multi-billion trading loss involving the “London whale” reminds me of a timeless story – the parable of Jonah and another whale in about 750 B.C.
As the legend goes, Jonah found it difficult to convince people to live the virtuous life, despite being held up as an example. To pay for his failure, he was tossed out of his boat one day and was swallowed by a whale. After spending three days in the belly of the beast, he repented and promised to try again. The whale then spit him out.
J.P. Morgan’s trading blunder involved a different kind of whale – the so-called London whale. Since then, the London whale’s mammoth trading loss has engulfed an institution previously thought to be exemplary in risk management. The fallout has reignited the debate about proprietary trading, the Volcker Rule and too-big-to-fail.
The modern and ancient storylines are similar, but it’s an open question how J.P. Morgan will re-emerge from the whale.
Were they lucky or good?
Post-crisis, J.P. Morgan found it difficult to live by the Dimon Principle, which is supposed to guard against stupidity born of hubris.
The Dimon Principle and advanced risk management techniques, such as value at risk (VaR), were a key reason J.P. Morgan was one of the most successful in protecting assets during the financial crisis. Unlike the reputation of other bankers, Jamie Dimon’s grew in stature after the crisis because the bank appeared to manage risk so well.
VaR was a core of the bank’s risk management strategy. This technique was supposed to help the bank quantify risk. In the end, it didn’t work. The VaR reported to Mr. Dimon showed the trade made by the London whale had a VaR of less than $100 million, not the reported loss of $2 billion that could possibly grow to over $5 billion
This is not the first time risk management models have failed Wall Street. The subprime mortgage debacle that triggered the financial crisis is a recent example of a sophisticated model that faltered badly. Mortgage lenders, aided by investment banks and ratings agencies, believed they had cracked the code and were able to properly measure the risk in lending to people previously considered too dodgy for a home loan. We know what happed next.
Is Redemption Next?
To redeem itself, J.P. Morgan has admirably tried to make amends.
Mr. Dimon has owned up to the problem and has admitted that avoidable mistakes were made. He held a conference call to discuss the loss, went on Sunday talk shows, and will testify before Congress. Those responsible for the loss have resigned or been fired.
The real question is whether J.P. Morgan will renounce proprietary trading – the root cause of the problem.
It’s quite possible it won’t.
There is too much money to be made in proprietary trading. J.P. Morgan, like the rest of Wall Street, relies on “prop trading” to produce huge profits. In fact, big financial institutions still have as strong an incentive as ever to take the unrepentant risk to make up for falling earnings.
Given the pressure to deliver results, it will be interesting to see how J.P. Morgan responds. Until it figures out what to do, the bank will remain trapped inside the whale.