JP Morgan: The Whale Wagging the Dog

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.

JP Morgan Chase revealed yesterday that one of its traders, Bruno Iksil (known as the London whale), was responsible for a $2 billion loss in the last six weeks. Apparently, little has changed since 2008, when the irresponsible activities of the big banks and trading houses almost brought down the world financial system.

Iksil's trading was hardly secret. His positions were well-known among traders and Bloomberg published an article about their high-risk nature on April 5th. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase (JPM), dismissed the report as overblown. Amazingly, the massive losses took place in a portfolio that was supposed to hedge against risks. Because of this, the company claims that these trades would not have violated the Volcker Rule — designed to curtail risky trading by banks and prevent just such occurrences. The Volcker Rule is not scheduled to be enforced by the Federal Reserve until 2014 as is. Jamie Dimon has been one of its major critics.

Jamie Dimon does as he pleases as is. He jumped the gun on the Fed's stress test announcements in March by announcing JPMorgan Chase had passed. The Fed was then forced to release the rest of the information early. Communication's problems were cited for the foul-up. Apparently, Dimon didn't read the memo about the announcement schedule. He sits on the board of the New York Fed (for a list of directors, see: http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/org_nydirectors.html). All of the Fed's regional boards have three representatives from the banks they "regulate".

JP Morgan was quick to point out that no laws were broken by the activities that led to the $2 billion trading loss ($2 billion so far that is). The public should be very worried about this. When banks are considered "too big to fail" and expect bailouts when they screw up, the public is the one that pays. The liquidity that JP Morgan Chase and all the other big banks are trading with comes directly from the Fed, supported by its zero interest rate policies (free money) and quantitative easing (fake money). Even though the trading loss indicates serious problems in the financial system, the U.S. stock market was up minutes after it opened. And why not?  It knows the Federal Reserve will make up the losses one way or the other and if that's not enough, it expects more government bailout money for the banks. 

The Fed followed the same strategy in 2008 and still a major collapse took place. Central banks do not have unlimited resources and when the rot builds up too much in the system, everything falls apart. The public today is also not likely to put up with another massive bank bailout. In 1998, it took only one overleveraged hedge fund — Long-Term Capital — to almost bring down the financial system. Today, there are potentially any number of banks and hedge funds that represent major risks.  JP Morgan's trading losses indicate little has been done since 2008 to prevent the next market meltdown. 

Disclosure: None

Daryl Montgomery
Author: "Inflation Investing - A Guide for the 2010s"
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. There is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Inconsistencies of the Economic 'Recovery'

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. In addition to the term helicopter economics, we have also coined the term, helicopternomics, to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and to update the old-fashioned term wheelbarrow economics.

Our Video Related to this Blog:

What created the Credit Crisis and the current 20 month recession (the longest since World War II) was the collapse in price of all the worthless real estate paper the was issued during the bubble years. As this blog mentioned yesterday, this problem has recently gotten 'better' because the accounting rules that determine the value this paper were changed. While playing make-believe is appropriate for five year old children, it's not a good idea for running financial system and just leads to bigger disasters later on.

The support for the real estate 'recovery' is thin to say the least. U.S. house prices supposedly went up during the last three months. This occurred even though home loans are hard to get and U.S. wages and salaries were down 4.7% year over year in June. This was the largest drop since records began in 1960. Employment is also down. As was mentioned last Friday, the unemployment rate dropped by 0.1% because a large number of people left the labor force. No matter how you look at it fewer people have a job. So who are these people who are paying higher prices for houses and what banks are lending them the money? All in all is seems highly unlikely that house prices could actually be going up given such conditions. If not, this set of numbers wouldn't be the only ones that have been altered recently to make them look better.

The other inconsistency in the real estate is getting better is that this was a drag on the big banks and brokers earnings in the second quarter. Many of them were increasing loan loss provisions. Fannie Mae, whose business is purely real estate related, illustrates the current state of affairs quite clearly. Fannie Mae lost $14.8 billion in the second quarter. Provisions for credit losses were $18.8 billion. The company stated in its earnings "We are experiencing increases in delinquency and default rates for our entire guaranty book of business, including on loans with fewer risk layers."In other words, all types of loans are going down the tubes including the prime ones. Total non-performing loans increased to $171 billion in the second quarter. They were up from $149.9 billion in the first quarter of this year and that was up from $119.2 billion in the last quarter of 2008. Well, that certainly looks like a recovery pattern, doesn't it?

Fannie Mae has requested an additional $10.7 billion from the U.S. Treasury to keep afloat. That it can get by this quarter with only an additional $10.7 billion cash infusion from the government seems optimistic. The company is essentially a bottomless pit for bailout funds. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's criteria for non-performing loans were changed around the beginning of the Credit Crisis to make it more difficult for a loan to be considered non-performing. Even with this fantasy, things still are getting worse. Somehow reality always seems to always get in the way of the government's best plans.

NEXT: More on the Real Estate 'Recovery'

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.