three months to the day after Dimon, 56, told stock analysts that news reports about Iksil and looming losses in London were a "tempest in a teapot."That remark, which Dimon told Congress last month was "dead wrong," added to the damage the loss has done to his reputation and his argument that his bank is not too big to be managed safely.A host of international regulators and agencies are probing the trading mishap. Besides the FBI and the SEC, they the UK's Financial Services Authority, the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the U.S. Treasury's Office for the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Libor Scandal May Hit U.S. Banks Harder Than Their British Counterparts

 

Barclays Plc and other UK banks may escape lighter than their U.S. rivals if shareholders seek damages in the wake of an interest rate-rigging scandal, because such cases are costlier and harder to win in Britain.Cases pursued in America by investors alleging they suffered a loss because of the wrongdoing of a financial institution, will often be deemed ineligible to be heard in U.S. courts when the bank in question is foreign, legal experts said.But if investors opt to take their cases to UK courts, they will find Britain's legal structures make such claims harder to win, costlier and riskier."Would we like to sue Barclays in the New York courts weknow well and we're very good at prosecuting in? Sure. But we're not going to because this is a UK situation," said Dominic Auld, a litigation expert at U.S. law firm Labaton Sucharow.Since Barclays admitted its role in manipulating the London interbank offered rate (Libor), lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic are taking calls from investors."I did take a call this morning from an institutional investor who is interested in looking at litigation both from a UK perspective and the U.S ... I expect there will be a good deal of similar interest," said Owen Watkins, a barrister in the corporate department of London law firm Lewis Silkin.More than a dozen banks are being investigated for their roles in setting Libor, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Deutsche Bank, HSBC Holdings Plc , UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland..Morgan Stanley analysts have calculated the litigation risk to each of the 16 banks involved in setting Libor, an estimate of the rate at which banks could lend to each other and a benchmark for setting many other types of loans, at between $60 million to $1.1 billion. But lawyers say that while it was once commonplace for European investors to issue proceedings in the States, this transatlantic "legal tourism" was brought to an effective end in 2010 by a Supreme Court ruling in the United States.In a case brought against National Australia Bank, the court ruled U.S. securities laws do not have jurisdiction over so-called "F cubed" cases involving foreign investors and a foreign company traded on a non-U.S. market In the case of Barclays, only about 4 percent of its market capitalisation is traded in the U.S. in the form of American Depository Receipts. Any pursuit of meaningful damages from investment losses related to falls in Barclays' share price caused by the scandal will have to be carried out in Britain."Bringing proceedings here is not easy because there are various questions about causation. But most importantly Barclays would fight hard and you take a substantial risk in relation to costs that you would have to pay if you lost," said David Greene, senior partner at London-based law firm Edwin Coe.Furthermore, proceedings by institutional investors are rare and run against the traditions of the City of London financial district which had in part prompted disgruntled investors to make claims in the United States until it was halted by the F-cubed ruling."I don't think that sort of thing would be held in a UK court. I think they would just say the nature of the capital markets is shares go down as well as up. It's the guiding principle here," said one institutional investor who declined to be named because he is a major Barclays shareholder.