JPMorgan

Mike Mayo: I think what I hear UBS saying in their presentation is, if I’m an affluent customer, I’ll feel a lot better going to UBS if they have a 13 percent capital ratio than another big bank with a 10 percent ratio, do you agree with that or disagree? Jamie Dimon: So you would go to UBS and not JPMorgan? Mike Mayo: I didn’t say that, that’s their argument. Jamie Dimon: That’s why I’m richer than you. [BloombergTV]

  • 20 Feb 2013 at 4:35 PM

Does Jamie Dimon Have Too Much on His Plate?

Some meddlesome JPMC investors seem to think so. Read more »

  • 13 Feb 2013 at 12:20 PM

Layoffs Watch ’13: JPMorgan

Cuts are said to have gone down at the House o’ Dimon this morning, apparently affecting a handful of equities employees.

I’m mesmerized by this JPMorgan research chart showing that big banks shouldn’t be broken up because they lend so much more to businesses and consumers than small banks do. See:

Basically for every dollar of normalized capital, JPMorgan has extended $12 of credit between March 2010 and September 2012, according to this note by JPM’s Michael Cembalest. Whereas the small banks have loaned out only about $2. Get with the program, small banks!

The trick here – besides “normalized capital”1 – is that “credit extended” means (1) “changes in commercial and consumer loan balances” plus (2) syndicated loan, corporate bond, muni bond, etc. underwriting. That is, if you stand between a company looking for money and the market that provides it, you get, um, credit for extending credit, whether you do that standing-between in traditional banking ways (take deposit, make loans) or in traditional investment banking ways (match bond buyer with bond issuer). “See, we’re lending,” says JPMorgan. “We’re just not lending our money.”2

As a rhetorical move, I say: A+. Read more »

Financial innovation gets kind of a bad rap, and one of my favorite parts of this job is when I get to celebrate it just for being itself. Sometimes this means breathtaking magic like the derivative on its derivatives that Credit Suisse sold to itself, or elegant executions of classic ideas like the Coke shares that SunTrust sold for regulatory purposes but not for tax purposes. Other times it’s a more prosaic combination of already-existing building blocks to allow people who were comfortably doing something to keep comfortably doing it in the face of regulations designed to make it more uncomfortable.

Yesterday a reader pointed me to a Bond Buyer article that, while perhaps neither all that scandalous nor all that beautiful, is sort of cozy. It’s about a new issue of callable commercial paper issued by a Florida municipal financing commission, and here’s the joke:

JPMorgan came up with the new product as a solution for variable-rate municipal issuers facing impending Basel III regulatory problems. The proposed regulations would require banks to have a certain higher value of highly liquid assets to be available to turn into cash to meet liquidity commitments that could be drawn within 30 days. Maintaining higher liquidity would be expensive for banks, which may try to pass on costs to its issuers, according to an analyst at Moody’s Investors Service. “What we did, starting over a year ago, is ask what we can do to change the product that will still work for all the players, including issuers, investors, and the rating agencies,” Lansing said. “And the ultimate result was this product.” The new product allows banks to continue to support variable-rate products after the regulations are implemented. The paper has a variable length of maturity, but always at least 30 days. Several days before the paper would have 30 days left to its maturity, the issuer calls the paper.

The joke isn’t that funny, though I giggled at the phrase “a solution for variable-rate municipal issuers facing impending Basel III regulatory problems.” Municipal issuers face no Basel III problems: municipalities are not subject to Basel III. Read more »

  • 24 Jan 2013 at 6:10 PM
  • Banks

JPMorgan Sees No Need To Appoint Committee To Break Up JPMorgan

Do you have an opinion on whether JPMorgan is too big to manage and should be broken into its constituent bits? You do? Hey, that’s great, good for you. Here’s what you can do about it, in roughly descending order of effectiveness:

  • Be Jamie Dimon, do what you want.
  • Be a board member, try to convince others to do what you want.
  • Be a big activist1 hedge fund, call up the board and management and try to make them do what you want.1
  • Be a sell-side analyst, regulator, politician, former bank CEO, pundit, blogger, or person; write down what you want JPMorgan to do and why you want them to do it; and hope that they read it.
  • Same, but with Twitter.
  • Keep it to yourself and go about your business like a human.
  • Be a troublemaking shareholder activist2 and submit a shareholder proposal asking the board to include in the proxy an advisory vote on whether JPMorgan should form a committee to look into doing the thing you want or something else like it or not like it.

This is sort of a non-thing: Read more »

  • 23 Jan 2013 at 1:32 PM
  • Banks

Bank Investors Push For Change Via Strongly Worded Poll Responses

I feel like this exchange did not go well for Jamie Dimon:

[Elliott Capital's Paul] Singer said the unfathomable nature of banks’ public accounts made it impossible to know which were “actually risky or sound”. … Mr Singer noted that derivatives positions, in particular, were difficult for outside investors to parse and worried that banks did not always collateralise their positions. Mr Dimon said the bank did for all “major” clients. Mr Singer retorted: “Well, we’re a minor client then.”

Whoops! Guess someone else doesn’t know what positions banks collateralize. I suspect someone at Elliott is already on the phone with JPMorgan to renegotiate their CSA. Also so many other people; I count about $50 billion of uncollateralized (fair value) derivative exposure at JPMorgan, suggesting that it fully collateralizes a little under two-thirds of its trades.1 Perhaps those are the two-thirds with the major clients, but if so that seems a little irrelevant. That’s a lot of minor-client money.

Why does Singer care? Well I guess he wants better collateral terms from JPMorgan? More seriously … there is whatever incentive to say things that always exists at Davos sessions, which I guess is a thing, ugh.2 Then there is the broad question of whether banks are too opaque to invest in. Singer is not alone in thinking that the answer is no; we talked a while back about how a lot of smart people get kind of freaked out by bank financial statements; derivatives, as well as other buzzwords like prop trading and opacity, play a role in their conclusions as well. Also here is a funny article about how 60% of Bloomberg subscribers are basically commie anarchists: Read more »