Stuff JP Morgan bankers say: "There’s no hope. … The book continues to grow, more and more monstrous."

The London Whale report, digested.

The first major investigation into the London Whale scandal is underway - JP Morgan has been accused of "lying to investigators" as losses escalated last year. The losses came from a synthetic credit portfolio - a series of wagers on credit derivatives - which grew rapidly to $6bn. According to the report, the downward spiral was evident by March, but CEO Jamie Dimon pretented it wasn't, calling it a "tempest in a teapot" in early April.

The report is here, (warning, it's over 300 pages). It gathers together a juicy selection of emails, telephone conversations and instant messages, which amount to an interesting reminder that, whether discussing libor-rigging or a trading-loss cover-up, whether at Barclays or JP Morgan, banker communications are all cut from the same cloth.

It charts their last-minute attempts to forstall the multi-billion dollar loss - which get increasingly burlesque:

I can’t keep this going, we do a one-off at the end of the month to remain calm. I think what he’s [Mr. Martin-Artajo’s] expecting is a remarking at the end of the month, you can’t do it unless it’s month-end. … I don’t know where he wants to stop, but it’s getting idiotic. … [N]ow it’s worse than before … there’s nothing that can be done, absolutely nothing that can be done, there’s no hope. … The book continues to grow, more and more monstrous.

At one point, bank executives "yell at" OCC examiners and call them "stupid":

When asked if the CIO’s aggressive reaction to the 2010 examination of the CIO was unique, the OCC indicated that it was not. In fact, the OCC Examiner-In-Charge at JPMorgan Chase told the Subcommittee that it was “very common” for the bank to push back on examiner findings and recommendations. He recalled one instance in which bank executives even yelled at OCC examiners and called them “stupid.” In another example, in early 2012, according to the OCC, the most junior capital markets OCC examiner arrived at a meeting at the bank to discuss with his bank counterpart the results of a recent OCC stress examination. But instead of meeting with a single risk manager, he was, in his words, “ambushed” by all the heads of risk divisions from all the lines of business at the bank, including JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Risk Officer, John Hogan. Given the senior rank of the bank officials, the junior OCC examiner normally would not have led the meeting, but the bank officials pressed him to disclose the OCC’s preliminary conclusions. According to the OCC examiner, on every issue, the bank’s risk personnel criticized the OCC’s findings and recommendations, and the meeting assumed a loud and “combative” tone.

The report details an email sent by Bruno "the London Whale" Iksil to Javier Martin-Artajo on 30th January in 2012, worrying about increasing losses from the bet. He said that it had become "scary". A second email to Martin-Artajo came from Achilles Macris, equally worried. He says that "the book doesn’t behave as intended”.

Nothing was sorted out, and in the weeks that followed, things got worse. On March 22nd, traders were told to stop trading, able to mask the losses by presenting them in a favourable light. However, the differences between these favourable valuations of the derivatives and the actual midpoint prices had by this point "increased to 300" (that's £300m), and traders found they had become unsustainable.

By the time Jamie Dillon made his teapot remark, the report found that he was “already in possession of information about the . . . complex and sizeable portfolio, its sustained losses for three straight months, the exponential increase in those losses during March and the difficulty of exiting the . . . positions”.

The Senate panel said that “the written and verbal representations made by the bank were incomplete, contained numerous inaccuracies, and misinformed investors, regulators, and the public”. The investigation continues.

JP Morgan is being investigated. Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.