Showing posts with label House of Morgan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House of Morgan. Show all posts

Saturday, October 7, 2017

The U.S. Justice System Must Focus On Elite Criminality

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,


Two very important articles published in recent days serve to once again highlight America’s metastasizing elite criminality problem. A problem which our justice system simply refuses to address.



This corrupt two-tier justice system is something I’ve been focused on from the very beginning of my writings, and I continue to see it as a civilization-level threat for this country if not aggressively addressed and confronted in the very near future.


The two articles in question focus on different aspects of untouchable elite culture in America.


The first relates to the continued fraud pervasive in America’s largest financial institution, while the second covers a thirty year history of predatory sexual behavior by one of Hollywood’s biggest moguls, Harvey Weinstein. In both cases, countless people have known and reported on repeated abuses perpetrated by both the institution and the man, yet the U.S. justice system and the vast majority of “elite” culture happily help shield them from justice. Predators are predators, and elite predators are far more dangerous to society that your average street crook, so why does our justice situation deal with it in the exact opposite way?


Let’s start with the blockbuster article published in The Nation by the always informative David Dayen. The article is titled, How America’s Biggest Bank Paid Its Fine for the 2008 Mortgage Crisis—With Phony Mortgages!


Here’s just brief excerpt:





JPMorgan’s share of the settlement was $5.3 billion, but only $1.1 billion had to be paid in cash; the other $4.2 billion was to come in the form of financial relief for homeowners in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure. The settlement called for JPMorgan to reduce the amounts owed, modify the loan terms, and take other steps to help distressed Americans keep their homes. A separate 2013 settlement against the bank for deceiving mortgage investors included another $4 billion in consumer relief.



A Nation investigation can now reveal how JPMorgan met part of its $8.2 billion settlement burden: by using other people’s money.



Here’s how the alleged scam worked. JPMorgan moved to forgive the mortgages of tens of thousands of homeowners; the feds, in turn, credited these canceled loans against the penalties due under the 2012 and 2013 settlements. But here’s the rub: In many instances, JPMorgan was forgiving loans on properties it no longer owned.



The alleged fraud is described in internal JPMorgan documents, public records, testimony from homeowners and investors burned in the scam, and other evidence presented in a blockbuster lawsuit against JPMorgan, now being heard in US District Court in New York City.



Sounds hard to believe, but it’s true. Not only that, but as we’ve come to expect from the “rule of law” in America, it somehow never applies to that group of people with the greatest ability to financially destroy people and their lives. Bankers. For example, here’s some more from the same piece:





Federal appointees have been complicit in this as well. E-mails show that the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight, charged by the government with ensuring the banks’ compliance with the two federal settlements, gave JPMorgan the green light to mass-forgive its loans. This served two purposes for the bank: It could take settlement credit for forgiving the loans, and it could also hide these loans—which JPMorgan had allegedly been handling improperly—from the settlements’ testing regimes.



“No one in Washington seems to understand why Americans think that different rules apply to Wall Street, and why they’re so mad about that,” said former congressman Miller. “This is why.”



Most of the loans that JPMorgan released—and received settlement credit for—were all but worthless. Homeowners had abandoned the homes years earlier, expecting JPMorgan to foreclose, only to have the bank forgive the loan after the fact. That forgiveness transferred responsibility for paying back taxes and making repairs back to the homeowner. It was like a recurring horror story in which “zombie foreclosures” were resurrected from the dead to wreak havoc on people’s financial lives.



Federal officials knew about the problems and did nothing. In July 2014, the City of Milwaukee wrote to Joseph Smith, the federal oversight monitor, alerting him that “thousands of homeowners” were engulfed in legal nightmares because of the confusion that banks had sown about who really owned their mortgages. In a deposition for the lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, Smith admitted that he did not recall responding to the City of Milwaukee’s letter.



Few would expect Jeff Sessions’s Justice Department to pursue such a case, but what this sorry episode most highlights is the pathetic disciplining of Wall Street during the Obama administration.



JPMorgan’s litany of acknowledged criminal abuses over the past decade reads like a rap sheet, extending well beyond mortgage fraud to encompass practically every part of the bank’s business. But instead of holding JPMorgan’s executives responsible for what looks like a criminal racket, Obama’s Justice Department negotiated weak settlement after weak settlement. Adding insult to injury, JPMorgan then wriggled out of paying its full penalties by using other people’s money.



The larger lessons here command special attention in the Trump era. Negotiating weak settlements that don’t force mega-banks to even pay their fines, much less put executives in prison, turns the concept of accountability into a mirthless farce. Telegraphing to executives that they will emerge unscathed after committing crimes not only invites further crimes; it makes another financial crisis more likely. The widespread belief that the United States has a two-tiered system of justice—that the game is rigged for the rich and the powerful—also enabled the rise of Trump. We cannot expect Americans to trust a system that lets Wall Street fraudsters roam free while millions of hard-working taxpayers get the shaft.



Of course, this is just the latest when it comes to JP Morgan. I highlighted the firm’s rap sheet in last month’s post, Which is Fraudulent – Bitcoin or JP Morgan?




How many JP Morgan executives have gone to jail?


Now onto Harvey Weinstein, a guy whose cretinous behavior has been the biggest non-secret in Hollywood for decades. Just like with banker crooks, he mere settles cases and continues to walk around, freely hunting the next defenseless victim.


The New York Times article published yesterday exposing some of this grotesque man’s history was extraordinary and I suggest everyone read it. Here’s just a little from the piece, Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Cases for Years:





Two decades ago, the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein invited Ashley Judd to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for what the young actress expected to be a business breakfast meeting. Instead, he had her sent up to his room, where he appeared in a bathrobe and asked if he could give her a massage or she could watch him shower, she recalled in an interview.


 


“How do I get out of the room as fast as possible without alienating Harvey Weinstein?” Ms. Judd said she remembers thinking.


 


In 2014, Mr. Weinstein invited Emily Nestor, who had worked just one day as a temporary employee, to the same hotel and made another offer: If she accepted his sexual advances, he would boost her career, according to accounts she provided to colleagues who sent them to Weinstein Company executives. The following year, once again at the Peninsula, a female assistant said Mr. Weinstein badgered her into giving him a massage while he was naked, leaving her “crying and very distraught,” wrote a colleague, Lauren O’Connor, in a searing memo asserting sexual harassment and other misconduct by their boss.


 


“There is a toxic environment for women at this company,” Ms. O’Connor said in the letter, addressed to several executives at the company run by Mr. Weinstein.


 


Dozens of Mr. Weinstein’s former and current employees, from assistants to top executives, said they knew of inappropriate conduct while they worked for him. Only a handful said they ever confronted him.


 


Mr. Weinstein enforced a code of silence; employees of the Weinstein Company have contracts saying they will not criticize it or its leaders in a way that could harm its “business reputation” or “any employee’s personal reputation,” a recent document shows. And most of the women accepting payouts agreed to confidentiality clauses prohibiting them from speaking about the deals or the events that led to them.


 


In interviews, some of the former employees who said they had troubling experiences with Mr. Weinstein asked a common question: How could allegations repeating the same pattern — young women, a powerful male producer, even some of the same hotels — have accumulated for almost three decades?


 


“It wasn’t a secret to the inner circle,” said Kathy DeClesis, Bob Weinstein’s assistant in the early 1990s. She supervised a young woman who left the company abruptly after an encounter with Harvey Weinstein and who later received a settlement, according to several former employees.


 


In March 2015, Mr. Weinstein had invited Ambra Battilana, an Italian model and aspiring actress, to his TriBeCa office on a Friday evening to discuss her career. Within hours, she called the police. Ms. Battilana told them that Mr. Weinstein had grabbed her breasts after asking if they were real and put his hands up her skirt, the police report says.


 


The claims were taken up by the New York Police Department’s Special Victims Squad and splashed across the pages of tabloids, along with reports that the woman had worked with investigators to secretly record a confession from Mr. Weinstein. The Manhattan district attorney’s office later declined to bring charges.



As disturbing as all that is, it might be the tip of the iceberg. Here’s some additional info from an article published today by The Daily Beast, Hollywood’s Loud Silence on Harvey Weinstein:





The Times piece later identified the 1997 actress as Rose McGowan, who starred in the 1996 film Scream, which was distributed by Weinstein-owned Dimension Films. In October 2016, McGowan tweeted, “Because my ex sold our movie to my rapist for distribution #WhyWomenDontReport.” It’s not known whom McGowan was referring to, though she dated filmmaker Robert Rodriguez from 2006 to 2009, and their film Planet Terror was distributed by Weinstein in 2007.



In the wake of the blockbuster Times exposé, The Daily Beast reached out to dozens of prominent actors, actresses, and filmmakers—who both have andhave not worked with Weinstein—only to receive many replies of “no comment” and plenty of radio silence.



Elite criminals are the most dangerous criminals on earth, but our justice system treats them like well-meaning philosopher kings who deserve endless breaks in the face of rampant unethical and often evil behavior. It should be completely obvious to everyone that the only reason elite crooks get treated with kid gloves is because they’re rich and powerful. The end result of this dereliction of justice is those entrusted with protecting the public have willingly created an entrenched, untouchable, distributed, criminal class which spans across and leads all major industries in America.


As I tweeted earlier today:



If we don’t get a grip on this now and begin to marshal our resources against the most dangerous criminals in America — those from the highest echelons of U.S. society — the country will continue to unravel and in an increasingly dangerous and chaotic fashion.



If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

JPMorgan Ordered To Pay Over $4 Billion To Widow And Family

A Dallas jury ordered JPMorgan Chase to pay more than $4 billion in damages for mishandling the estate of a former American Airlines executive.


Jo Hopper and two stepchildren won a probate court verdict over claims that JPMorgan mismanaged the administration of the estate of Max Hopper, who was described as an airline technology innovator by the family’s law firm. The bank, which was hired by the family in 2010 to independently administer the estate of Hopper, was found in breach of its fiduciary duties and contract. In total, JP Morgan Chase was ordered to pay at least $4 billion in punitive damages, approximately $4.7 million in actual damages, and $5 million in attorney fees.


The six-person jury, which deliberated a little more than four hours starting Monday night and returned its verdict at approximately 12:15 a.m. Tuesday, found that the bank committed fraud, breached its fiduciary duty and broke a fee agreement, according to court papers.


"The nation"s largest bank horribly mistreated me and this verdict provides protection to others from being mistreated by banks that think they"re too powerful to be held accountable," said Hopper in a statement. "The country"s largest bank, people we are supposed to trust with our livelihood, abused my family and me out of sheer ineptitude and greed. I"m blessed that I have the resources to hold JP Morgan accountable so other widows who don"t have the same resources will be better protected in the future."


"Surviving stage 4 lymphoma cancer was easier than dealing with this bank and its estate administration," Mrs. Hopper added.


Max Hopper, who pioneered the SABRE reservation system for the airline, died in 2010 with assets of more than $19 million but without a will and testament, according to the statement. JPMorgan was hired as an administrator to divvy up the assets among family members. “Instead of independently and impartially collecting and dividing the estate’s assets, the bank took years to release basic interests in art, home furnishings, jewelry, and notably, Mr. Hopper’s collection of 6,700 golf putters and 900 bottles of wine,” the family’s lawyers said in the statement. “Some of the interests in the assets were not released for more than five years.”





The bank"s incompetence caused more than just unacceptably long timelines; bank representatives failed to meet financial deadlines for the assets under their control. In at least one instance, stock options were allowed to expire. In others, Mrs. Hopper"s wishes to sell certain stock were ignored. The resulting losses, the jury found, resulted in actual damages and mental anguish suffered by Mrs. Hopper. With respect to Mr. Hopper"s adult children, the jury found that they lost potential inheritance in excess of $3 million when the Bank chose to pay its lawyers" legal fees out of the estate account to defend claims against the Bank for violating its fiduciary duty.



Confirming that much of America does not hold Wall Street in high regard, the court’s verdict form showed that  jurors awarded $8 billion in punitive damages against the bank. Alan Loewinsohn, attorney for Jo Hopper, said in an interview there may be duplication of some of the damage findings. He asked the jury to take into account the bank’s worth and asked them for $2 billion in punitive damages. “I believe they used that figure for the other parties in the case as well,” he said.


As a result, he said, the punitive damage award could end up being “somewhere between $4 billion and $8 billion.” The verdict form also shows jurors were advised to consider factors including “the net worth of JPMorgan.” JPM has a market cap of about $330 billion.


At the lower end of that range, the jury’s award would erase almost two-thirds of the $6.6 billion profit that JPMorgan generated globally during the second quarter. According to Bloomberg, it would rank high among the largest sanctions ever levied against the bank - somewhere between the $2.6 billion it agreed to pay in 2014 for allegedly failing to stop Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, and a $13 billion settlement it reached with government authorities in 2013 for its handling of mortgage bonds that fueled the financial crisis.


"Mrs. Hopper asked the jury to send a message loud enough for JP Morgan to hear it all the way to Park Avenue in Manhattan," said Loewinsohn, "Hopefully, that message has been received."


Probably not: sadly for widow Hopper, she is unlikely to see the full award: large punitive damages verdicts like the one in the Hopper case are often scaled back because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled they can’t be disproportionate to actual damages. In this case, the jury awarded less than $5 million in actual damages.


The bank said it acted in a professional manner and in good faith on Hopper’s estate and is “highly confident” the jury verdict won’t stand under Texas law.


“Clearly the award far exceeds any possible interpretation of Texas tort reform statutes,” Andrew Gray, a spokesman for the bank, said in an emailed statement. “There has been no judgment entered by the court based on this verdict.”

Sunday, September 17, 2017

If Jamie Dimon Hates It So Much, Why Is JPMorgan Buying Bitcoin In Europe?

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week, you will be well aware of JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon"s panicked outburst with regard the "fraud" that Bitcoin"s "tulip-like" bubble is. To paraphrase:





"It’s a fraud. It’s making stupid people, such as my daughter, feel like they’re geniuses. It’s going to get somebody killed. I’ll fire anyone who touches it."




Anecdotally, the post-Dimon collapse in crypto prices seems to confirm his view (though of course this is much more due to China concerns than a vested interest fearmonger), which makes us wonder... why is JPMorgan buying Bitcoin ETFs on European exchanges?


Nasdaq Stockholm has an actively traded Bitcoin ETN...


"Bitcoin Tracker One - SEK" is an open-end Exchange Traded Note incorporated in Sweden. The ETN is denominated in SEK and provides investors with access to the returns of the underlying asset, US Dollar per bitcoin, less investor fees.  The average USD exchange rate of bitcoin from the exchanges:- Bitfinex, Bitstamp and GDAX provides the underlying reference price which is converted into SEK.


In the last few days - as the underlying price collapsed - the ETN has remained bid, with heavy inflows, and now trades at around 20% premium to Net Asset Value...




And guess who has been buying?


JPMorgan Securities was the 4th biggest buyer...



h/t @IamNomad


Which suggest two scenarios... Either





i) JPMorgan is buying for its own account at Dimon-manipulated-lower prices (remember Dimon said any trader who bought Bitcoin would be fored for being "stupid"), or



ii) JPMorgan is buying for clients, seemingly offering no sense of fiduciary care amid Dimon"s warning to the world that the cryptocurrency is a fraud (is JPMorgan Securities knowingly allowing clients to buy securities it believes are a fraud?)



Which is it Jamie?


Friday, September 15, 2017

Former Citi CEO Vikram Pandit: "AI Could Kill 30% Of Back-Office Banking Jobs By 2023"

Just as the development of electronic trading led to mass downsizing on sales desks across Wall Street, advances in artificial intelligence could decimate the ranks of banks’ back-office staff, according to former Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit. And given the rapid pace of technological advance, jobs in operations and retail banking could begin disappearing in as few as five years.


Pandit, who shared his thoughts about the future of the banking industry during an interview with Bloomberg, said that the industry’s focus on technology as a cost-saving measure - Bank of America Corp.’s Chief Operating Officer Tom Montag said in June that the bank is searching for more ways for technology to replace people – has inspired him to move up his timeline aggressively.  



As Bloomberg points out, Pandit’s forecast for job losses is in step with one made by Citigroup last year. In a March 2016 report, the lender estimated a 30% reduction between 2015 and 2025, as banks find more applications for automation in their retail businesses. That could lead to job losses numbering 770,000 in the US, and as much as 1 million in Europe, Citigroup said.





“Everything that happens with artificial intelligence, robotics and natural language - all of that is going to make processes easier,” said Pandit, who was Citigroup’s chief executive officer from 2007 to 2012. “It’s going to change the back office.”



This pressure on employees to prove that they’re more productive than the technology has transformed banking into an “enormously competitive” industry, Pandit said, adding that he expects the shift to produce yet another wave of consolidation in an industry that’s already dangerously concentrated, a flaw that was both exposed and exacerbated by the financial crisis.


Though he also believes advances in technology will lead to the development of “specialist providers,” making the financial system “a bit more decentralized.”


Pandit achieved lasting notoriety after becoming CEO of Citigroup in December 2007 just as the cascading subprime mortgage crisis was driving the US economy into a recession. He had previously led a hedge fund that was acquired by the bank, and, upon taking the top job, was widely criticized in the press for his inexperience in managing many of Citigroup’s core businesses like, for example, banking.


He’s now the CEO of Orogen Group, an investment firm that he co-founded last year, five years after being forced out as Citi’s CEO.



While Pandit’s prediction should be concerning to anyone who works in the financial industry, humanity as a whole would have much more to worry about if another CEO’s dire predictions about AI are eventually realized.
In one of several memorable tweetstorms on the topic, Tesla CEO Elon Musk urged governments to start considering regulation to govern the development and application of AI technology, arguing that the machines pose a greater danger to the US than North Korea.





However, other banking CEOs, including JP Morgan Chase & Co.’s Jamie Dimon, have played down the potential impact of technology in the financial industry, as Bloomberg reminds us. Conversely, automation could create “more opportunities” for employment as the firm hires a bevy of “technology workers.”





“JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon cautioned in June against overreacting to the impact of technology on jobs. While the bank is using technology to reduce costs, that helps create other opportunities, Dimon said in an interview published on LinkedIn. He predicted that employee numbers at his firm will continue to rise -- as it hires more technology workers.”



…Of course, Dimon has every reason to expect this: After all, that’s exactly what happened when the adoption of automation by manufacturers began to accelerate. Right?
 

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Big Bank Bosses Are Dumping Their Stocks As "Credit Risk Ricochets Back"

"Credit risk is ricocheting back as a legitimate concern after years of hibernation..." warns David Hendler, founder and principal at Viola Risk Advisors, who considers recent share sales by executives at the big retail banks, in particular, to be smart, as consumer portfolios are showing signs of strain.



Wall Street analysts have been urging investors all year to buy stocks in the big US banks, but, as The FT reports, Wall Street itself is not listening.


We noted at the start of the year that executives of the biggest TBTF banks were dumping their shares as a post-Trump rally took their stock prices higher...






And now, as The FT reports, it continues to gather pace. Insiders at the big six banks by assets — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — have in total sold a net 9.32m shares on the open market since the turn of the year. Even excluding Warren Buffett’s big dumping of shares in Wells in April, to avoid tripping over rules capping ownership by a non-bank, sales by insiders outnumber purchases by about 14 to one.



That is an unusually long streak of net sales, across each of the big six.


Last year, for example, insiders at JPMorgan, Citigroup and Bank of America bought more shares than they sold.


Buying and selling of shares by bank insiders can have a powerful signalling effect.


Last year Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive of JPMorgan, seemed to call an end to a mini-rout in bank stocks when he bought half a million shares in his own bank in mid-February.


But there have been no similar demonstrations of faith by senior insiders this year, suggesting they fear that the big gains under Mr Trump have come to an end.


Insiders at Goldman and Morgan Stanley have made no open-market purchases this year, according to the Bloomberg data.


So who is the sucker at this table?


Dick Bove gets it... "banks won"t be able to hold on to the earnings boost they get from higher interest rates. The hole in the bottom of the piggy bank, as he described it, would be that higher rates would also hurt the value of financial assets held by the bank, thus leaking out any benefits from increasing borrowing costs."

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

"Swipe Right To Buy" - Bankers Swoop On Tinder Amid Trading Lull

America’s largest banks and their shareholders were quick to celebrate a recovery in trading revenues over the past year. But they may have spoken too soon.


Wall Street vets know they can’t fight the Fed – especially with the ostensibly “data-dependent” central bank committing to returning the Fed funds rate to 3% over the next two years.  But with the arrival of the summer doldrums ushering in low trading volumes across markets, traders are acknowledging that they can’t fight the seasons, either.





“After four straight quarters of rising income from trading, the biggest U.S. investment banks spent the past few months in a renewed slump. Shareholders will soon see how dull it’s been. Analysts estimate the five largest firms will say their combined revenue from trading dropped 11 percent from a year earlier to $18.4 billion -- the smallest haul for a second quarter since 2012. The banks start posting results July 1.”



Many Wall Street traders are opting to wait out the summer slowdown, focusing on their families, or their online dating profiles, instead of desperately trying to drum up business.



Indeed, one bond trader who spoke with Bloomberg said he’s been slipping out early to watch his kids play sports. A fund manager says his office just staged a golf retreat. And a trading supervisor at another bank confided that he’s spending more time swiping through potential romantic partners on the dating app Tinder.





"Among the hardest hit are fixed-income traders. Five investment banks – Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup and Morgan Stanley - are likely to see revenue from that business fall 16 percent to $11.2 billion, according to estimates gathered from nine analysts. At Goldman Sachs Group Inc., it probably tumbled 23 percent to about $1.5 billion, the estimates show. At JPMorgan Chase & Co., it likely fell 17 percent to $3.3 billion."



If these forecasts are accurate, the declines would represent the smallest haul for a second quarter since 2012. The banks start posting results July 1.





"But fixed-income trading isn’t the only area where banks are expecting a pullback: In equities trading, analysts estimate total revenue slipped 2 percent to $7.2 billion. Stock-trading leader Morgan Stanley may post the sharpest decline, about 6 percent."



Traders are grousing about a lack of market-moving news. Congressional gridlock is eroding optimism that President Donald Trump can enact a sweeping, pro-business agenda. Other geopolitical frictions have yet to jolt markets.



And while bank CEOs probably wish they could chain their clients and counterparties to their desks to keep them trading at all costs, the leaders of the biggest banks have been priming the market to expect a second-quarter slowdown in trading profits.





“Bank leaders began tamping down expectations at investor conferences six weeks ago. JPMorgan Chief Financial Officer Marianne Lake delivered the first warning, telling investors trading revenue was down roughly 15 percent in the quarter’s initial two months, hurt most by fixed-income trading. Equities held up better, she said, especially in derivatives and among units that cater to hedge funds.



Trading results are closely watched. The business generates about 25 percent of total revenue at the five banks and tends to be their most volatile major business. And to be sure, analysts -- often drawing on banks’ own commentary -- usually underestimate results. Citigroup Inc.’s net income, for example, has beaten their average estimate for 13 straight quarters. This time, the depth of a trading dip may be curtailed by an expected boost in lending fees.



That same day, Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Officer Brian Moynihan added to investors’ dismay by revealing his firm’s trading decline would probably be between 10 percent and 12 percent. Both executives blamed diminished client activity and low volatility. Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat soon echoed the prognosis, saying his firm is ‘right in line.’”



Corporate-bond trading is also expected to take a hit, though the size of the drop has been distorted by an exceptionally strong first-quarter.





“Altogether, corporate-bond trading volume on Wall Street dropped 13 percent in the second quarter to $1.14 trillion compared with the first quarter, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. And in equities, the VIX Index, a closely watched measure of volatility developed in the 1990s, dropped to its lowest level in more than 23 years.”



To be sure, some of the slowdown is also a matter of perception. As the drama of President Donald Trump’s first months in office – characterized by battles over the president’s legislative agenda, escalating tensions with North Korea and investigations into both Trump’s inner circle and Democratic stalwarts like former AG Loretta Lynch and Berne and Jane Sanders – gives way to the slowing summertime newsflow, traders are more cognizant of the slowdown this year.






“One bank trader said the quarter felt particularly dull because of the months-long crescendo of activity that led up to it. Britain’s vote to exit the European Union jolted markets last June. Trump’s election victory in November extended the run.



But in the second quarter, the flurry subsided. The slowdown soon began to chip away at the so-called Trump Bump that once boosted bank stocks. Investors are concerned the president and his Republican allies may struggle to enact policies to help big Wall Street banks.”


But excitement promises to make a comeback in the third quarter, as the battle over raising the debt ceiling looks poised to rattle markets, while traders are also waiting with bated breath to see if Trump can enact his proposals to repeal and replace Obamacare, as well as what’s shaping up to be the most sweepinof g tax reform agenda since the 1980s.





“What’s frustrating people more than anything is the lack of movement,” said Thomas Roth, head Treasury trading at MUFG Securities Americas Inc. At this point, traders need a major overhaul of U.S. regulations, a significant shift in fiscal or monetary policy, or some other surprise to trigger sustained investor action, he said.”



And yet, there’s also the possibility of a summer surprise that could shake the market out of its sense of complacency and cause trading volumes to skyrocket. Last year, we had Brexit. The year before, it was China"s decision to devalue the yuan. The only question is, what will it be this year? An armed conflict with North Korea? Or perhaps a de-escalation and diplomatic resolution? Will we see a sudden breakthrough on Trump’s legislative agenda? Looking further afield, maybe the long-awaited Chinese debt implosion will finally arrive? Or perhaps the US subprime auto-loan market will topple over like a house of cards.





“Something always blows up over summer,” he said. “We’ve seen it for many years.”



In the meantime, traders should probably appreciate the downtime while they have it, because once their kids head back to school and the news cycle picks up, they might not have another moment to breath until the holidays.





“As a salesman or trader, it does get to the stage where you go, ‘Christ, what am I going to do for the rest of the day?’” said Chris Wheeler, a bank analyst at Atlantic Equities. “I don’t think anyone is going to be that keen to be on the desk when it’s so quiet. The danger is people get quite bored.”
 


Friday, February 3, 2017

JPM Silver Rigging Dismissal Overturned

Appeals Court Overturns Dismissal in JP Morgan Silver Rigging Case


  • US Appeals Court overturns Dismissal in Silver Rigging Case against JPMorgan.

  • The Appeals court rejected Judge Engelmeyer’s claim that the plaintiffs did not prove JPMorgan made “uneconomic bids” in the silver forward’s markets.

  • New discovery may win the case against JPMorgan

Summary


Via Soren K. and MarketSlant | The New York 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that District Court Judge Engelmayer was in error when he dismissed the Silver price rigging lawsuits against JP Morgan. The appellate court felt that Engelmayer’s dismissal reasons amounted to “impermissible fact finding” and placed too high of a bar in concluding that plaintiffs had not adequately plead their case.


This reversal of the June, 2016 dismissal means the case will go back to the district court for further litigation. This also means the plaintiffs will ask for and receive more discovery. This can win the case for them.


The Lawsuit  Was Dismissed in June,2016: JPMorgan Chase & Co had won the dismissal of three private antitrust lawsuits, including from hedge fund manager Daniel Shak, accusing the largest U.S. bank of rigging a market for silver futures contracts traded on COMEX.The lawsuits accused JPMorgan of having in late 2010 and early 2011 placed artificial bids onto the trading floor, harangued employees at metals market COMEX to obtain prices it wanted, and made misrepresentations to a committee that set settlement prices. Our report from June 30th, here.


Why it Was Dismissed in June: U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan, however, said the plaintiffs, who also included traders Mark Grumet and Thomas Wacker, did not show that JPMorgan made "uneconomic" bids, or intended to rig the market at counterparties" expense. He also questioned the plaintiffs" use of Silver Indicative Forward Mid Rates ("SIFO") as a benchmark for determining proper levels for the spreads in their lawsuits.


In fact on April 21st, 2016 JP Morgan urged the judge quash the litigation. JPMorgan insisted allegations that the bank monopolized the market were too vague to support antitrust claims. They urged the judge to raise the bar for the plaintiffs" burden of proof.


The Appeals Court Overturns the Dismissal Yesterday: The appellate court held that the plaintiffs did in fact submitted evidence that did in fact reach a level warranting further investigation. Therefore, the case should not have been dismissed.


In quoting the law, the 3 judges stated:





A plaintiff need only allege enough facts ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,’ and ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’


They stated that Judge Enlgemayer’s requirements for such specifics were too high to reach, describing the proof bar being raised to “a level of detail not required to withstand a motion to dismiss”




In essence what Judge Engelmeyer asked of the plaintiffs was impossible to ascertain in those proceedings.  





Specifically: “Fact-specific questions cannot be resolved on the pleadings.”




Can JP Morgan Monopolize Silver? Yes


The appellate court noted that the plaintiffs" allegation of JP Morgan’s ability to control silver futures prices with reference to a particular market was proven correct. Thus,


"The District Court did not err in concluding that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a relevant market.”


This means that the plaintiffs showed plausibility that JP Morgan could control the far end of the Silver futures term structure via non-competitive bids.To traders, that means the JPM client who had to sell back month was faded way too low. [EDIT- And when one looks at the term structure from then, it is obvious that no true physical demand was in evidence based on the spot contango.- Vince Lanci]


Did JP Morgan Monopolize Silver?  To be Determined


The Appeals court did not say they believed JP Morgan exercised such ability to monopolize the Silver market. But the statement that they noted the power to do so was proven in the first hearing is significant in that it agrees with the District court’s findings.



Now What?


  1. The appellate court says the plaintiffs made a sufficient enough case for further investigation into a monopoly claim

  2. The findings of the appellate court will accompany the case file

  3. Judge Engelmeyer’s decision is removed and the case is remanded for further litigation and discovery

 


MarketSlant"s Analysis post the decision in June, 2016





 SIFO IS KEY


Given the (lawsuits") failure both to explain why SIFO should track silver futures spreads, and to concretely plead that it did so consistently, a mere general correlation between these two is not sufficient to make SIFO a reliable benchmark such that deviations from it support a claim of irrational pricing animated by anticompetitive aims," Engelmayer wrote.


Analysis:  a poor job was done explaining the role of SIFO in spread pricing.


SIFO represents the spread between expirations of FORWARD physical contracts in silver. The futures spread markets are derivative of the SIFO spreads. SIFO represents the cost-of-carry for physical silver and is used in determining lease/borrow rates over periods of time. These are in-turn extrapolated and the dominant factor in determining futures spreads on COMEX. Comex spreads are a direct function of SIFO. Without SIFO there are no spreads. And since SIFO was a much bigger market than the Comex spread market. The pricing mechanism was not fully transaparent. It was in the hands of a few dominant cartel-like players, as it had been for 30 years.



Analysis: The demand was fabricated


The market was only partially backwardated. Spot was below the next 6 expirations. Translation: there was no massive demand for immediate delivery. There was only demand in months where the last remaining floor traders who took risk trading their own money had positions. JPM"s own book was likely short and had to get liquidity to cover their own positions. We knew Shak from our floor days, and were trading spreads off floor when this happened. They should not have lost this case. Comex traders do not trade spot. Spot was under the backwardation. Smoking gun? No, but damning circumstantial evidence in the least. 



Bottom Line on the Trade


What most likely really happened then was a silver miner had to hedge forward and cover up front. JPM likely had this client cornered and faded their back month bids. The miner, having no where else he could go, hit them OTC, when they were much better bid on the floor. The floor locals were un over. Meanwhile no otehr Bullion dealer was involved on either end of the trade. ifthis is true, think about the lock down JPM had with that client. Once SIFO and COMEX spreads are proven to be linked, the case will be made.



Blythe Did a Mini Buffet to a Client


How come in 1997 when Warren Buffet, who actually stood for delivery, the market did not rally until AFTER the spreads backwardated all the way to spot? Yet in 2011, the market had rallied already, and all of a sudden spreads (literally overnight during asian and london hours) went into backwardation? In a real market, the spread activity predicts the physical demand before the flat price does. You see the spot price start to act squirrelly to the front month future in the EFP. There are exceptions to this. But it is rare.


This trader also remembers that in 1997, Buffet was asked by the Govt to defer his request for delivery a year. He happily complied by selling spot and rolling out to a 1 year future. Payout? He netted an ROR of 40% due to negative carry without selling. Effectively he lent the producers their silver back to them ($7.40) at a premium of approximately 40% higher than his cost ($4.50). So Blythe did a "mini" Buffet, that"s all.


Why wasn"t that opportunity afforded SHAK and other locals? Does that have to be answered beyond this: In Mr. Buffet"s case "the integrity of the market was at stake"( Hunt Brother"s anyone?). The whole Silver mining industry was in jeopardy. (TBTF). But  in Shak v.JPM only locals got burned. I"m sure each one of my arguments for manipulation can be taken apart by some lawyer or expert. But that is what they do. Facts against them? Argue the Law. Law against them? Argue the facts. Both against them? Use ad hominum attacks to shoot the messenger. 


Good Luck



Saturday, January 21, 2017

Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman 2016 Pay: $22,500,000

With all eyes focused on Washington, on a Friday evening, Morgan Stanley just revealed that 58-year-old Morgan Stanley CEO James "don"t call me Jim" Gorman was paid $22.5 million. Despite a notable drop in earnings from expectations and a focus on cost-cutting, Gorman got a 7.1% pay rise (almost double that of Jamie Dimon).


Analysts expected Morgan Stanley to earn $3.155 in 2016. By the end of 2016 the firm realized just $2.756... but thanks to Trump"s election victory, the stock soared...



As Bloomberg notes, Gorman received $1.5 million in salary as well as restricted stock units, Mark Lake, a company spokesman, said Friday. The restricted stock is valued at about $5 million based on Wednesday’s closing price. The New York-based firm will report other components of Gorman’s pay package in coming months.


Gorman’s pay for 2015 was $21 million, down 6.7 percent from the prior year. He typically receives at least half of his compensation in the form of restricted shares. Some vest over time depending on the bank’s return on equity and stock performance relative to the S&P Financials Index, while the remainder vests over three years regardless of financial results. Part of his cash payouts also have been deferred over three years.


The CEO in November made his first sale of Morgan Stanley stock since he joined the bank in 2006. He sold shares and exercised stock options for a net gain of about $10 million, regulatory filings show.




Gorman"s pay raise comes as the firm has shifted its focus toward wealth management with a $1 billion expense-reduction program, improving the wealth unit"s profit margin and increasing shareholder capital return are key in its effort to improve return on equity.

Friday, January 13, 2017

Morgan Stanley Cuts Investment Banking Bonuses By 15%, Fires 5% Of Managing Directors

Ahead of a deluge of bank earnings reports starting tomorrow morning, which include JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, and all of which are "whispered" to come in above expectations, an ominous harbinger hit the newswires this afternoon when Reuters reported that Morgan Stanley not only laid off various senior investment bankers last week, just ahead of bonuses season, but also slashed investment banking bonuses by roughly 15% as a result of "a decline in revenue from dealmaking and capital raising across Wall Street."



While individual bankers bonuses fluctuated depending on performance and geographic region, many are said to have received a smaller paycheck for 2016. Furthermore Morgan Stanley, which remains a bulge bracket investment bank and ranked fourth in IB fees last year, also cut more than 20 MDs from its global investment banking division, roughly 5% of total.


While Morgan Stanley, like other major banks, typically lets go of the bottom 5% of its workforce at year-end to get rid of underperformers, the cuts to senior bankers were deeper than in years past, according to Reuters sources. Morgan Stanley also announced the promotion of managing directors on Thursday.


The layoffs will hardly come as a surprise as Wall Street banks have been shedding staff and curbing compensation for years to cut costs. They have also been losing top talent to boutique firms, which can pay a greater portion of compensation in cash. Further pressuring Wall Street"s animal spirits, global investment banking fees across Wall Street declined 7% in 2016 to a three-year low, according to Thomson Reuters data. 


While drops were recorded in most IB vertical, equity capital market fees, which declined 23 percent, were hit the most as a result of a drop off in initial public offerings. IPO activity in 2016 occurred at the lowest levels since 2009. M&A also slowed from record levels in 2015, with global deal volume falling 17%.


Ironically, despite being largely shunned by Wall Street ahead of the election, there is hope that banker compensation will rebound in 2017 thanks to Donald Trump, as a result of more active trading by retail investors, as well as a rebound in bond issuance (with the first 10 days of January already above $100 billion in IG issuance, an all time record) and other M&A and advisory activity.