JP Morgan Managers Being Told Trade Loss is $9 Billion

This news report has been updated

Banking competitors are trying to lure away top talent at JP Morgan by highlighting the recent prop trading losses are likely to affect bonuses and Jamie Dimon isn’t being honest about how bad the loss will be. On July 13th the banking giant will announce 2nd quarter earnings and a real-time number is expected on how many billions net income gets wacked with because the London whale trade has been wound down or they’re willing to admit how bad the wind down will be at based on how the trade looks at the end of June. Last week Mark DeCambre at the New York Post wrote his JPM sources expect the loss to be between $4-6 billion – JPM’s estimate in May was only $2bn. But I heard this week JPM managing directors are being told total losses on the trade are estimated to be more. To the tune of $9 billion – Ouch!

That could be two quarters worth of net income and since JPM staffers are paid in part on how the whole company earns that rumor about a yearend lack luster bonus is looking more like a reality. Not good if you are killing your quota this year and working in a group that has nothing to do with the wrong way derivative trade. So a few seasoned wealth managers I spoke with are weighing competitor offers and seriously thinking of jumping ship – even if that means they give up their not yet vest $JPM stock.

Of course JPM can use accounting tricks to make the trading loss look better on final quarterly income statements. They can also choose to stay in parts of the trade so they don’t have to back a full loss right away. I highlighted last month how litigation reserves can be added or taken away to move the net income number around when they need it. But considering the recent news heat they’ve gotten on how low the legal reserves already are for the size of the RMBS putback problem…they’d be pretty damn arrogant to try to play with that number in the face of their regulators. Of course if their other trading departments make good on another trading bet, like being short silver, that could help offset losses. But loosing $9 billion on a single trade strategy gone so very wrong will put a lot of pressure on the White House’s favorite banker and make the Senate look even more foolish for their fluffy congressional hearings on the failed trade. If a $9bn gross trading loss becomes reality then the 3 notch downgrade by Moody’s could slid even further which increases their cost of borrowing and well – that sucks for anyone contingent on a JPM paycheck.

UPDATE 6-28-12: This morning the New York Times Dealbook rewrote my scoop about a possible $9bn loss for JPM and didn’t credit me for reporting this first. They’ve done journalism theft like this before when I was scooping them at the New York Post during the financial crisis. Times reporters like Andrew Ross Sorkin led the scoop stealing behavior during 08 and this morning I see him doing the same thing on CNBC.Sorkin claimed ‘his sources’ were saying reported losses will be closer to $4-6bn – a number he read on June 21st when Mark DeCambre (my former jurno peer) 1st reported it at the New York Post. Scoops are assets for journalist and I don’t appreciate the New York Times or Sorkin taking my hard-earned research and sourcing and using it as their own without a mention or link to my original reporting. If you think this is wrong- write them, comment on their sites or tweet about it. Only together we can hold other journalist accountable and demand accuracy.

Editors Note: I am a professional journalist who has written for most major publications with a track record in breaking news and investigative reporting. This is a news site funded by crowdsourcing and coming ads not a blog. Please credit and source it that way.


Enter your email address to subscribe to and receive notifications of new articles by email.


  1. Bruce Banister says

    no question, read it here first


  3. Clementine says

    NGP investment team has been to compare financial derivatives trading positions of JP Morgan Chase, trader’s illegal transactions resulting in a deficit. In order to stabilize investor confidence, NGP has not announced the loss of information.

  4. Jesse Carias says

    Good reporting and the New York Times should give you the credit for being the first one to report this loss.

  5. Bill Kowal says

    Got to you via Business Insider who attributed your break of this story in their coverage. Seems like the corruption we see across corporate America, and especially Wall Street, rubs off on those who cover it as well.

    Thanks! I’ll be back!

  6. Totally agree, NYT should have given you credit. Nice work! I’ll have to check out your site more.

  7. Agora Financial’s “5 Min. Forecast” referenced your reporting, so I came to read the whole story. Great work, I’ll be back.

  8. Ms. Buhl,

    Excellent work on your part.

    Personally, I am shocked – shocked! – that someone with the absence of personal dignity and lack of integrity of one Andrew Ross Suckup would actually commit plagiarism and steal your copy without giving you credit.

    Next, someone will tell me that CNN’s Kate Bolduan, who was ranked No. 10 on The Hill’s 50 Most Beautiful People for 2011, will incorrectly report a major decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, and be aided and abetted in such journalistic malpractice by everyone’s favorite former AIPAC hack, Wolfie Blitzer.

    Ms. Buhl, thank you for reminding me that accurate, professional journalism still exists somewhere in America.

  9. CNBC is a disgrace,

    Sorkin is a sleaze , and the producer who allowed that is a jerkoff

  10. Teri,
    Dont expect nothing of these people they having afraid of telling the truth all this time they are buying all the newspapers to cover up the truth an try to say the financial crisis when everyone knows that was the biggest cover up scam made by the banks to steal the money of all the pension fund insures etc etc etc
    continue with your execellent work

  11. terri, Can you look a bit deeper in this below:

    Specifically what was amended was under section 13 (b) (3) (A) of the Securities Act of 1934. The amended version says “with respect to the matters concerning the national security of the United States, the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate “books, records, and accounts” and maintaining “a system of internal accounting controls sufficient” to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with “generally accepted accounting principles.”

    Some have suggested that the financial institutions as a result of this amendment could potentially maintain two sets of books.

Share Your Voice

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.