21–30 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no problem with JPM shorting or otherwise taking advantage of this fraud How is that not profiting from crime?
Let's say I had a short equity position in some company. Now, some bad guy comes and murders the CEO of that company, tanking the equity. A crime was committed, and I profited. Did I profit from a crime? Did I do something wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Revenue is not income. $1.7 bn is a non-trivial amount even for them. Add to that the $13 bn they had to pay on fraudulent mortgage-bonds some weeks ago and things are starting to sum up.
Wasn't like 7 bn of that tax-deductible?
Creating a similar idiosyncratic risk could be to sell a gold ETF and own physical gold, paying maybe 30 bps a year for a real outperformance during a) hyperinflation if real gold is needed or b) some gold bars at the ETF turn out to be fake/not there (some have been found to be tungsten) c) another unforseen event. These options are hard to create and very valuable to a huge investment bank such as JPM which is generally very long the mkt in general and actually allows them to make more loans.
Also, most benefiting from rising prices in madoff claims are distressed hedgefunds and investment banks btw. They own probably 90% of the claims now, 'vicitms" selling at roughly 20 cents on the dollar. Anyone really pointing the finger at JPM is very naive about the whole system.
JPMorgan "Pays" but barely. $1.7 billion is nothing out of $100 billion in annual revenue and $2.5 trillion in assets.
Did you read the article? The basically got fined for not doing the SEC's job.
Interesting read but my knowledge of what I am going to call "advanced banking" kind of leaves me wanting to do some sidebar research. Can anyone suggest any accessible literature for learning the more complex areas of banking/finance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no problem with JPM shorting or otherwise taking advantage of this fraud How is that not profiting from crime?
If you believe, say, that Apple has been faking its revenue and profit numbers for the last 10 years, you can go ahead and short them on the expectation that they'll get caught, Tim Cook will go to jail and the stock will tank. In the meantime, the presence of your short will in some small way drive down the price of AAPL, or at least signal to the rest of the market that somebody believes things are not as rosy for…
Your crimes aren't magically washed away because the SEC wasn't doing their job well.
JPMorgan "Pays" but barely. $1.7 billion is nothing out of $100 billion in annual revenue and $2.5 trillion in assets.
So, you think the punishment should fit the revenue rather than the crime? JPM reported Madoff to the SEC in the 90's. They also reported him to the British banking authorities much more recently. The "crime" is actually looking at Madoff's activities and divesting themselves from him. I have no problem with JPM shorting or otherwise taking advantage of this fraud. Given that the SEC is asleep at the switch, the shor…
It should be whatever the law says it should be.
In an ideal world... it should be in proportion to the pain and suffering caused by JPM's "willfully" (as concluded by investigators) failing to adhere to its legal obligations to report on Madoff's activities, once it became aware of them internally. Perhaps then some, given obvious indifference (on the part those responsible at JPM) to the potential for harm caused to unsophisticated investors while they were busy looking covering their... annual bonuses.
Quoting from yesterday's NYT article[1]:
On two occasions, in 2007 and 2008, JPMorgan’s own computer system raised red flags about Mr. Madoff, according to prosecutors. But both times, prosecutors say, JPMorgan employees “closed the alerts.”
“JP Morgan failed to carry out its legal obligations while Bernard Madoff built his massive house of cards,” George Venizelos, a senior F.B.I. official, said in a statement. The F.B.I. and prosecutors traced the problem to JPMorgan “willfully” failing to create sufficient controls against money laundering. “There was no meaningful effort by the Bank to examine or investigate the Madoff Securities banking relationship,” prosecutors said.
The fact that the SEC was also asleep at the switch does not in any way absolve JPM of its own culpability in this disaster.
Even so, in human terms, the worst of the penalties "suffered" by anyone at JPM is unlikely to begin to compare to the losses suffered by Madoff's non-institutional investors as a result of JPM's actions.
[1] http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/jpmorgan-settles-with...
JPMorgan "Pays" but barely. $1.7 billion is nothing out of $100 billion in annual revenue and $2.5 trillion in assets.
So, you think the punishment should fit the revenue rather than the crime? JPM reported Madoff to the SEC in the 90's. They also reported him to the British banking authorities much more recently. The "crime" is actually looking at Madoff's activities and divesting themselves from him. I have no problem with JPM shorting or otherwise taking advantage of this fraud. Given that the SEC is asleep at the switch, the shor…
Also: the actions for which JPM was recently fined concern primarily the years 2007 and 2008. JPM may have acted differently in the 1990s, but that's practically irrelevant to what happened ten years later -- especially given the extent to which the size, and the number of unsophisticated investors lured into Madoff's scheme (with JPM's help) increased geometrically.
Similarly, whether they reported him to British banking authorities is also of little relevance. U.S. laws concern JPM's obligations to report suspicious activities to the SEC and other domestic agencies -- not the Brits.
This is a very misleading article in my opinion. Investment banks provide investors access to risks which they want, in this case investors WANTED access to Madoff structured notes because Madoff had been outperforming, therefore JPM had a find a way to hedge themselves to reduce their risk. After investing a tremendous amount in madoff, JPM probably realized that they could hedge easier by going long the general mar…
I don't think they could have hedged this way. Madoff's volatility was too low, so there weren't comparable instruments. The only options were investing in Madoff himself, or not hedging on the assumption that it would blow up sooner rather than later.
Nice summary of the situation. This is the takeaway for me: "If you think of JPMorgan's businesses as operating more or less independently, but occasionally making each other money by cross-selling, then this mess makes more sense. A London investment bank that considered and rejected a derivative-linked investment in Madoff would have no obligations to report its suspicions to U.S. regulators. A boring custody bank…
Bloombergs coverage has always been pretty balanced and factual. Disclaimer: I worked for them in a past life but continue using their website as my primary news source long after having left the company.