Four Bullet Points Explaining How JPMorgan Doubled Its Money From MF Global's Corpse In Seven Months
15
June, 2012
Don't
read this if you have high blood pressure or if you are a client of
MF Global's, whose money is still held
by JP Morgan.
- JPMorgan is put on MF Global bankruptcy committee on November 7, 2011
- Two weeks later, JPMorgan buys MF Global's 4.7% in LME for 39 million in a "competitive bidding" process
- 7 months later, on June 15 2012 the LME gets an offer for $2.2 billion from China's HKEX, making JPM's stake worth $103 million
- JPMorgan makes over 100% cash on cash return in 7 months while MFGlobal money is still stuck at JPM.
In
the meantime, Jon Corzine was, is and will always be a free man.
* *
*
P.S. the
topic of why China is buying the world's biggest metals exchange, one
which in a lovely harbinger of things to come 2 months ago very
symbolically replaced
Sterling settlement with Renminbi,
is a different matter entirely.
One
which just may have to do with the fact that domestic Chinese
companies have unprecedented stockpiles of everything, pledged as
collateral everywhere. Collateral whose prices would be easier to
manipulate if one also controlled the exchange where they all
trade...
Want
To Make Risky Trades with No Brakes? Go To London
Pop
quiz time. Which U.S.-based financial services firm used the U.K. to
make losing trades that caused embarrassment, regulatory scrutiny and
much worse: MF Global, AIG, Lehman Brothers, or JPMorgan?
Answer:
All of the above.
14
June, 2012
JPMorgan
Chase's chief investment office was
set up bi-nationally, with traders in the U.S. and the U.K. It looks
like that was the only smart thing Jamie Dimon did here. This
business unit put on huge positions in credit derivatives that were
rationalized as a "portfolio hedge" but grew unmanageable
under minimal supervision and lax controls. The bank's risk appetite
grew out of sight of U.S. regulators and out of the mind of U.K.
watchdogs.
AIG's
Financial Products Group, a PricewaterhouseCoopers audit client
along with JPMorgan, made the bets on credit derivatives that caused
the insurance company's own liquidity choking fit (and takeover by
the U.S. Treasury) in London, too.
Lehman
Brothers' Repo
105 transactions,
used to window-dress the balance sheet each quarter, began with an
exchange of $105 of collateral for a $100 loan. Because the repo was
structured with excess collateral, Lehman could call it a "sale"
and, therefore, did not record the loan on its books. The excess
collateral was a necessary condition for treating the transaction as
a "sale" but not a sufficient condition for any U.S. law
firm to bless it. Lehman went to the U.K. to get a "true sale"
legal opinion.
A U.K.
legal opinion in 2009 revealed
that Lehman's local management team had also failed to segregate
"vast sums" of client money "on a truly spectacular
scale." After Lehman went bankrupt, this commingling sadly
reduced clients' claims to the status of unsecured creditors.
When
Jon Corzine decided to use repo-to-maturity trades to juice
corporate profits, MF Global's subsidiary in the U.K made it happen,
for a cut of the action. The risky bets instead caused what MF
Global bankruptcy trustee James Giddens called "liquidity
asphyxiation" in his June
4 investigation report.
Large sums were needed every day to fund the margin calls on the
European sovereign debt behind the trades, debt that was rapidly
losing value. MF Global allegedly funded the margin calls by
re-characterizing customer assets as house assets.
The
illegal act of commingling customer funds with company money had
already been committed in London by MF Global's main bank, JPMorgan,
and by another bank, Barclays. PwC,
the auditor of all three firms – MF Global, JPMorgan and Barclay –
had neglected to catch them doing it for several years. The
banks and the auditor were fined recently for the lapses. Yet
PwC and regulators on either side of the Atlantic missed the red
flags when MF Global seemed to be breaking the same laws all over
again.
As
a result, MF Global customers are also waiting more than seven
months for the return of some of their funds from the U.K., where
they were allegedly used to fund Corzine's unsuccessful outsized bet
to return the firm to profitability.
It's
not clear if the Dodd-Frank Act's Volcker rule, intended to restrict
proprietary trading and hedge fund-like activities for
deposit-taking institutions, will apply to overseas affiliates of
American banks. We need stronger cross-border regulatory enforcement
and U.K. cooperation with U.S. regulators to spot U.S firms going to
London for looser rules.
It
looks like we have regulatory capture instead: Margaret Cole, the
U.K. regulator at the Financial Services Authority who presided over
the fines for commingling customer funds at JP Morgan, Barclays and
PwC, is now general counsel for PwC U.K.
Francine
McKenna writes the blog re:
The Auditors,
about the Big Four accounting firms. She worked in consulting,
professional services, accounting and financial management for more
than 25 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.