JP Morgan $13 billion hit

October 22, 2013

JPMorgan ChaseBy Harry Blutstein

Bankers don’t casually hand over US$13 billion to regulators without reason.

Needless to say eyebrows were raised on Wall Street following reports JPMorgan Chase has agreed to hand over a record “fine” to the Department of Justice.

While it is believed a deal has been done, no official statement has been made.

It’s likely JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon and the company’s brains trust have decided this settlement is the best deal they can get, and much preferable to having the evidence presented in open court.

Instead, they will be able to sign off on an agreed statement of facts that the bank’s negotiators will undoubtedly make sure minimizes damage to the bank’s reputation and its exposure to liabilities to the people and organizations harmed by its behavior.

The case revolves around practices of packaging bad mortgages into securities.

In particular, it has been alleged that JPMorgan palmed off US$33 billion in toxic mortgage bonds to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 7 September 2005 to September 2007.

The bank’s behavior was even more galling as most of these transactions were completed before the crisis hit, and JPMorgan continued to record profits during 2008, when most of its competitors were tottering of the edge of insolvency.

JPMorgan may have dodged the bullet through some fleet footwork, but its role in creating the munitions that triggered the global financial crisis should not be forgotten. In 1997 it invented credit default swaps (CDS), which Warren Buffet warned represented “financial weapons of mass destruction,” and so they proved.

The settlement will come out of US$23 billion in “litigation reserves” that has been set aside, which suggests JPMorgan believes there is more pain to come.

Cases are pending over a US$6 billion loss caused by trading by the “London Whale” and an investigation into whether JPMorgan engaged in bribery by hiring of the children of Chinese officials.

Could this be the start of a more aggressive approach by the Department of Justice, and who might be next?

This development may assuage criticism of the government for going soft on bankers, but is it likely to stay the course? Lawrence McDonald, a former Lehman Brothers trading Vice President, suggests it will be difficult for the government to maintain its hard line because it will be dependent on the large banks should another crisis hit the world’s economy.

He recalled a deal done in 2008, when Hank Paulson, the then Secretary of the Treasury, pressured JPMorgan to purchase Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, which were about to go under.

“In the next financial crisis, the JPMorgan of the future, the Jamie Dimon in 2020 or 2018, I think they say, ‘this is your problem – I’m not going to put my balance sheet at risk’.”

Such speculation underlies the fact that with the banking system in the hands of just a few, the government is dependent on their goodwill should another crisis occur.

The best way to judge the settlement is to consider not only whether it provides an adequate remedy for sins of the past, but whether it acts as a warning to others that future miscreants will be severely dealt with. The size of the fine certainly sends out a strong message.

The message has been heard by JP Morgan, which has put on an additional 3,000 compliance officers and pumped more than US$1 billion into technology-related compliance systems in 2013.

More significantly, the fact that the Department of Justice has signaled it will not provide indemnity against criminal action is likely to leave a lasting impression on Wall Street. The question now is, will US Attorney General Eric Holder have the courage to carry through with his threat, and will we see the sobering picture of bankers changing their Armani suits for orange jumpsuits any time soon?

This article was originally published at The Conversation.

3 Comments for this entry

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks for this entry

  • Peter Spender

    Although I’m not an attorney, I would think that the burden of proof for banning someone from financial services for life would be much lower than what you’d need to put them in prison. And I suspect that the deterrent effect of in essence being kicked out of the 1% and spending the rest of your trying to earn an honest living in the dwindling middle class would quite high.

  • Pups

    I hope it does go to court. We might learn some very interesting facts most people don’t know.

Leave a Reply

partners:

Even more troubling, nearly sixteen million Americans must now travel at least thirty minutes or prada sunglasses for women more to reach a trauma center. Over the weekend prada sunglasses for women a new feature of Hulu was added - and then Cartier Sunglasses Men taken away. It is in light of this recently begun and still on-going exposure of the habitual and commonplace pederasty of priests that I find the Catholic Republican candidate for the Presidency's remarks about freedom of religion to be quite ingenuous. prada sunglasses for women Just recently I was told they finally found a prada sunglasses for women few bones after prada sunglasses for women many years of being buried in the sand. Although the fish were biting, I threw the boys in the car and raced down the canyon.

At some point, the crowd became restless and then they stormed forward, breaking down doors, tearing up papers and knocking over furniture. Cartier Sunglasses Men In addition to Assad stepping down and the observer mission continuing, the Arab League plan has called for the removal of heavy Cartier glasses weaponry out of the cities of Syria, including the capital, Damascus, an end on attacks on protesters, especially peaceful, unarmed protesters. During the observer's mission, nearly one thousand people were killed, including louis vuitton sunglasses women a large number of women