« FFFT Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: JPMorgan lobbied for big loophole on risky trading  

By: oldCADuser in FFFT | Recommend this post (2)
Sat, 12 May 12 5:24 PM | 38 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Food For Further Thought
Msg. 41842 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 41841 by clo)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Not a whole lot different than Wal-Mart lobbying to change the foreign bribery laws while they were handing out money to Mexican officials to gain favorable treatment South of the border.




Avatar

OCU


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
JPMorgan lobbied for big loophole on risky trading
By: clo
in FFFT
Sat, 12 May 12 2:45 PM
Msg. 41841 of 65535

When you have behavior like this, from the 'best in the business', I am stunned the Market has ANY credibility & am surprised 'investors' haven't run for the hills.

JPMorgan lobbied for big loophole on risky trading

Portfolio hedging 'is a license to do pretty much anything,' says Senator Levin, co-author of financial regulatory law
By EDWARD WYATT, NY Times

WASHINGTON — Soon after lawmakers finished work on the nation’s new financial regulatory law, a team of JPMorgan Chase lobbyists descended on Washington. Their goal was to obtain special breaks that would allow banks to make big bets in their portfolios, including some of the types of trading that led to the $2 billion loss now rocking the bank.

Several visits over months by the bank’s well-connected chief executive, Jamie Dimon, and his top aides were aimed at persuading regulators to create a loophole in the law, known as the Volcker Rule. The rule was designed by Congress to limit the very kind of proprietary trading that JPMorgan was seeking.

Even after the official draft of the Volcker Rule regulations was released last October, JPMorgan and other banks continued their full-court press to avoid limits.

JPMorgan's blunder amplifies calls for tighter regulation

In early February, a group of JPMorgan executives met with Federal Reserve officials and warned that anything but a loose interpretation of the trading ban would hurt the bank’s hedging activities, according to a person with knowledge of the meeting. In the past, the bank argued that it needed to hedge risk stemming from its large retail banking business, but it has also said that it supported portions of the Volcker Rule. 

In the February meeting was Ina Drew, the head of JPMorgan’s chief investment office, the unit that suffered the $2 billion loss.

JPMorgan officials declined to comment for this article. But in the company’s annual report, Mr. Dimon wrote: “If the intent of the Volcker Rule was to eliminate pure proprietary trading and to ensure that market making is done in a way that won’t jeopardize a financial institution, we agree.”
Video: Dimon: ‘We know we were sloppy’ (on this page)
He added: “We, however, do disagree with some of the proposed specifics because we think they could have huge negative unintended consequences for American competitiveness and economic growth.”

Loophole so big a 'truck could drive through'
JPMorgan wasn’t the only large institution making a special plea, but it stood out because of Mr. Dimon’s prominence as a skilled Washington operator and because of his bank’s nearly unblemished record during the financial crisis.

“JPMorgan was the one that made the strongest arguments to allow hedging, and specifically to allow this type of portfolio hedging,” said a former Treasury official who was present during the Dodd-Frank debates.

Those efforts produced “a big enough loophole that a Mack truck could drive right through it,” Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who co-wrote the legislation that led to the Volcker Rule, said Friday after the disclosure of the JPMorgan loss.

The loophole is known as portfolio hedging, a strategy that essentially allows banks to view an investment portfolio as a whole and take actions to offset the risks of the entire portfolio. That contrasts with the traditional definition of hedging, which matches an individual security or trading position with an inversely related investment — so when one goes up, the other goes down. 

more:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47396967/ns/business-us_business/


« FFFT Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next