What Lawmakers Gained From Raking JPMorgan Over the Coals

Five takeaways from the JPMorgan Hearing.

FE_PR_130315JPMorganChase.jpg
By SHARE

You could be forgiven for turning away from Friday's JPMorgan London Whale hearing, dismissing it as a mind-bogglingly complicated dissection of even more complicated financial transactions. Lawmakers thundered away at bank executives and financial regulators about VaR levels and SCPs and a host of other inscrutable acronyms.

But the basic story behind the hearing this: Bruno Iksil, a trader in the bank's London office, made a huge bet on corporate bonds using derivatives called credit default swaps. Iksil came to be known as the "London Whale," and his overconfidence not only distorted credit markets but led to a $6 billion loss for JPMorgan Chase.

[OPINION: Why Big Banks Are Above the Law]

This week, the Senate Homeland Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a scathing report dissecting the factors leading up to the trading loss. On Friday, legislators followed up by speaking to JPMorgan officials, including the former head of the bank's London office, as well as several U.S. government regulators.

With the five-and-a-half-hour hearing over, here is a simplified guide to what will come of all the sound and fury:

A Warning Signal

The bank's trading gaffe is unsettling on multiple levels. JPMorgan, as the committee's report points out, is "the largest derivatives dealer in the world and the largest single participant in world credit derivatives markets." Large banks taking risky positions led to the financial collapse in 2008, so this kind of loss, while smaller in scale, is an echo of the much bigger crisis, whose effects are still felt today.

In addition, JPMorgan invented credit default swaps, and yet they lost control of their dealings in the swaps in this case. "The guys that invented the product messed up big time. And if the best and the brightest can mess up like that, what does it mean for the rest of the system?" says Jim Angel, associate professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business.

[READ: J.P. Morgan Turns in Record Profit, Higher Revenue]

One analyst points out that the hearing serves as a signal that regulators have to step up their game. "If they were such big losses and JPMorgan is the center of all attention, where were the regulatory authorities?" says James Barth, senior finance fellow at the Milken Institute, and former chief economist at the Office of Thrift Supervision, a regulatory agency.

Because the losses were relatively small for a company worth nearly $194 billion, Angel says he's not worried about the fundamental safety of the financial system for the immediate future.

"It doesn't strike me as 'This is a symptom of an imminent financial crisis—that rot is going to bring down the financial system.'" Rather, he says, "It serves as a front-page warning to every other financial institution: don't make this mistake."

[READ: Senators Leading J.P. Morgan Hearing Count Bank Among Biggest Supporters]

Political Theater

Post-crisis banking hearings regularly yield moments that not only make headlines but that are replayed for years after the fact on shows like "Frontline" and "The Daily Show." Today's was no different. For example, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., addressed the question hanging over all big banks: "Do you believe that JPMorgan is too big to fail?" he asked.

"I don't think it is too big to fail," responded Ashley Bacon, acting chief risk officer at the bank. However, he added that "there is work to be done" for the bank to demonstrate that fact.

While the senators may have been sincerely outraged at the trading losses, the hearing availed them of the opportunity to thunder away at big bank executives, who remain a target of resentment amongst many American voters.

[READ:  3 Takeaways From Jamie Dimon's Congressional Hearing]

Better-Informed Lawmakers

Members of Congress may want political points and "Daily Show"-worthy clips of grilling banking regulators, but there's no need to be entirely cynical.

"It really is a legitimate fact-finding expedition," says Angel. "Our legislators come from a variety of different backgrounds. They're not necessarily financial experts." In other words, they can be just as confused by media accounts of trading missteps as the average American. The difference is that lawmakers are in a position to directly ask the people involved what went wrong.