JPMorgan Chase London Whale G: Hedging versus Proprietary Trading
In December 2013, the primary United States financial regulatory agencies jointly adopted final rules to implement Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which is often referred to as the “Volcker Rule”. Section 619 prohibits banks from engaging in activities considered to be particularly risky, including proprietary trading and owning hedge funds or private equity funds. Banking regulators designed the final rule against proprietary trading in part to prevent losses like the $6 billion London Whale loss that took place in 2012 at JPMorgan Chase. Given the controversial nature of the Volcker Rule, it is not surprising that the regulatory agencies received 18,000 comment letters, including a 67-page letter from JPMorgan Chase.
JPMorgan Chase London Whale A: Risky Business
In December 2011, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of JPMorgan Chase (JPM) instructed the bank’s Chief Investment Office to reduce the size of its Synthetic Credit Portfolio (SCP) during 2012, so that JPM could decrease its Risk-Weighted Assets as the bank prepared to adopt the impending Basel III bank capital regulations. However, the SCP traders were also told to minimize the trading costs incurred to reduce Risk-Weighted Assets, while still maintaining the opportunity to profit from unexpected corporate bankruptcies. In an attempt to balance these competing objectives, head SCP derivatives trader Bruno Iksil suggested in January 2012 that the SCP expand a strategy first implemented in 2011 to buy large volumes of certain credit derivatives, while simultaneously selling large volumes of other credit derivatives. The strategy quickly proved unsuccessful, and JPM’s Chief Investment Officer ordered Iksil and the other SCP traders to halt this strategy on March 23. However, losses continued to mount as the credit derivative positions were unwound, ultimately reaching $6.2 billion by December 2012.
Linguistic experts as semantic tour guides
This article examines the phenomenon of linguists testifying as experts on meaning in legal disputes over the interpretation of statutes, contracts, transcripts of tape-recorded conversations, and other important legal texts before courts in the USA. It concludes that there is an important role for linguists in such cases -- the role of the tour guide. It suggests that judges need not be concerned about linguists usurping the traditional roles of the judge and the jury as ultimate interpreters provided that the linguist's testimony is appropriately circumscribed.