Showing posts with label london whale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label london whale. Show all posts

Wednesday, 30 July 2014

Bad Banks: Greed, Incompetence and the Next Global Crisis review – a rogues' gallery of financial scandal

Bad Banks: Greed, Incompetence and the Next Global Crisis review – a rogues' gallery of financial scandal

Alex Brummer's demolition job on the scandals of the last 10 years is a work of controlled menace


bad banks review brummer
Just say no: Cypriots protesting against an EU bailout deal outside parliament, Nicosia, March 2013. Photograph: Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images
Just under a decade ago I found myself in common cause with an unlikely ally. The middle of the 2000s marked the second coming of the "loadsamoney" culture that had first reared its head when Margaret Thatcher set the markets free in the 1980s. The big bang was by 2007-08 to lead to the spectacular big bust. But on its eve nobody seemed too bothered: except two print titles, the New Statesman (which I was editing) and the Daily Mail. The paper that liberal Britain loves to hate was the first to get hot under the collar about the banks and their bonuses. Week after week it would fulminate against the spivs and the crooks who were gambling recklessly on individual and corporate debt. Week after week I found that my magazine was in agreement. And so I hired as a columnist the Mail's city editor, Alex Brummer, and the meeting of minds was complete.


I have long since departed that scene, but Brummer continues faithfully to ply his trade at the Mail. He has turned his reporting of the rogues' gallery into a book, Bad Banks, and has produced a superlatively dispiriting work. Like a surgeon at his operating table, Brummer dissects each British, American and European scandal of the last 10 years. He spares nobody, but his demolition job is made all the more powerful by the sparing language he deploys towards his targets. This is controlled menace at its best.
The author works backwards, starting with the most colourful and recent target of his paper's stable, the Rev Paul Flowers, chairman of the ethical bank, the Co-op, aka the Crystal Methodist. Only last November, the Mail on Sunday exposed Flowers for his drugs and sex habits. That humiliation laid bare the extent of the complacency and obduracy at the heart of Co-op governance. We had all come to believe that Wall Street and the City might lack a moral compass, but not the Co-op, surely? Brummer concedes that in terms of scale, the scandal was minor compared with the bill of £18bn for wrongful selling of insurance by all the high-street banks, the money-laundering fiasco at HSBC, and Libor rigging by Barclays. But he adds: "The elements that make up the scandal are worryingly reminiscent of other banking disasters in recent years, and demonstrate that in this sector at least history had – and still has – a habit of repeating itself."
Brummer provides a tour d'horizon of malpractice. The higher the reputation, the further is the fall. The author homes in on JP Morgan Chase, "a patrician bank with an enviable record", and its chairman and chief executive Jamie Dimon. Few bankers were more revered; Dimon visited the Obama White House 16 times. Whenever he appeared on Wall Street's favourite cable channel, CNBC, they rolled out the "Money Honey"correct, anchor Maria Bartiromo, whose job it was "to provide the suitably unchallenging questions". Dimon hated being challenged, not least over the billions the bank lost in a scam dubbed the London Whale. The deeper the bank was mired in scandal, the higher his pay rose, reaching a staggering $20m for 2013. Note the year: this was not before the global financial crisis. His package was awarded, as many others in the US and UK have been, long after governments declared that "lessons had been learned" and supervision had been tightened.
Continental Europe was just as bad. The supposedly upright Dutch were forced to inject almost €65bn to rescue the industry, including bailing out insurers ING and Aegon and nationalising what remained of ABN Amro after its disastrous merger with RBS. The statist French took to the freewheeling antics of the City of London with considerable aplomb, as Brummer explains with pen portraits of some of its cavalier bankers.
In July 2012, in the same month that Barclays and its famously combative boss, Bob Diamond, became embroiled in the Libor rate-fixing scandal, the US Senate's subcommittee on investigations issued an excoriating report on HSBC. It accused the bank of being a conduit for "drug kingpins and rogue nations" in Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others, from 2001 to 2009. For eight years, in spite of board meetings, annual general meetings, HR departments and other mechanisms for corporate governance, the bank was involved in brazen criminal activity.
It was not just the investment side of the banks' operations – the so-called casino part of the banks – that were up to no good. The "customer-friendly", good old retail divisions were not averse to dodgy dealings. Between 2006 and 2011, 16m payment protection insurance policies were sold, most of them mis-sold, in other words fobbed off at a high premium to unsuspecting customers, and rarely to be recouped. In 2012, banks desperate to salvage their reputations were sending out up to 10,000 compensation cheques a day.
The great strength in this book lies in the detail. Indeed, so deeply involved does Brummer become in the minutiae of scandals, it is sometimes hard for the lay reader to disentangle one from the other, and to make sense of the bigger picture. The author does bring it all together in the conclusion, making clear, as the subtitle of the book attests, that repetition is inevitable. It is just a matter of time. Governments have tinkered with regulation; they have rapped various individuals over the knuckles, but they remain as supine in the face of the financial services sector as they have ever been. Only in Ireland and Iceland have individuals actually been jailed. Most of the bankers who oversaw wrongdoing remain in situ and continue to be rewarded handsomely for their efforts.
Brummer gives the last word to Justin Welby. Invoking the Archbishop of Canterbury might, at first glance, seem curious, but Welby spent 11 years as an oil executive and served on a parliamentary commission on banking. He notes he has heard nothing to convince him that the bankers were contrite, that the institutions they served had truly changed their nature, or that there had been a revolution in banking practice. He then muses: "At the heart of good banks have to be good people." Given everything that has happened; given the ease with which billions of dollars can be transferred around the world at the flick of a mouse, the idea of leaving moral rectitude to the individual's conscience seems just a touch naive.
John Kampfner's new book, The Rich, a 2000-year History, is published by Little Brown in October.

Saturday, 9 February 2013

What JPMorgan's Recently Released Internal Reports Unintentionally Say


GET UPDATES FROM John Fullerton
 
Posted: 02/06/2013 3:45 pm
It is true; JPMorgan reported a strong financial performance in 2012, "London Whale" trading fiasco notwithstanding. I must admit that despite my 18 years inside the firm (when it had a meager $300 billion balance sheet), I struggle to comprehend $100 billion of revenues, and a $2.3 trillion balance sheet, with an "off-balance sheet" managed by a few handfuls of mostly male, mostly 30-something traders that is many orders of magnitude larger. Maybe I'm a dinosaur. Life goes on.
Not so fast.
Two recently released JPMorgan internal reports on the causes of the $6 billion (and apparently still counting) trading losses in the Chief Investment Office ("CIO") are quite revealing in two ways: first, for what they intend to say, and second, for what they unintentionally say to anyone paying attention.
Of course what is left unsaid has tremendous bearing on how our "life will go on" as well. The context of this trading fiasco -- post Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), post taxpayer bailout, post Dodd Frank, post Volcker Rule, post robo-signing, post foreclosure settlement, post Libor scandal, mid-money laundering scandal, mid-global "depression" -- reveals the irreverent audacity of JPMorgan, in case there was any doubt. Also left unsaid is the self-evident conclusion that even the most "well managed" mega-bank is too big and complex to manage, govern, or regulate as bankers privately acknowledge to me all the time, and some, like Sandy Weill and John Reed, say publicly.
What the detailed reports intend to say is that 1) the Board acted properly, and in fact was given false and inadequate information, but nevertheless, can improve its (impossible) oversight function, 2) the CIO screwed up -- conflicted mandate, fundamental incompetence and capable of gross dishonesty when under pressure -- perhaps even fraud, and 3) the firm's risk controls were inadequate -- people, limits, models and communication. Over a hundred pages of details when juxtaposed against lessons learned from the 2008 financial crisis, as well as the 1998 LTCM crisis, makes sober reading for proponents of self-regulatory discipline and strong regulatory advocates alike.
The report also says a few things that, remarkably, didn't even raise the pen of internal censure -- that is how lost JPMorgan is in its own rationalization of its business practices. Most blatant, the Report of the Review Committee of the Board, in an apparent attempt to justify the activity by illuminating the pre-"London Whale" track record of the now defunct CIO (which thoughtful observers saw as an earnings smoothing prop desk speculating with tax payer insured deposits on an unprecedented scale in violation of at least the spirit of the Volcker Rule), states that:
The CIO's "[t]actical credit strategies, which included both cash and derivative positions, had contributed approximately $2.8 billion in "economic value" from inception, with an average annualized return on equity of 100%."
"Tactical credit strategies" that produced $2.8 billion in "economic value," with no mention of the underlying positions it was designed to hedge, certainly can't be confused with "hedging" -- recall Dimon referred to the "London Whale" trade as a "hedge that morphed into a trade." This revealing (incriminating?) statement is an attempt to imply that Dimon's (unique to the industry) CIO operation under his direct supervision created tremendous value as a profit center. Until it didn't.
More telling, the report that undoubtedly received tremendous internal scrutiny before its release, says that this $2.8 billion in trading gains earned an average annualized return on equity of 100 percent since inception! No joke. Anyone think Warren Buffett would find it credible that Ina Drew and the crew that couldn't shoot straight compounded returns on equity at an annualized 100 percent? Frightening really.
If you're not afraid yet, footnote 74 of the Report casually mentions that a junior risk manager "had noticed that the notional exposures (of credit default insurance contracts) at CIO were very large, totaling about $10 trillion in each direction." Think about that statement: The "Chief Investment Office", set up by Dimon to manage excess deposits of a couple hundred billion dollars that should be prudently invested in low risk, liquid securities, and, to ostensibly hedge the "tail risk" of the firm's $700 billion loan portfolio, had built up trading positions in credit default swaps amounting to $10 trillion...in each direction.
Any director qualified to genuinely govern JPMorgan (no easy feat) should have immediately demanded an independent review of the firm's risk metrics -- more on this below -- and of its capital allocation methodology that generated the patently false 100 percent return on equity calculation when it was first presented to the Board back in 2010. Without a satisfactory explanation (like perhaps, "it sounds crazy, but we monetize in part our too big to fail subsidy in this book"), such an implausible claim should have been seen as a flashing red warning signal for the $6 billion disaster it would become -- "if it sounds too good to be true" -- and grounds for an immediate termination of duties.
The second revealing message the report conveys without intending to is that despite the lessons learned from the LTCM failure, the three industry led comprehensive "post mortem" reports on that crisis, and from the subsequent financial meltdown of 2008 -- all of which point to an over-reliance on Value at Risk (VAR) metrics as a root cause of the systemic crises -- JPMorgan was apparently using and no doubt continues to use VAR models as its primary risk metric across the entire firm, including the non-linear risk of credit default swaps that VAR can't measure. The report also makes it clear that traders game the models to generate the outcomes they want, but that is not news to anyone familiar with modern Wall Street's culture.
The unspoken reason firms like JPMorgan continue to use VAR metrics despite fully understanding their shortcomings is because to use robust stress-test based capital at risk models (like any sophisticated hedge fund that operates in the real free market uses) leads to the conclusion that many trading businesses do not generate adequate returns on properly accounted for risk capital (much less the patently absurd 100 percent returns on equity claimed by JPMorgan's CIO). And that means no casino finance underwritten by taxpayers, and of course no obscene bonuses for clever fools.
The transparent discussion of VAR models in the Report seems oblivious to the reality that their very use as the primary risk metric for managing firm-wide risk, when combined with the banker lobbies doing their work to undermine tougher capital and liquidity requirements for "systemically important financial institutions," virtually ensures more crises to come that will require tax payer bailouts. This revelation should send "we the people," saddled with the crushing debt overhang from the prior recession, into the streets. That regulators condone the continued use of these models and get pushed around on tougher capital and liquidity limits can only mean one thing: they have concluded that it's simply too dangerous to the system to reveal that the emperor has no clothes.
But all is not lost. In an unlikely alliance in our dysfunctional Congress, Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat from Ohio and Senator David Vitter, Republican from Louisiana are on the case behind the scenes in what could emerge as financial reform 2.0, including perhaps even a move to break up the big banks.
And life goes on.
 

Follow John Fullerton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CapInstitute