Skip to content Skip to footer

After $9 Billion in Losses, JPMorgan Still Wins With Co-Opted Congress, Hobbled Volcker Rule

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) current budget of $1.32 billion is dwarfed by the $4 billion to $9 billion JPMorgan Chase may ultimately lose through disastrous gambling on derivatives and related instruments for its own accounts.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) current budget of $1.32 billion is dwarfed by the $4 billion to $9 billion JPMorgan Chase may ultimately lose through disastrous gambling on derivatives and related instruments for its own accounts. Ironically, the Dodd-Frank reform law’s “Volcker Rule” restricting such noncustomer-related trading – opposed by JPMorgan’s CEO and most Republicans – might have eliminated or limited the billions lost by this federally insured bank had it been in place (and enforced.) The current weak version of the Volcker Rule is slated to become effective July 21, but regulators say they can’t meet that deadline, due largely to financial industry litigation and lobbying.

And since House Republicans have refused to grant the SEC funds to implement such reforms, little change can be expected in regulators’ ability to police high-risk banking roulette. That leaves us in nearly the same position as before the bank-induced financial and economic meltdowns that commenced in 2008.

While regulators have done little in the face of JPMorgan’s vast derivative losses and misleading statements about them, some institutional investors have already initiated private enforcement actions against the bank and its management. At least two pension funds have filed class action lawsuits in federal court charging JPMorgan and certain of its officers with violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In taking action themselves, these investors illustrate their critical law enforcement role in these times when regulators (and Congress) seem cowed and co-opted by financial behemoths.

Specifically, the pension funds charge JPMorgan with secretly amassing a risk-laden and unmanageably large position in credit derivatives and related instruments that had little or nothing to do with protecting, or “hedging,” the value of other investments. The bank allegedly:

  • reported false and misleading valuations of these investments, based on artificially inflated asset values assigned to them;
  • and, then, suffered material losses that were not truthfully disclosed to shareholders.

Beyond the JPMorgan shareholders – who know reporting violations when they see them – other knowledgeable Wall Street commentators also question the bank management’s believability. Back in May, CEO Jamie Dimon dismissed mounting worries about its London-based derivatives trading as a “tempest in a teapot.” Then, in April, Mr. Dimon said the loss would likely be $2 billion. The Street picks up the story:

“The company’s so-called rogue trading loss was just going to be $2 billion – and that appeared tolerable … OK, maybe three. Or, uh, five. But no matter. Slick Jamie, who seemed to be telling the truth slowly on company misdeeds, charmed the pants off of the media, traders and politicians in Washington testimony … [With the New York Times estimate of $9 billion in losses] we’ve finally reached the point of ridiculousness, of ever cascading losses …”

NASDAQ’s blog agreed “the reliability” of JPMorgan’s management is “at stake,” and added wistfully:

“We hope that the major banks in the country such as Bank of America Corporation, Wells Fargo & Company, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley, which follow the trend set by JPMorgan, will not report similar losses in the near future.”

That would truly be a shame for the investing public and taxpayers who now stand behind those giants. Does all this sound familiar? The same multibillion dollar casino-style betting and prevarications about the value of similar illiquid instruments were key elements in the crisis that first hit the fan in 2008.

In the movie “Groundhog Day,” Bill Murray plays a cynical TV weatherman doomed to relive the events of February 2 in a seemingly endless time loop. Unlike Congress and regulators, however, the Murray character takes advantage of the added time and foreknowledge to help people avert disasters and, in doing so, redeems himself.

When will Congress and federal regulators find the courage to break the 2008 time loop trapping our markets and economy?

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.