The baseline problem underlying J.P. Morgan's recently announced $2 billion loss on a credit default swap bet gone bad is that big banks face virtually all economic risks. Banking, as conducted by major money center banks, cuts across essentially all economic sectors, all lines of commerce, all financial instruments, and all asset classes. There are some exceptions. For example, big banks rarely dabble in penny stocks or business startups. And they tend to limit their exposure to junk bonds. But they directly or indirectly play in almost all sandboxes in the economy.
The essential conceit of contemporary financial engineering is that risk somehow can be controlled. It is believed that if you find a clever enough math whiz with an MBA from a sufficiently fancy school, s/he can fashion a derivative for any purpose that will magically (albeit for a fee) transport risk to a distant land from which it will never return. With such magical powers, one need not be prudent and limit exposure to risky assets. One need only have a smart enough financial engineer to fashion a seemingly appropriate hedge.
Derivatives can work, and work well, when the risk they're meant to mitigate is narrow and well-defined. For example, futures contracts for red winter wheat serve salutary purposes when appropriately used by farmers, grain companies and speculators.
But when derivatives are deployed to mitigate wide-ranging and vaguely defined risks, their limitations come into play. Press reports indicate that J.P. Morgan's management directed its chief investment office to mitigate the risks of economic deterioration in Europe. This, to say the least, is a rather large, complex and wide ranging problem. Things in Europe can go downhill for a variety of reasons, not all of which are easily defined or predicted. The murkier a situation, the more difficult it becomes to fashion appropriate hedges. And if the hedges aren't entirely appropriate, their imperfections may have be hedged in turn. Reports in the financial press indicate the mandate from J.P. Morgan's management seems to have morphed into a net position that bet on improved financial health for a number of major corporations. Such a bet wouldn't seem the intuitively obvious way to hedge against a downturn in Europe.
As with all financial firms, J.P. Morgan's most important asset is its reputation. Since the 2007-08 financial crisis, its reputation has been golden. J.P. Morgan avoided unduly large real estate risks. It bought Bear Stearns at the government's behest, quelling incipient panic in the financial system. Its earnings were relatively stable, compared to its competitors. While the latter downsized to ditch hinky assets and offload risk, J.P. Morgan became the largest bank in America.
But such golden reputations become a burden, because the market expected J.P. Morgan to remain golden. Given that big money center banks face virtually all economic risks, this becomes a harder and harder job as time passes. Skilled risk managers and corporate executives might be able to anticipate most risks most of the time. But no one can predict all risks all the time, and a financial institution facing the length and breadth of economic risks borne by major money center banks will stumble sooner or later. Indeed, the longer a bank's winning streak, the greater the chance the next quarter will be a bad one.
Management sitting on a winning streak will understandably want to keep the streak going. But they must consider whether or not they can. Not all risks can be hedged or managed. Much of the "hedging" that goes on in the financial markets consists of using apples to hedge oranges. The two sides of the hedge are not mirror images of each other, but approximations. If the approximations are pretty close, a well-capitalized firm can get by. But that "if" gets bigger and bigger as derivatives positions get larger and as some derivatives are used to hedge risk factors in other hedges (which may have been the case at J.P. Morgan). When risk managers and management fail to recognize that the magic doesn't work in all situations, they get a morass.
Recognizing one's limits is an ancient and highly effective means of risk management. Not taking a risk, or offloading it, eliminates the possibility that it will later bite your butt. Being the biggest bank doesn't necessarily mean that you're the best bank. Appreciate that derivatives are imperfect financial instruments, and because of their newness, their imperfections are imperfectly understood. Given the inability to comprehend all risks or hedge them, having a shipload of capital may be best way for a bank to safeguard its future.
Banks typically trade at comparatively low multiples of earnings per share. That's because of the plethora of risks financial firms typically face. The siren call of the derivatives market is that, for a fee, a bank can hedge its way out of problems instead of having to manage them. These sirens have claimed a number of victims since the 2007-08 financial crisis, and now they appear to have lured J.P. Morgan onto a rocky coast.
Showing posts with label J.P. Morgan Chase. Show all posts
Showing posts with label J.P. Morgan Chase. Show all posts
Monday, May 14, 2012
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Robber Barons Redux in the Derivatives Market?
A recent story from Bloomberg.com reported that two large banks, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase, are using their market power to secure extra large helpings of collateral in derivatives transactions with hedge funds. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=af6uIAFTSorY. For example, Goldman reportedly obtained $110 billion more in collateral on derivatives transactions than it paid out. In effect, it got $110 billion in low cost funding that it could reinvest at a profit. J.P. Morgan Chase netted $37 billion in a similar way.
On one level, we're glad that hedge funds dancing in the derivatives market are subsidizing Goldman and J.P. Morgan. Otherwise, the Fed might feel compelled to print more money to ensure plenty of cheap funding for the too large to fail.
But the Bloomberg story states that these two behemoths of the financial markets had their way with counterparties because of their market power. In the post-2008 financial markets, there are only a few firms that offer some derivatives products sought by hedge funds, and those few evidently make their customers pay full freight and perhaps more.
On the level of economic theory, oligopolistic behavior is undesirable because the oligopolists extract "monopoly rents" from their customers--i.e., profits above the level that a truly competitive market would provide. This misallocation of economic resources enhances the power of the oligopoly, which can use that power to further entrench itself and secure more monopoly rents. To restate the point in plain English, oligopoly power allows the already megawealthy to become even more indescribably rich.
Surely we taxpayers, who have already subsidized Wall Street to the tune of multi-billions, are gratified to learn that those clever kids at Goldman and J.P. Morgan Chase can look forward to even more wealth. But let's also consider the impact of this collateral disparity on market risks. The derivatives market has a zero-sum quality. If a risk is transferred from one party to another, it doesn't disappear. It simply lands in the second party's lap, who must then figure out what to do with the hot tamale. In a similar way, if more, rather than less, of the hedge fund community's funding is transferred to money center banks, that leaves less for the hedge funds. Prudent hedge fund managers, after having their arms twisted by bank counterparties for extra collateral, would shrink their asset bases in order to keep risk levels in line with their reduced circumstances.
But this is Wall Street. Profits talk and prudence walks. Reduce your assets, and you reduce your money making potential. Do we really think that, just because GS and JPM have reduced their risk levels, their counterparties will do so as well? Or might it just possibly be that their counterparties would simply live more dangerously?
We've seen this video before. It was called The Grasping Counterparties Who Ruined AIG's Entire Day. Recall that AIG reached the brink because its derivatives counterparties, with the largest being Goldman, demanded more collateral than AIG could deliver. Surrounded by a pack of ravenous counterparties, AIG would have been torn to shreds except that the federal government appeared in the nick of time with $180 billion to drive (or rather, buy) off the wolfpack. Goldman claims it was fully hedged from AIG risk. But in order to do God's work it took the taxpayers' money anyway.
If Goldman's and J.P. Morgan Chase's counterparties are now at greater risk, where would that risk fall if the markets turn sour? It's possible that the derivatives markets have become more fragile because of the increasing concentration of market power in the hands a few money center banks. Locating any such fragility is difficult, because the absence of financial regulatory reform leaves us with only the fog of opacity of the derivatives market, circa 2008--well, 2010. Of course, if there is a blowup, the Fed can always print some more money. And that's okay, because there never, ever will be any inflation again. At least, that seems to be close to what some high ranking government officials have told us and they couldn't be wrong, could they?
On one level, we're glad that hedge funds dancing in the derivatives market are subsidizing Goldman and J.P. Morgan. Otherwise, the Fed might feel compelled to print more money to ensure plenty of cheap funding for the too large to fail.
But the Bloomberg story states that these two behemoths of the financial markets had their way with counterparties because of their market power. In the post-2008 financial markets, there are only a few firms that offer some derivatives products sought by hedge funds, and those few evidently make their customers pay full freight and perhaps more.
On the level of economic theory, oligopolistic behavior is undesirable because the oligopolists extract "monopoly rents" from their customers--i.e., profits above the level that a truly competitive market would provide. This misallocation of economic resources enhances the power of the oligopoly, which can use that power to further entrench itself and secure more monopoly rents. To restate the point in plain English, oligopoly power allows the already megawealthy to become even more indescribably rich.
Surely we taxpayers, who have already subsidized Wall Street to the tune of multi-billions, are gratified to learn that those clever kids at Goldman and J.P. Morgan Chase can look forward to even more wealth. But let's also consider the impact of this collateral disparity on market risks. The derivatives market has a zero-sum quality. If a risk is transferred from one party to another, it doesn't disappear. It simply lands in the second party's lap, who must then figure out what to do with the hot tamale. In a similar way, if more, rather than less, of the hedge fund community's funding is transferred to money center banks, that leaves less for the hedge funds. Prudent hedge fund managers, after having their arms twisted by bank counterparties for extra collateral, would shrink their asset bases in order to keep risk levels in line with their reduced circumstances.
But this is Wall Street. Profits talk and prudence walks. Reduce your assets, and you reduce your money making potential. Do we really think that, just because GS and JPM have reduced their risk levels, their counterparties will do so as well? Or might it just possibly be that their counterparties would simply live more dangerously?
We've seen this video before. It was called The Grasping Counterparties Who Ruined AIG's Entire Day. Recall that AIG reached the brink because its derivatives counterparties, with the largest being Goldman, demanded more collateral than AIG could deliver. Surrounded by a pack of ravenous counterparties, AIG would have been torn to shreds except that the federal government appeared in the nick of time with $180 billion to drive (or rather, buy) off the wolfpack. Goldman claims it was fully hedged from AIG risk. But in order to do God's work it took the taxpayers' money anyway.
If Goldman's and J.P. Morgan Chase's counterparties are now at greater risk, where would that risk fall if the markets turn sour? It's possible that the derivatives markets have become more fragile because of the increasing concentration of market power in the hands a few money center banks. Locating any such fragility is difficult, because the absence of financial regulatory reform leaves us with only the fog of opacity of the derivatives market, circa 2008--well, 2010. Of course, if there is a blowup, the Fed can always print some more money. And that's okay, because there never, ever will be any inflation again. At least, that seems to be close to what some high ranking government officials have told us and they couldn't be wrong, could they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
