Tue Jan 29, 2013, 07:47 PM
dipsydoodle (32,668 posts)
Exclusive - JPMorgan bet against itself in "Whale" trade
Source: Reuters
(Reuters) - There is a new twist in the London Whale trading scandal that cost JPMorgan Chase $6.2 billion in trading losses last year. Some of the firm's own traders bet against the very derivatives positions placed by its chief investment officer, said three people familiar with the matter. The U.S. Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations, which launched an inquiry into the trading loss last fall, is looking into the how different divisions of the bank wound up on opposite sides of the same trade, said one of the people familiar with the matter. The committee is expected to release a report on its investigation in the next few weeks. The people familiar with the situation did not comment on the dollar value of the opposing trades placed by JPMorgan Chase & Co's investment bank traders, which was much smaller than the total positions put on by the CIO. Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/uk-usa-jpm-whale-idUKBRE90S14C20130129
|
9 replies, 1316 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| dipsydoodle | Jan 2013 | OP | |
| benld74 | Jan 2013 | #1 | |
| SleeplessinSoCal | Jan 2013 | #2 | |
| antigop | Jan 2013 | #3 | |
| AngryAmish | Jan 2013 | #6 | |
| coalition_unwilling | Jan 2013 | #7 | |
| benld74 | Jan 2013 | #8 | |
| blueclown | Jan 2013 | #4 | |
| Kelvin Mace | Jan 2013 | #5 | |
| geek tragedy | Jan 2013 | #9 |
Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 08:31 PM
benld74 (4,597 posts)
1. And THIS is the supreme reason WHY derivatives produce NOTHING for ANYONE. OUTLAW THEM!!!
Response to benld74 (Reply #1)
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 08:37 PM
SleeplessinSoCal (1,643 posts)
2. I've no idea why they function the way they do. Found a link though.
|
Does this sound like what really happens?
http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/derivatives/purposes-benefits-derivatives.asp#axzz2JQ0dM2IB |
Response to benld74 (Reply #1)
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 08:51 PM
antigop (8,741 posts)
3. pssst....Commodity Futures Modernization Act 2000 -- thank you, Bill Clinton --- NOT!
Response to benld74 (Reply #1)
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:14 AM
AngryAmish (19,625 posts)
6. I, for one, still think agricultural futures are a good thing.
Response to AngryAmish (Reply #6)
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:26 AM
coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)
7. Absolutely. They allow farmers and businesses to hedge price and supply risks. The
|
Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:26 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) key is to have effective regulations and oversight in place.
|
Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #7)
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:55 PM
benld74 (4,597 posts)
8. That is correct, but these asswipes take it to a ridiculous level and HURT the economy
Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:09 PM
blueclown (1,863 posts)
4. Wasn't the Volcker rule designed to prevent this from happening?
Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:10 AM
Kelvin Mace (9,830 posts)
5. Of course they did. It was a "no lose" bet
|
of they crippled themselves financially, the U.S. taxpayer would get stuck with the bill.
|
Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)
Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:58 PM
geek tragedy (25,684 posts)
9. Were these proprietary trades aiming to make money, hedges, or trades executed
|
on behalf of clients?
This sort of thing gets incredibly complex. |

