By David Henry and Lauren Tara LaCapra
NEW YORK, March 18 In 2011, senior executives at
JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) told one of the bank's trading and
hedging groups to scale back its riskier positions as new
regulations would make these bets much more expensive to
The group, called the Chief Investment Office (CIO), was
asked to cut risk-weighted assets, a key measurement that
regulators use when assessing a bank's stability and how much
capital it needs to hold, according to a U.S. Senate
subcommittee report on Thursday.
In December 2011, the CIO came up with a plan to change its
risk models. It estimated that by calculating risk differently,
the bank could reduce its risk-weighted assets by $7 billion -
more than half the targeted amount - without having to actually
sell the securities.
The CIO famously went on to lose more than $6 billion last
year from bad credit derivatives bets that came to be known as
the "London whale" trades. One of the main reasons the losses
grew so large, according to Senate investigators, were the
changes that JPMorgan made to its risk models. [ID:nL1N0C6JF0]
A JPMorgan spokesman declined to comment. The largest U.S.
bank has acknowledged mistakes but said senior management acted
in good faith and never had any intent to mislead anyone.
Investors say they fear that JPMorgan is not alone in
tinkering with risk models to meet tougher capital requirements
laid out in new regulations known as Basel III.
Global banks are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to
install elaborate computer models to measure risk and make sure
they are adequately capitalized. Under Basel III, banks can
shrink their risk-weighted assets - and boost profits - if they
can build a model to prove the bond or loan is not so risky.
While banks can use these models legitimately, they can also
be tweaked to try to game the system, said Adam Compton, a
portfolio manager at Atlanta-based hedge fund GMT Capital Corp.
"You're naive if you don't think it ever happens," said
Compton, who scrutinizes financial statements for banks.
Capital is a key source of safety for the global banking
system, and bad models could lead to undercapitalized banks.
Many big banks were not holding enough capital when the
financial crisis erupted in 2008, forcing some to fail or take
government bailouts as they were unable to absorb losses. But
keeping capital levels high makes banks less profitable.
As JPMorgan's experience with the CIO shows, the line
between optimizing capital and manipulating it is fine, and
often hard for outsiders - including regulators - to discern,
say experts in regulatory measurements of risk.
JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon himself pointed out in
2010 that "some banks have far more aggressive risk-weighted
asset calculators than we do."
GOING INTO BOOKS
Banks need to seek regulatory approval for new risk models,
but regulators may not have the time or sophistication to figure
out when they are being duped, according to financial risk
Basel III rules run to 616 pages, compared with 347 pages
for Basel II and 30 pages for the 1988 Basel I accord.
An examiner of bank books, who is stationed inside one of
the biggest U.S. banks by a regulatory body, said regulators can
- and do - back-test model changes, ask for detailed information
on what specifically changed, and fight the banks on changes if
they are inappropriate.
"We are going into their credit books all the time,
literally pulling out securities and testing them on the models
every quarter," the regulatory examiner said, declining to be
identified because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
The Federal Reserve's stress tests of the largest U.S. banks
this month showed that some banks' own calculations of capital
levels differed sharply from the central bank's. [ID:nL1N0C709A]
The problem is acute enough that at the end of January, the
regulators behind Basel III said they found wide variations in
how banks implement the rules, and they might revise them as a
result. A survey by a research analyst at Barclays Capital last
year found that half of investors distrust banks' risk-weighted
Some regulators say the rules need to be simplified as banks
are wasting time and effort on getting the best possible
treatment for their assets instead of making their holdings
"The amount of money being spent on this is just
incredible," said Thomas Hoenig, vice-chairman of the U.S.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, in an interview.
A senior regulatory head at one large European bank said his
firm alone had spent about $500 million to optimize systems to
move from Basel I to Basel III over the last decade.
On both sides of the Atlantic, 13 of the biggest financial
institutions have together announced plans to reduce their
risk-weighted assets by 20 percent, or $1 trillion in total,
according to consulting firm McKinsey & Co.
JPMorgan, for example, wants to reduce its risk-weighted
assets by $80 billion to $100 billion. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
(GS.N) plans to shed $28 billion worth of risk-weighted assets
by the end of this year, from $728 billion as of Sept. 30.
Goldman is using new technology so that traders can assess
risk-weightings of individual securities more quickly, Chief
Executive Lloyd Blankfein said in November. The bank has said
that without its modeling efforts, upcoming Basel III rules
would result in 40 percent higher risk-weighted assets, compared
with the prior risk-weighting regimen.
McKinsey estimates that slashing risk-weighted assets will
boost return on equity by 3 percentage points for the 13
financial institutions. The group only earned a 4 percent return
in 2011. Return on equity is a widely watched measure of how
effectively a bank uses shareholder funds to generate profit.
"Risk-weighted assets used to be done by some department of
the bank and no one concentrated on them; they were
insignificant," the European bank source said. "Now, we're all
trying to optimize them."
In the case of the London whale trades, JPMorgan executives
fought with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and
failed to disclose information about the bank's new
value-at-risk model until weeks after it was implemented,
according to the report from the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations, chaired by Michigan Democrat Carl Levin.
In March 2012, Levin's committee found that the chief
quantitative analyst for JPMorgan's CIO, Patrick Hagan, wrote an
email in which he proposed to "optimize the firm-wide capital
charge," meaning he would tweak the way the group measured risk
to ensure its assets got better treatment under firm-wide
Later, a colleague told him to be careful about leaving a
paper trail when discussing these moves.
"I think what I would do is not put these things in email,"
said Anil Bangia, who helped the group develop risk and capital
models, according to the Senate's report.
(Reporting by David Henry, Lauren Tara LaCapra and Dan Wilchins
in New York; Additional reporting by Laura Noonan in London;
Editing by Paritosh Bansal and Tiffany Wu)
(C) Reuters 2012. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of
Reuters content, including by caching, framing, or similar means, is
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters
and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of
the Reuters group of companies around the world.