Revised on December 8th 2019 due to unexpected stop on counter at 12 780 as of November 30th 2019 - restart estimated from about 12 812 since initial version was set on June 12th 2017. Counter resumed at 13000 on January 2nd 2020...
This account of the “London Whale” case is based on 5 years of continuous in-depth analysis. The study was based on the documents available in the public domain. I have cross-referenced them with my experience of the time. This is my story. It has not changed over the years...
For those who are familiar with this scandal already, they should straightaway save time and read Confidential Impunity. This text displays the genuine story based upon my account as it was done before the authorities.This is the story that Jp Morgan has always known and still concealed.
For those who are not familiar with this quite interesting scandal, they should first read a useful Preamble. They next should read quickly but carefully what is below and then turn to official versions vs facts in order to grasp the lasting misleading representations that still appear on the public stage.
Next they should take some time to read 5 facts -5 realities- 3 dates . That is really picturing what my role has been. This is going straight in opposition to the media legend of the "London Whale". Neither the bank nor any authority involved in the subsequent investigations will make the effort to clarify what I show here. Yet as one will see the evidence is already in the public domain since March 2013. Actually some of this evidence will be redacted later on (for that purpose see
Exhibits amended US Senate report.pdf)
Some more documents below are here for the more curious readers...
- What is the purpose of this website?
The “London Whale” case is a huge trading scandal that occurred at the CIO of the US bank Jp Morgan in second quarter of 2012. It is not pictured correctly by any public report so far. There are topics that investors, employees, and the public in general should be aware of :
- The bank Jp Morgan had long ordered the controversial trades that would cause the scandal in 2012. Whatever the loss that burdened its CIO unit, irrespective of the “element of surprise” that the bank may allege, the firm as a whole made much, much more money through the event. The senior executives knew their actions were border line though since 2010 at the latest. Some events in 2009 and early 2010 are important clues to that: the VAR reports changed in September 2009, Bill Winters was fired abruptly next, a “cushion/reserve” of $300 million was ignored by CFO in December 2009, the book had to be “killed” on the follow in January 2010, Dimon and Cavanagh came to visit CIO London but not Iksil in early March 2010, new liquidity reserve rules were enacted in late March 2010 but were next not enforced, Cavanagh the then CFO suddenly changed cap in June 2010, the CFO of CIO left 4 months later for undisclosed reasons in November 2010, right when Iksil got a “chocolate medal” promotion. Regulators sent warning letters precisely then….see not reliable
- The senior executives chose indeed “Iksil” to work as a “screen” for them in late 2010. It was a complete setup manufactured around RWA projective but pointless modeled reductions and misleading risk reports about stress test limits breaches. The executives promoted “Iksil” without changing his role and responsibilities. They gave him quite specific paradoxical orders despite his alerts all along 2011 and 2012. They finally left his name being relentlessly placated through the media starting on April 6th 2012 as things were just getting worse and worse for them. (see2013 the morphing tales)
- Some authorities have not performed their duty, far from it as the public reports show for those who know the case in depth. The “screen guy” complains against the UK regulator today, namely the FCA with good reasons. It may not stop at the FCA…Please have a look at the Tab "One regulator, One Bank, One Var" and read "VaR History" (see also 5 facts - 5 realities- 3 dates and 2013 the morphing tales )
- At the end of the day about $50 bln changed hands in the second quarter 2012 between a mass of investors and some “happy insiders”. Jp Morgan made about $25 billion or more on the event for itself as its public accounting reports show through the generation of what is called “tangible capital” or “hard capital” (10-Q and 10-K reports filed with the SEC). see Not reliable
- One may summarize the trading scandal as: when the CIO of JP Morgan had lost $1 billion dollar, Jp Morgan as a whole had made $4 billion for itself net of its CIO loss. The Jp Morgan CIO lost in whole $6.3 billion which led to an ultimate profit at Jp Morgan of more than $25 billion in 2012. Please look at the next tab "One Regulator, One Bank, One VaR" in particular to the document "JP gains in 2012"
A full disclosure of the existing evidence should be made in the public.
click on "what is the purpose.pdf" for more details
(see official versions vs facts).
What is the “London Whale”?
The “London whale” is a trading scandal that occurred in 2012. It coupled with an accounting fraud, a massive market manipulation and a unique media manipulation. One name came under the spotlights: “Bruno Michel Iksil”. Who was he? What was he doing at Jp Morgan Bank? A clear answer never was given yet 5 years on…Was he just a “marionette” moved in the financial markets by the bank senior executives like a bait on the hook? Who could gobble such a gross bluff? The extracts below will show the ongoing confusion that has been entertained…. see the morphing tales and not reliable
Once upon a time, on the surface of things?......
click on "what is the London Whale.pdf" for more information
see also Var History andJPM gains in 2012
Some regulators (also called financial markets watchdogs) and potentially hundreds of millions of savers felt misled by Jp Morgan statements at the time of events (the bank admitted it for part in September and October 2013 paying overall a fine of about $1 bln and settling many other pending litigations with the US government for $13 Bln more). Was it such a big deal for Jp Morgan now that the CIO and its “tranche book” were dismantled as planned since late 2010? No it was not a big deal for Jp Morgan ultimately once the CIO was dead for good in July 2012. Once they understood that the US bank had never been really endangered by the well publicized losses, some investors felt rightly so that they had been stolen some of their savings after they had felt compelled to engage in panicky trades that they would not have done otherwise. Please click on the next tab called "One regulator, One Bank, One Var" next to this Tab... See also 5 facts- 5 realities- 3 dates