Friday 18 May 2012

JP Morgan: justice department opens investigation into $2bn trading losses


Karen McVeigh in Tampa and Dominic Rushe in New York
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 May 2012 14.05 EDT




The US justice department opened an investigation into how JP Morgan lost more than $2bn in poorly managed trading at its London office as the bank's embattled boss, Jamie Dimon, saw off attempts by shareholders to strip him of his role as chairman.

The justice department inquiry is at a preliminary stage and as yet there appears to be no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at the bank. The Securities and Exchange Commission has already launched a separate investigation and as political pressure for greater regulation of Wall Street banks begins to mount.

President Barack Obama appeared on the daytime talk show The View on Tuesday to call for Wall Street reform. "JP Morgan is the best, or one of the best managed, banks. You could have a bank that isn't as strong, isn't as profitable making those same bets and we might have had to step in. That's exactly why Wall Street reform's so important," he said.

He said Dimon, the chairman and chief executive officer of JP Morgan, was "one of the smartest bankers we've got – and they still lost $2bn and counting."

At the bank's annual meeting, held at a tightly secured facility seven miles outside Tampa, Florida, shareholders quizzed Dimon on what went wrong. He said the losses "never should have happened" and that "all corrective actions" were being taken.

Forty-one percent of shareholders voted for a proposal by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) to appoint an independent chairman. Dimon also received 94.8% approval from shareholders on his $23m pay package from last year.

Lisa Lindsley, a AFSCME director, said the vote on splitting chairman and CEO was "pretty high" in favour considering most of the votes were in before the losses were announced last week. A similar proposal last year for an independent lead director got only 11.9% of the vote.

"We're not saying he should be fired as CEO," said Lindsley. But the "stakes were too high to continue business as usual," she told shareholders. "An all-powerful CEO is his own boss," she said. "Looking for an infallible CEO is a fool's errand."

After the meeting, Dimon told reporters that the bank was considering whether to claw back bonuses from those responsible for the losses. "We will do the right thing. And that may well include clawbacks," Dimon said. "The buck always stops with me."

On Monday Ina Drew, JP Morgan's chief investment officer, quit. Drew oversaw the London-based bankers at the heart of JP Morgan's losses.

Drew earned over $31m in the past two years, according to regulatory filings. She is expected to be the first of several bankers to leave the bank in the wake of the fiasco.

The scandal has put intense pressure on Dimon, who also sits on the advisory board of the New York Federal Reserve. Shareholders at the meeting questioned Dimon's role at the New York Fed, a position that has recently attracted criticism from US politicians. Dimon said his role is on an "advisory" board and that he isn't allowed to vote on anything.

But having emerged from the credit crisis as the most credible banker on Wall Street, the London trading loss has dented Dimon's reputation, and his role as Wall Street's chief cheerleader against new financial regulations – in particular the Volcker rule that would limit trades like the ones that went wrong in London.

In April, analysts asked Dimon about rumours of problems in London by analysts. At Tuesday's AGM, Father Seamus Finn, who represents Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, told Dimon that he "had heard the same refrain" before.

"Mr Dimon, you showed your disappointment at the mistakes our company has made over robo-signing and sloppy practices that have wreaked havoc on the life of many homeowners. You assured us you would learn from those mistakes," he said.

Finn said: "We heard you describe the latest problem as an 'oversight' … you spoke of red flags. Do you still believe that the company should still self-regulate any trading on their own accounts?

"Are your thoughts on the Volcker rule still evolving? We can't help wondering if you are listening."

No comments:

Post a Comment