JPMorgan’s loss may cost all banks

JPMorgan sign The loss at JPMorgan could have far-reaching consequences

JPMorgan has a reputation for being one of the better managed and more cautious of the world's huge banks.

But that reputation has taken a serious knock with the disclosure last night that a trading desk in London has lost $2bn - and perhaps more - on deals in what are known as corporate credit derivatives, or insurance against the danger of loans to companies going bad.

I am not sure it helps that the bank's chief executive, Jamie Dimon, has been refreshingly frank, blaming "errors, sloppiness and bad judgement".

Strikingly, he has not said that these transactions, carried out for JPMorgan's own benefit (or disbenefit, as it turns out) through its chief investment office, were unauthorised or down to a putative "rogue trader".

These deals were supposed to be a so-called hedge, an attempt to reduce the risks taken by the bank. That is why the incident is more than a big embarrassment for JPMorgan, although - for the avoidance of doubt - it will put a dent in the bank's profits for 2012 but won't anywhere near eliminate them.

It is the surprise factor - the shock evinced by Mr Dimon - that will reignite the debate about whether regulators need to take more decisive action to curb the complexity of investment banks, to better prevent this kind of accident.

Apart from anything else, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal both highlighted the big credit-derivative positions being taken by JPMorgan in London a few weeks ago, and the bank rejected the suggestion that there were serious dangers here.

So the JPMorgan trading loss will resonate and reverberate.

In the US, it will strengthen the argument of those fighting a rearguard action from the banks to water down the Volcker rule, which is supposed to prevent banks taking big investments for their own account.

In the UK, it may mean revisiting whether the proposed ring fence between retail banking and investment banking is protection enough for essential banking services.

As for big global banks, they are engaged in a fraught debate with Moody's to dissuade the ratings agency from downgrading many of them, in a way that would make it much more expensive for them to borrow and would squeeze their profits.

JPMorgan's accident won't strengthen their case that they are less risky institutions than Moody's fears.

Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

How Labour pays for student fee cut

Labour would reduce tax relief for those earning £150,000 or more a year, shrink maximum pension pots to £1m and cut maximum annual pension contributions to £30,000 to pay for a cut to £6,000 in student fees.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Robert


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 403.


    Nope. - We are not saying the same thing.

    Banking relies on real world wealth creation so that it can skim.
    Real world wealth creation is hamstrung by banking bean counters gambling.

    Think about it. - Think.

    What is wealth? Is it marks on bits of paper, bits in memory?
    Because that is all money is - marks on bits of paper.

    Financiers believe those marks are wealth. - I don't..

  • rate this

    Comment number 402.

    "Trolls that suggest that traders can lose billions keep their jobs and get bonuses are deluded."

    Four years. Still nobody in jail. We're paying the bills.You'll shortly be back for more bailouts.

    Doesn't sound so good does it?

    You're delusional

    Anything to add?

  • rate this

    Comment number 401.

    In banking as in politics:

    Esau-like, we 'allow ourselves' inequality, force ourselves to compete in fear & greed, then wonder why 'winners' - business, banking, politics, regulation - 'let us down'

    How much more 'dumbed down' can we be made?

    We leave it to 'the clever' to call for 'some restraint', by riches freed to confess 'some embarrassment' at the state of the world made their plaything

  • rate this

    Comment number 400.

    jp (398) I particularly agree with the inference of the first part of your post. Greater regulation, once it is brought in, will only be circumvented. Looking around the world today you cannot fail to think that, to some, 'rules' are not quite like pie crusts but are instead like minutes silences - to be observed only when people are looking. Greater regulation is only the 1st step!

  • rate this

    Comment number 399.

    395 prude boy

    I think we're saying the same thing the banking sector does rely on all other sectors and vice versa.

    What I object to are the uneducated repeating tabloid nonsense about gambling.

    We all accept and manage risk in our lives including financial risk via pensions and investments. Trolls that suggest that traders can lose billions keep their jobs and get bonuses are deluded.


Comments 5 of 403


Features & Analysis

From BBC Capital


  • A bicycle with a Copenhagen WheelClick Watch

    The wheel giving push bikes an extra boost by turning them into smart electric hybrids

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.