Recent Items

New York Times Profile of London Whale Boss, Ina Drew, Camouflages Dimon’s Risk Management Failures

Posted on by

A New York Times profile of Ina Drew, the former head of the JP Morgan Chief Investment Office, almost certainly produced high fives in the bank’s corporate communications office. This piece is the best sort of PR you can get: it treats the trading losses as yesterday’s news, of interest only as point of entre into the downfall of a heretofore unknown but once hugely successful and personally appealing trading manager.

This feminized Horatio-Alger-gone-sour tale conveniently diverts attention away from more important, and still insufficiently recognized management failures at JP Morgan. The title, “The Woman Who Took the Fall for JPMorgan Chase,” tells readers that Drew was a victim, and lets one hope that it will deliver some answers as to who should be held accountable. But instead, this report is a heavy-on-personalities, light-on-technicalities account in the Sunday Magazine section, which means it will be more widely read than a typical business section story. And while author Susan Dominus paints a sympathetic picture of Drew, she also airbrushes the nature and severity of the events that ended her career. One encouraging sign is that a quick skim of comments shows that the majority don’t buy what Dominus is selling. They have little patience with fact that no one has been prosecuted, that Drew still is rich even after losing the bank billions, and that Jamie Dimon has gotten off scot free.

Felix Salmon tries to parse what sort of point of view the article is presenting about Drew’s fall, whether it’s that she was a good old fashioned interest rates trader who was out of her depth as trading strategies became more derivatives-driven, or whether she botched the set-up of the London unit, that the combination of distance and the aggressiveness of some of the people she hired made it difficult to control. He argues a third point of view:

Bank clients, borrowers: they had position limits. But Ina Drew never did: she would happily accept all the money Dimon funneled her way. In a weird way, she wasn’t just Dimon’s employee, she was also his counterparty: she was the person with whom he would entrust JP Morgan’s balance sheet when he had nothing better to do with it.

Um, that’s what a bank Treasury does. He’s close to, but doesn’t nail the point. Big banks, and most large corporations, operate their treasury departments as profit centers. They are the other side of all the customer and counterparty flows and exposures. And that puts them in the position of managing risk.

And on top of that, the article casts doubt on who really was in charge. Contra Felix, what emerges is that Drew clearly had no control over the London operation where the large derivative bets were placed. Achilles Macris, the head of the London unit, insisted he reported to Dimon (note that while the bank confirmed that Drew was Macris’ boss, it’s plausible that he discussed his positions with Dimon and felt he had de facto approval from him). This part may simply be imprecise drafting, or unintentionally revealing:

Back in 2007, the bank [Dimon? or Drew?] asked the London office to execute a credit derivative hedge that would protect the bank in the event of a major crisis.

So the problem with Drew and the CIO wasn’t its role as Dimon’s/JPM’s de facto counterparty, it was two other issues. First, the CIO was set up to take more risks than similar units in other banks, and second, it had glaring deficiencies in its controls.

On the first issue, JP Morgan’s risk-seeking, a Bloomberg story reported that JP Morgan held markedly less in Treasuries and made much greater use of high risk derivatives than other bank CIOs. And that’s because the Morgan bank was exploiting the special accounting treatment of the liquidity buffers held in these units. As we wrote earlier:

Because this book is supposedly a liquidity buffer, and not a profit-making vehicle, banks get to treat these investments as “available for sale,” which means they can trade in and out of them (like a trading book) but account for them on a “hold to maturity basis” which means they don’t have to recognize gains or losses until they actually sell them. This is the perfect place to house an income smoothing operation, provided you can generate hidden gains that you then take when needed by selling the positions. It appears that the CIO had enough in the way of gains to allow for it to cover the CIO’s losses now, and Dimon decided to raid this piggy bank to allow him to close out that position and try to put the CIO mess behind him.

In addition, this article, like most press accounts, faithfully reports the JP Morgan claim that a recently-installed version of VaR was a culprit, in that it understated the risk the unit was taking. Former trading floor risk management personnel have suggested that this understatement of risk was likely a feature, not a bug,. The new VaR model no doubt was intended to show lower risk levels and convince regulators that JP Morgan was operating prudently when it was in fact piling on more risk. The problem is the traders didn’t yet understand how to operate this new souped up car and promptly smashed it into a wall.

Second, and more important, the CIO’s risk controls were grossly deficient. The article reports, as if it was perfectly normal, that Ina Drew hired her own risk manager, who also happened to be the brother-in-law of the chief risk officer for the bank. Many commentators have focused on the personal relationship (did Drew hire a relative so as to get better treatment from the corporate CRO?) and completely missed the far more basic operational failures. Risk management is a control function; having risk officers hired by and reporting to line managers makes it explicit that it is even more of a joke than it is at most banks. And this practice is consistent with other, stunning shortcomings

As former bank compliance officer and Occupy the SEC member Michael Crimmins wrote:

JPM was forced to disclose that it relied on its traders to provide honest and accurate valuations for its financial statement disclosures. That’s like putting the foxes in charge of not just the henhouse, but the entire farm. Much to its chagrin that was a costly choice….

That Stone Age policy has been extinct for a generation at every financial institution that signs a SOX internal controls certification. Oops, I’m wrong there. AIG relied on their trader marks too, but their external auditors finally had had enough and forced them to disclose ‘material weaknesses’ in internal controls. The stock dropped like a stone with that revelation.

Every firm that I’ve worked at has an independent valuation unit that resides outside the business unit. In JP Morgan’s case it seems that unit reported to the business, which is a serious deviation from good practice. (There is a remarkable new story up at Bloomberg which has former JP Morgan executives acting as if there was nothing amiss about having traders mark their own positions or having the valuation unit for the CIO sit within the CIO. This is in fact a troubling sign about the acceptance at senior level in JP Morgan of deficient controls as “normal”). History has shown that staffers preparing the valuation will be subject to pressure from the unit leaders, particularly if the business has losses that the producers hope can be reversed. Additionally, most major trading operations have a valuation committee that includes the corporate CFO to challenge (and memorialize the analysis of) the valuations and the valuation process. The activity of this committee is generally reviewed by (and in many cases attended by) the external auditors, especially since the beginning of the crisis.

It appears that JPM is attempting to make the case that rogue traders, with criminal intent, mismarked the books. That may be so and relevant criminal charges against those traders should be persued. But that strategy does not protect management. If there was mismarking, especially to the extent that occurred here, it is the responsibility of management to know or have procedures in place to alert them to the potential for fraud. Step one in that control process: Don’t let your traders mark their own books. If you do you have no excuse. Your controls are worthless and as CEO, you are responsible for ignoring that fundamental control gap. Full stop.

And the article makes clear that some executives had an inkling of the control deficiencies, but their alerts were ignored:

A former executive said he warned Dimon for years that the quality of risk control in the chief investment office was not transparent enough, compared with that in the investment bank; Drew brushed him off, and Dimon told him, he says, essentially, to “mind my own business.” “Honestly, I don’t care what second-guessers say in life,” Dimon told me when asked about the warnings. “If anyone in the company knew, they should have said something. No one came to us beforehand and said we have a problem we should be looking at.”

The story of Drew’s downfall is actually pretty simple. She developed a serious case of Lyme disease and was absent for nearly a year. It is almost impossible in a short-term focused business like trading for someone to resume their old position, even at a junior level, after such a long time away. In addition, Lyme often causes cognitive impairment, slow or muddied thinking. It usually takes a long time to recover, and it’s likely that Drew was not fully recovered when she came back to work.

But the frustrating part is the way the article, at the top, blows off the CIO losses as a non-event:

The $6 billion blunder has turned out to be no more than a minor ding on JPMorgan Chase’s mighty balance sheet. The company’s stock has rebounded strongly, and the financial world has moved on to other obsessions.

The remarkable part of this story is what Dimon has gotten away with. Again from Crimmins in a July post:
The first stunner, that JP Morgan was restating the first quarter financials, should have caused a deafening ringing of alarm bells. For a company of JP Morgan’s stature to be compelled to restate prior period financials is a very clear signal of bigger problems with their overall financial reporting…

Which leads to the second underreported stunner.

It is a very big deal when a firm is compelled to disclose a material weakness in internal controls. That’s the worst level of internal control failure a going conern can report. In JP Morgan’s case its more damning since Dimon, as recently as May 10, 2012, certified that all was well with internal controls as of the end of 1Q2012.

That assessment means that it is impossible for the firm’s external auditor to sign off on the financial statements until and unless the control breakdowns are remediated sufficiently for the auditor to provide assurance. The description of the control weaknesses at JP Morgan appear to be design flaws, so it’s likely the weaknesses existed in periods earlier than the first quarter of 2012, when it was ‘discovered’. The fact that the unit with the weaknesses by all accounts was under the direct control of the CEO throws doubt on the validity of his prior certifications about the quality of the internal controls. The external auditors will be under extreme pressure to either support or refute the earlier certifications. Falsifying the certification is the worst Sarbanes Oxley violation there is, so Dimon is going to have to come up with an airtight rebuttal.

JP Morgan has apparently reassured the market that it will take the appropriate steps to mediate the control gaps, but they do not speak for the external auditors. They may not be as sanguine as the market that JP Morgan’s proposed remediations will be sufficient, and the fixes won’t resolve pre-existing conditions. The very real possibility that JP Morgan will not be able to produce adequately certified financial statements in the future should focus JP Morgan’s Board on the adequacy of the remediations and Jamie Dimon’s continuing role as CEO.

But a fawning press and liberal spending on lobbying seems to have insulated Dimon from the sort of consequences that other seemingly all powerful CEOs like Hank Greenberg eventually faced. The tenor of comments at the New York Times is that the American public would like to see that happen sooner rather than later.

Print Friendly
Twitter21DiggReddit0StumbleUpon1Facebook3LinkedIn2Google+1bufferEmail

13 comments

  1. Conscience of a Conservative

    Everyone took blame except the guy at the top. Jamie Dimon came out just fine except lost a little stature on capital hill. I gave up on the New York Times years ago. It’s an arguably important paper to read but how they pick their articles or slant leaves a great deal to be desired. The former public editor upon leaving had an interesting closing letter that ruffled a few feathers over there. Having learned of the CIO and the CDS investments at what was supposed to be the pillar of our banking system JP Morgan I’m left thinking the banks don’t see a future in their basic business of commercial lending and that investors have be nuts to believe the bank values them as investors considering the accountability, risk measures and disclosure this episode highlighted. The unit took on way too much risk, in a covert way, and with the apparent blessings of Jamie Dimon. Pieces like this from the Grey Lady are unfortunately to be expected and it would not be surprising to learn that JP Morgan’s spin machine helped suggest the story.

  2. jake chase

    I love these stories about risk management. The whole idea of the derivatives casino is absurd. It inevitably requires central bank life support and collapse of the real economy upon which human life depends. Every single explanation of its nuts and bolts is arcane, absurd, nonsensical, grotesque, myopic, vain, fantastic, irrelevant. Risk management is a scheme for shoveling central bank money into the pockets of the overdressed looters whose names appeal regularly in what passes for news. Short of hanging these guys and the legislators who enable them in exchange for what amounts to a steady stream of bribes, it is difficult to imagine what can be done. Dodd Frank my Ass!

  3. avg John

    All of this phoney-baloney hedge accounting, with it’s off-balance sheet valuations, income recognition timing complexities and complex obscure disclosures hidden in the notes that you have to be a Wall Street analyst to make sense of (if even they can), should be abolished.

    People would be better informed about a company’s results if they simply required them all to use old-fashioned cash-basis accounting with appropriate disclosures in the notes.

    Too much of the balance sheet valuation and income timing recognition processes depend on the “intent” of management. And it’s clear that the true “intent” of management is to flat-out cook the books, hide the losses and keep the ponzi-machine churning.

    I shudder to think of the day this Wall Street house of cards finally collapses. Of course, we will here the same old tired old excuses about “who couldda seen it coming” and “it’s the markets fault” and yada, yada, yada. But I believe the next time, the king will truly not have enough men to put humpty-dimon back together again.

  4. polistra

    Misses the point entirely. The main point is that the “stuff” these people were trading is CRIMINAL. They were trading COUNTERFEIT MONEY. It doesn’t matter how well you control the trading of COUNTERFEIT MONEY, it’s still an ABSOLUTELY CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.

    Internal? External? Material Weakness? Utterly irrelevant. NONE OF THIS CRAP SHOULD BE HAPPENING AT ALL. NONE OF IT.

  5. Bill

    …Kinda interesting to recall that it was JPM (amongst other firms, namely Citadel) that drove hedge fund Amaranth Advisors out of business. Brian Hunter’s “too big to manage” natty gas spread bet went against him, then JPM piled on and really stuck it to him. Then they offered to close Amaaranth’s losing bet by closing their anti-Amaranth trade.

    JPM were complicit in other takedowns, too, I’m blanking on them now.

    …Zzzzz.

  6. Enraged

    All this is completely moot: the US want war. Listen to Hillary Clinton laughing about it and stating: “The best thing that could happen is for us to be attacked and get it over with.”

    This entire financial scandal was manufactured with one intent and one intent only: channel all the available money toward WS where it would be at government’s diposition and readily available to declare war without consulting anyone and without delay.

    Farfetched? I think not. Judge for yourself.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvhBoF_pCHo

    Such a declaration from Clinton can only mean one thing: the US will do whatever it takes to make it happen. It’s been done. We know how that works. 9/11 was only a dress rehearsal…

  7. curlydan

    Corzine and Dimon get off scott free while the smaller fry are drawn and quartered. The executive branch takes us for fools…maybe because we collectively are.

  8. MichaelC

    Regarding the point about whose idea it was to set up the London credit derivative hedge:

    Per the NYT:
    Back in 2007, the bank [Dimon? or Drew?] asked the London office to execute a credit derivative hedge that would protect the bank in the event of a major crisis.

    The unnamed former risk manager quoted in William Cohan and Bethany McLlean’s Vanity Fair piece suggests it wasn’t Ina Drew’s, unless she changed her views post ’06.

    “Up until 2006, my view and Ina’s view was that the bank already had credit risk, and there were a lot of people managing it who had done it their whole lives,” says a former risk manager. “[We thought] they should be better than we can ever be.” But Macris, this person recalls, argued that even seemingly complex securities could be managed properly.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2012/11/jamie-dimon-tom-brady-hang-in-there

  9. Angelie Thompson

    I love the article about management. They should do there job perfectly. Can you please take a review of my Website. It is all bout management.

    Regards,
    Angelie

Comments are closed.