Seeking Alpha

JPMorgan will face $900M in fines, admit wrongdoing in Whale case: NYTimes

  • JPMorgan (JPM) will pay in excess of $900M in fines and admit to wrongdoing on Thursday, in an effort to settle multiple investigations into the whale-sized blunder (we're running out of whale jokes at this point) that took place in Q1 2012 at the firm's London CIO office, the NY Times says.
  • The government authorities involved in the deal reportedly are the SEC, the OCC, the Fed, and the Financial Conduct Authority in London.
  • Although it looks likely the blame will not be placed with any of the higher-ups, the bank "will acknowledge that it had lax controls and should have caught the problem faster," Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Ben Protess write.
Comments (24)
  • brea
    , contributor
    Comments (49) | Send Message
     
    customers shouldn't have a problem coming up w/ that chump change
    18 Sep 2013, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (993) | Send Message
     
    Lax financial controls ? Where's Sarbox and who signed the Internal Control Reviews and why aren't they going to jail?
    18 Sep 2013, 10:55 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > why aren't they going to jail?

     

    Because they're rich, obviously.
    18 Sep 2013, 11:07 PM Reply Like
  • Deja Vu
    , contributor
    Comments (1196) | Send Message
     
    It's a fluke that JPM is admitting wrongdoing.

     

    Now Jamie Dimon will think twice before spouting off about regulations.

     

    "it's a krill turn of fate" said Jamie

     

    $900 million is a killer amount

     

    Guess they won't be eating beluga caviar

     

    The bankers wives and girlfriends won't be getting Minke coats this winter

     

    Guess top execs at JPM are feeling rather blue.

     

    That's what happens when you breach the law.

     

    Running out of whale jokes? Is it even possible?
    18 Sep 2013, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • 6151621
    , contributor
    Comments (1174) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, break the law -- no way they should go to jail. The politician need their political donations. Its a great job. They make big bucks without any responsibility type gig. Isn't it great for them.
    18 Sep 2013, 11:45 PM Reply Like
  • moneyTalksBSWalks
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    Execs will do just fine. Bonuses for the rank and file worker bees will be trimmed.
    19 Sep 2013, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • jhawkinstx
    , contributor
    Comments (73) | Send Message
     
    Exactly what law did they break? This whole thing is absurd. They screwed up....cost the shareholders $6b of the $220b value of the company over 18months.....inmost businesses that percentage would not even be considered material.
    19 Sep 2013, 10:33 PM Reply Like
  • 6151621
    , contributor
    Comments (1174) | Send Message
     
    They have rules they have to follow as a fiduciary and additionally they aren't supposed to try to manipulate the market. Position size of derivatives basically broke the market. This is illegal. What's unusual is that normally firms only get a slap on the wrist.
    20 Sep 2013, 01:47 AM Reply Like
  • 6151621
    , contributor
    Comments (1174) | Send Message
     
    jhawkinstx, I don't think it's immaterial. However, if gov't regulators don't fix the problem and just give a slap on the wrist to the banks/ JPM, then Jamie and his TBTF will only bet bigger next time and then what happens when it fails? Regulators are supposed to step in and mitigate this risk. Also, there trading in CDX market was distorting spreads--like the FED is now distorting rates. This to me is the definition of manipulation. You don't need to agree, I'll still think it's wrong and a violation of their fiduciary duties.
    20 Sep 2013, 01:59 AM Reply Like
  • thurston
    , contributor
    Comments (153) | Send Message
     
    My understanding is that JPM did not "break the law", they made some mistakes, bad trades etc. Perhaps they were "stupid" but the government cannot pass laws making stupidity against the law: who would enforce such laws?

     

    I have owned JPM shares for quite a while and personally I think they should fight this (as Bill Clinton once said) "until the last dog dies".

     

    In the meantime, the government has been in attack mode against the banks for so long that hopefully many of their current claims will sunset or the statute of limitations will render them moot after five years or more. (We just passed the five year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, presumably much of the activity that the government wants to criminalize happened prior to that).

     

    In my view you cannot have a big global economy without big global banks who can serve big global customers. The United States (and therefore Europe and the world) cannot have a healthy and growing economy without healthy banks which are not the "whipping boys" for an administration which prefers playing the blame game and engaging in an orgy of recriminations to distract the public and the media from policies that have failed to create jobs or prosperity.
    19 Sep 2013, 03:55 AM Reply Like
  • 6151621
    , contributor
    Comments (1174) | Send Message
     
    Their traders were manipulating the credit markets (trying to corner CDX). Sorry but this is against securities laws. The LIBOR manipulations were also illegal.

     

    http://on.wsj.com/1a6vk3U
    http://ti.me/1a6vk3W

     

    FYI: JPM also under investigation for Silver market manipulation.

     

    I wouldn't hold my breathe if the CFTC needs to rule against a big powerful bank, such a JPM. They'll say it's inconclusive. Which is safe because manipulation can be tricky to prove beyond a doubt. The natural doubt is always "We were hedging."
    19 Sep 2013, 07:19 AM Reply Like
  • spinrbait
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    you are right thurston. but the occupy mob runs the show now. i think it will continue until they implode.
    19 Sep 2013, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • jhawkinstx
    , contributor
    Comments (73) | Send Message
     
    Attempts at manipulation had nothing to do with the whale problem. The screwed up putting on an insurance trade that would protect the bank by making a profit offsetting losses if EU debt crashed....they screwed it up. Then with a huge screwed up position, for some reason the media thinks they should immediately tell the world how vulnerable their position is......yeah...that would really make the problem easy to fix....everyone on the other side of those exposed trades would be more than happy to let them off the hook at a reasonable price.
    19 Sep 2013, 10:38 PM Reply Like
  • jhawkinstx
    , contributor
    Comments (73) | Send Message
     
    Wasn't it hitlers rp minister that said if you keep saying a lie over and over in the media people will not be able to tell it from the truth? JPM is being targeted for shakedown by the government.....them and Goldman were the only two who did things the right way from the capital markets perspective and watched everyone else fall.......now in the spirit of the new American way we punish the successful......the ones who did it right....the ones who bought out bear sterns only looking at the deal over a three day weekend an kept the tax payer from getting hit for the loss........the same bank that was then sued by the government because of fraudulent bear sterns activity before they asked JPM to blindly buy them.
    19 Sep 2013, 10:46 PM Reply Like
  • 6151621
    , contributor
    Comments (1174) | Send Message
     
    CDX can be thought of as insurance but it wasn't really a hedge -- that's what the claimed so they could make it seem they weren't manipulating the market. This is BS. They say the same thing with their silver trades. I don't buy it. Since CDS trade OTC via phone call often after awhile participates guessed the "WHALE" was JPM and then forced his hand.
    20 Sep 2013, 01:51 AM Reply Like
  • marketnews09
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    It seems to me that JPM is under siege. The money lawsuits just don't seem to stop. Maybe Jamie fell out of grace with this administration. I wonder what happens to all the money that the banks have to pay out. Anyone ever bother to investigate that?
    In closing, it seems that the states are lawsuit happy, too. I guess that they have to get money from someone who knows how to make money. I wonder if it could be, that we are overtaxed and lawsuits is the way to get more. give it some thought.
    19 Sep 2013, 08:09 AM Reply Like
  • marketnews09
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    It just seems to me that lawsuits are the thing today and yesterday and probably tomorrow. Nine hundred million!
    19 Sep 2013, 08:10 AM Reply Like
  • jhawkinstx
    , contributor
    Comments (73) | Send Message
     
    Sheila Blair the former head of the FDIC who is someone known for being politically neutral....last week I was amazed when she said on cnbc that she though JPM was being absurdly targeted by the government.
    19 Sep 2013, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • jhawkinstx
    , contributor
    Comments (73) | Send Message
     
    Sheila BAIR....d?mn apple spell check.
    19 Sep 2013, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • garyt01
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    As a JPM shareholder, I think if the traders break the law and the office of the President and CEO did not condone it, why should the bank be liable for such a large fine. The perps should go to jail. The regulators are fining individuals and barring them from banking on a monthly basis and on very small fines. Just read the FDIC monthly enforcement actions. The stockholders are the ones that are paying for this ongoing onslaught of JPM. Yet the London Whale gets a pass by making a deal. He walks. As an former banker, none of this makes sense. The regulators were lax in oversight, which is a well known fact. Who fines them?
    19 Sep 2013, 08:22 AM Reply Like
  • moneyTalksBSWalks
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    Well the regulators taking six figure pensions instead of seven figure paychecks is punishment enough right?
    19 Sep 2013, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • 6151621
    , contributor
    Comments (1174) | Send Message
     
    CEO didn't enforce proper risk and compliance he should be out. Why are we continuing to build TBTF? Jamie needs to be forced out.
    20 Sep 2013, 01:53 AM Reply Like
  • thurston
    , contributor
    Comments (153) | Send Message
     
    The shareholders just voted the CEO in, not out. You may recall that there was a big melodrama of trying to split the position of CEO and Chairman and the shareholders did not even want to do that.

     

    If the shareholders of a corporation vote for someone, in this case Jamie Dimon who is regarded as the top bank executive of his generation, to lead the company (after the London whale episode) then why should he be "forced out"? And by whom? Whose judgment in a supposedly free country should over ride the vote of the shareholders? Should Obama personally remove CEO's and appoint new ones, or Occupy Wall Street? Or Barney Frank, or Elizabeth Warren?

     

    Personally I added to my position in JPM yesterday because in spite of the hammering the company is getting from the government the stock is holding steady at the 50 day moving average, at some point the government will punch themselves out. As some one amusingly commented in recent weeks, the government has a team investigating underage drinking at the JPM office Christmas party, at some point the unfair targeting of JPM is like a forest fire that burns itself out and from that point forward the stock will probably do okay.
    20 Sep 2013, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • 6151621
    , contributor
    Comments (1174) | Send Message
     
    Right. The Mafia wants their boss why should the gov't be able to take him away and say lock him up (or about of the business) for illegal actions or gross misconduct.

     

    His job is to manage all this. It failed. He was politically astute enough to get others fired, not him. CEO is simply a politician. Why does the US not hold it's politicians accountable for their actions. That's my point.
    21 Sep 2013, 12:34 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|