= Subscriber content; or subscribe now to access all American Banker content.

JPM Loss Makes Case for Higher Capital

WASHINGTON — Weeks after JPMorgan Chase disclosed its massive loss from its trading activities, most of the policy discussions have focused on whether to toughen the Volcker Rule that bans proprietary trading.

But another — and possibly more significant — debate is taking place behind the scenes: what does the loss say about the state of big banks' capital requirements?

The $2 billion-plus loss has bolstered those who argue that regulators are over-relying on data-driven exercises like stress tests, which failed to see JPM's London hedges as a threat, when they should be even more focused on higher capital requirements across the board.

"This only highlights the need for capital. If you are going to control, the main thing you want is that they would have a lot of loss absorbency. So whatever stupid things they do, it's not going to be somebody else's problems," said Anat Admati, George G. C. Parker Professor of Finance and Economics at the Graduate Business School at Stanford University. "Solvency problems are at the heart of any banking problem and they just have to be reduced and that's what capital is about fundamentally, reducing the solvency concerns."

Yet Admati and other capital proponents see flaws in even the revised set of standards proposed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which the Federal Reserve Board is set to formally embrace at a meeting Thursday.

"The problem that we have — and the recent JPMorgan episode illustrates that — is what happens when banks start taking on a lot of risk in parts of the bank that are not historically where the risk has been taken," said Robin Lumsdaine, a former Fed official and now a professor at American University. "The capital regulations are designed to focus on the riskiest areas of the institution. If risk is being taken in other parts of the firm, then the capital regulations are understandably going to be somewhat inadequate."

In the case of JPMorgan, for example, capital regulations wouldn't have touched the firm's office of the chief investment office, which is largely considered a risk management function.

"You assume that the CIO office is the one that's looking across the firm, doing that detailed granular evaluation, identifying risks, and managing them properly," said Lumsdaine. "That means the only positions they have, the only risk exposures they should be taking on, are hedging positions. They're not supposed to be the part of the firm that's speculating."

To be sure, in the case of JPMorgan, the firm was easily able to absorb the losses, which were small relative to the size of the firm. That is in no small part due to its high capital levels.

U.S. firms have built up their capital since the Federal Reserve began stress testing institutions in 2009. The 19 bank holding companies, including JPMorgan, that participated in those and subsequent tests have increased their Tier 1 common capital levels to $759 billion by the fourth quarter of 2011 from $420 billion in the first quarter

of 2009. Tier 1 common ratio for these firms has also increased to 10.4% from 5.4%.

Under Basel III, banks will be required to hold 7% capital by 2019, while the largest firms will have to hold an extra cushion of between 1% to 2.5%.

Still, many experts wonder whether that's enough. On its own, the JPM loss wasn't a systemic threat. But what happens if other banks engage in similarly disastrous trades — or losses emerge from activities that were previously considered low-risk (as mortgages were prior to the financial crises)?

"The key is what's the risk?" said Admati. "Is this the worst case? Is this what we're preparing for? The answer is, No. This is just a suggestion of the risk that are in and around their balance sheet. It's not a fortress. The risks — you don't see them there on these accounting numbers of this balance sheet."

Observers are particularly concerned about the stress tests, which regulators increasingly are relying on yet failed to foresee the trading loss at JPMorgan. It also didn't account for the reputational hit that the firm took when it finally disclosed the losses after Jamie Dimon, the firm's chairman and chief executive officer, previously dismissed them as a "tempest in a teapot."

In its stress test results released by the Fed, the New York-based institution held a Tier 1 capital ratio of 9.9% under normal expected circumstances and 5.9% capital ratio under extremely adverse conditions such as a 13% rate of unemployment and a sharp decline of gross domestic product to minus 8%. The results did show a $27.7 billion trading and counterparty losses, which included mark-to-market losses, changes in credit valuation adjustments and incremental default losses, as well as loan losses worth of $55.8 billion from first lien mortgages, credit cards and other loans.

But it would not have included, or even detected, individual hedges that would have pointed to a potential risk that led to JPMorgan's $2 billion trading loss.


(3) Comments



Comments (3)
The ivory tower folks are only thinking about systemic risks and holding capital to absorb 100% of any risk scenario. They are not thinking about the impact to the overall economy if capital is leaves the banking industry as a result of overcapitalization and resultant returns below those required by investors.
Posted by anchorba | Monday, June 04 2012 at 10:08AM ET
More capital is not the answer. This type of "Asset" is valued by VaR. All assets wether trading book or banking book should have the same treatment with PDs LGDs and EADs.
Posted by Old School Banker | Monday, June 04 2012 at 9:07AM ET
Bill Isaac almost always hits the nail on the head. If you go back to banking downturns, you would find that there is a period of laissez-faire attitudes held by the regulators with respect to the broad risks to the industry, prior to each banking downturn. Consistent and pragmatic regulation, and strong leadership of the regulatory agencies during "the good times" is what we need. The pendulum swing needs to moderate. Bill inherited a mess when he became the head of the FDIC and he delt with it as well as anyone could expect. As a result, banks were not a drag on the expansion in the '80's, they were a healthy part of it.
Posted by Ray Dardano | Monday, June 04 2012 at 8:18AM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.