2012-05-15usnews.com

Management, starting with CEO Jamie Dimon, would have the public believe that the loss was due to a complex hedging strategy involving hard-to-value instruments and embedded risk that eluded the best and brightest minds at the bank until it was too late.

This is nonsense. The trade was a simple bet on the difference, or "spread," between the price of a group of bonds and an index based on those bonds. In theory, those two prices should be about the same. In practice, they may vary due to factors such as the relative liquidity of the bonds and the index.

...

Apart from the risk in the trade, a more fundamental question is why it was allowed in the first place? What purpose was served? No new loans were created. No new jobs were created. Absolutely nothing of value to society was derived from this trade. At best, it was a form of gambling for the whale and his colleagues. Next time they should go to Las Vegas and skip the drama.

...

[Meanwhile,] banks invest the [free money from the Fed] money in Treasury notes and earn the difference. The Fed permits this to rebuild the capital of the banks. The Fed doesn't mind hurting everyday Americans if they can prop up bank capital.

Even if you favor Fed policy, it is unconscionable that the bank earnings derived from small savers should be squandered on a leveraged bet that a rookie trader could see was flawed. If the bet had worked out, the whale would probably already be shopping for a Lamborghini to buy with his bonus.



Comments: Be the first to add a comment

add a comment | go to forum thread