Top Execs sell stock before bad company news breaks

When well-paid (overpaid?) top executives behave like this one should not wonder that Capitalism and the Market System increasingly lose public support. It is only fortunate that the average citizen is not really able to properly put such blatant abuse of position into proper perspective. After all, how many do really understand what a million dollars (life changing amount for 99% of the population) means? The maths scores tell a story! And it will be interesting to see how regulators and the trustees of the savings of ordinary people (aka investment managers, private bankers) and the corporate and 'socially responsible' investment crowd are going to do about this.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/equifax-executives-sold-stock-after-data-breach-before-informing-public-2017-09-07?siteid=rss&rss=1

Money laundering laws - waste of money and attack on privacy

Anti Money Laundering laws - nearly as useless as the attack on alcohol during the 1920s in the USA. And instigated from the same legislative mob!
Money laundering laws also harm the innocent - Washington Times

Slap on the Wrist for Omega's Cooperman

Can one call a $5 million fine significant given that Cooperman is a certified billionaire? Slap on the wrist would be more appropriate. And if no guilt is admitted why pay a fine? Looks like there is a two level justice system and incidents like these will do nothing to restore public confidence in financial regulation or the banking and investment industries.
Leon Cooperman’s Hedge Fund Settles Insider Trading Case

Money Laudering: what is a 'suspicious' transaction?

Apart from finance professionals being clairvoyants it is extremely tricky to safely fulfil the regulator's insistence to report all suspicious transactions. With hindsight it is always possible for authorities to hit banks and asset managers with a big club and claim a transaction should have been reported. The only really safe procedure would be to report ALL transactions and put the burden of compliance on the shoulders of the regulators. Alternatively there should be an EXHAUSTIVE and detailed checklist giving details of any signs that should arouse suspicion. As always we want to remind readers that in our opinion poor and unnecessary legislation or sloppy work by police authorities are the real reasons for the anti-money laundering hysteria. There was no more crime before the politicians invented the need to control citizens more and more in a costly, intrusive - and ultimately ineffective - way.

US blackmails banks - EU useless

The US 'authorities' (if you can name them as such as the country becomes more and more ruled by out-of-control lobbies and zealots) prepare another drive-by shooting aimed at a foreign bank. This time it is the turn of French BNP-Paribas. The 'crime' was that the bank supposedly conducted business with a peaceful country as that is the only way one can describe Iran. Or can anyone point to an occasion where the country has been the aggressor and not the victim (do I need to mention BP, or Mossadegh?). So it is with growing anger that one watches the spectacle of a useless Eurocracy that drowns Europe in more and more intrusive and expensive regulation but is afraid (incapable? lazy?) to put a serious warning shot in the direction of the United States demanding that the extra-territorial reach of its 'laws' be stopped immediately. Europe - or at least its citizens - have no quarrel with Iran and do no longer want to support unaccountable lobbies and the policies they have imposed on the US government.
PS: Cleptocrats in the US have just upped the ante - $10 billion, and rising? Basically it is the behavior of the typical criminal, grab what you can get away with, only this time it is the government (or the shady lobbies that push idiotic and counterproductive foreign policies on a hapless majority).

J.P. Morgan to pay $2 billion over Madoff case

Not sure if one should cry or laugh when reading headlines such as this one. How did the parties to this shameful deal arrive at the number? Did it get picked out of thin air? Is there any real proof of culpability? Since when is it a crime to conduct one's business prudently? If the regulators did not spot the Madoff fraud have they received any punishment? And why is JP Morgan management agreeing to this 'settlement' (which leaves the question where the money goes, is it just used to plug the hole in the government's budget?)

P.S.: it is gratifying to read that a 'portion' of the $2 billion penalty will be earmarked for victims of the Madoff fraud. How generous, and the state appropriates the majority of the loot for itself. Why don't the regulators make a contribution to the victims as well? I guess the only reason why regulators do not throw the book at specific JP Morgan executives is that they want to avoid questions over why they are spared jail after such a major cock-up as the failure to detect the Madoff fraud in good time.

Nothing can surprise me with respect to the ever-increasing reach that the 'authorities' give the interpretation of the ill-fated and useless money laundering laws. Soon the £5 loan that a schoolchild receives from a granny will have to be reported as 'suspicious' by anyone who has knowledge of it, for who but the 'regulators' can (with hindsight) determine what is suspicious or not? Already anyone trying to open a bank account (or even access a long-forgotten one) is basically treated as a potential criminal these days. And all this wasteful effort is expended in order to undo the results of bad laws imposed by an undemocratic process.

Fed sends Minutes a Day (!) early - the real questions

In the Lobby-infested cesspool that is Washington it is no surprise to find that the Fed 'accidentally' sent copies of the latest Minutes to a select list of banks, investment managers and lobbyists. While the easy excuse is that it just is a 'fat finger' error caused by some junior staffer (an unpaid intern?) I just find this explanation less than satisfactory. As anyone who has ever sent an email message to a maillist should know a message is only sent to the recipients that are included in the list. If only this select group of recipients gets the mail it should mean that there was a sort of priority list. Otherwise all those who have signed up to get the Fed minutes delivered upon release should have seen the message at the same time. In addition, there should be a forensic audit into the trading activities of all recipient firms to find out whether they profited from this information or not.

Scandalous Regulators

Anyone who thinks that I take too negative a view of the 'efforts' of the regulators should have a look at this article. (Mises Institute)

Derivative Timebomb - still not defused

Talk, talk, talk - that is all the regulators and their political puppet masters seem to provide with respect to the derivatives market. Could it be that they just do not understand these markets? I agree with Chris Whalen and Barry Ritholtz (see video) when they call for the repeal of the Commodities Futures Modernisation Act which carved out a largely regulation-free zone for the OTC derivatives market. Even better would be a strengthening of margin requirements across the board - anything under 20-30 percent depending on the product is not good enough. Let us remember how markets moved close to that in panics during 1987 and 2008-09.  Recent worries about the adequacy of central clearinghouses put the finger on this problem but I fear that their capital and margin requirements are not up to the task - BY A MILE!

Nonsensical 'study' of High-Speed Trading

While I am critical of some aspects of high-frequency trading - esp the speed advantage that technology provides and which undermines the principle of priority and precedence - this study by a CFTC economist does not cut the mustard. That futures trading is a zero-sum game is nothing new and that those active on a daily basis want to - and have to - make a profit should not be seen in a negative way. After all, who complains about the profits that the casino operators in Las Vegas make? Without them there would be no gaming industry. So let us have more studies, but above make them relevant. This should mean that real abuses get uncovered and the guilty punished. Oh, and what happened to those responsible for MF Global - management as well as regulators?

CFTC: Regulator fit for purpose?

The US Commodities and Futures Trading Commission certainly knows how to make a hash of their task. While major regulatory disasters such as MF Global seem to go largely unpunished and the global OTC derivatives monster escapes any noticable oversight the CFTC is busying itself with closing down the tiny betting exchange Intrade. Is it not time that the overbearing bureaucrats in Brussels once and for all tell their US counterparts that extraterritorial jurisdiction is no longer acceptable?

Jamie Dimon: From Saint to Villain

Since news about the trading loss in JP Morgan's Chief Investment Office broke in April there has been any number of commentators who vilify Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan's CEO. But most of them forget that investment is never a sure-fire bet. One has to take losses from time to time, there is no one-way street otherwise we would all be millionaires. I would guess that there has not been a single commentator who really has seen the full history of these trades and as a consequence no one is really qualified to pass judgement. For a large institution like JPM the only thing that counts at the end of the day, quarter and year is the overall P&L. If positions were under water during any period that is a professional hazard and needs to be managed properly. But many years, decades even, of investing have taught me that the really skilled investor shines when he has to nurse a loss-making position back to profit. Those who unleashed the attack dogs in the Media and in Politics are to a large extent the same ones who fell for the cult of the imperial CEO - and thought he could walk on water.

JP Morgan 'loss' - too much ado about nothing?

The reported 'loss' that JP Morgan took on its investment account may appear to be large but in the context of a portfolio size of $ 300+ billion and a total balance sheet of more than $ 2000 billion it really is small beer. Every investor or trader worth his salt will know that no investment goes up in a straight line. Daily fluctuations of one percent are the norm. That would mean that the investment book could be up or down three billion dollars on any given day. Hedging is no panacea. If you fully hedge all risk out of a portfolio you may as well stay in treasury bills as the cost of the hedge will eat up all the expected profit. I am sure that some aspects of the portfolio could probably have been handled better but loan books - even surrogate ones - are usually meant to be held to maturity so the mark-to-market loss should not have been of any consideration. That various busy-bodies (media, various officials like the department of justice or the New York Auditor) should feel competent to be backseat drivers for JP Morgan's investment department adds a twist of absurdity to the whole affair. Jamie Dimon also made a mistake to preemptively excuse himself in front of a baying media crowd rather than calmly explain the realities of the investment game.

Stress tests - same (sad) old story

The publication of the results of the latest stress test performed on US banks does little to inspire longterm confidence in the ability of the financial system to be protected from another (near) meltdown. We repeat our contention that only a limited purpose banking system will give near certainty that taxpayers will never again have to be called upon to bail out insolvent banks.

Charlie Munger on Derivatives in 2003

"But I confidently predict that there are big troubles to come. The system is almost insanely irresponsible. And what people think are fixes aren’t really fixes. It’s so complicated I can’t do it justice here – but you can’t believe the trillions of dollars involved. You can’t believe the complexity. You can’t believe how difficult it is to do the accounting. You can’t believe how big the incentives are to have wishful thinking about values, and wishful thinking about ability to clear."

Assuming a Meteorite hits New York

all banks in the USA may see their ratings downgraded. That seems to be the logic behind the thinking that causes Tom Brown to decry the latest 'nonsense from the rating agencies'. Banking as it is conducted at present will always pose a certain amount of risk - only 'limited purpose banking' that turns banks into a sort of mutual fund would avoid any risk of failure. As a consequence, war games based on worst case scenarios may be of intellectual interest but they also undermine the credibility of rating agencies.

Corzine testimony: 'I knew nothing!'

That is what we would call the Manuel defence - remember the funny Spanish waiter in the television comedy 'Fawlty Towers'? But as someone who worked with Jon many moons ago I am still shocked about his prepared statement today in front of the Agricultural Committee in the US Congress.

Fair play in Bank Bailouts

The sorry saga surrounding the Bailout of major financial institutions during the banking crisis of 2008 should teach regulators and politicians one lesson: by all means support banks in such a crisis but make sure you seize full control from shareholders in such a situation. As staff - and particular senior management - hold large stakes in the equity of these concerns that would also impose somewhat more meaningful penalties on them than the odd slap on the wrist we have seen during the past few years. And institutional shareholders maybe would finally wake up from their slumber and take their ownership roles more seriously - rather than just darting in and out of equity positions as if they would be just play a game of monopoly with their investor's money.

More stress tests for banks don't make sense

writes Thomas Brown

MF Global Bankruptcy torpedoes Futures Markets

When Warren Buffett spoke of derivatives as 'weapons of mass destruction' not a few belittled him as old-fashioned. Now that the full horror story surrounding this case of cronyism and ineptitude unfolds not many are laughing, least of all the victims of Corzine's megalomania. Maybe it is time to bring in full personal liability to all senior managers of financial institutions?