Mind you, JPMC’s $2 billion loss is a lot of money to you
and me, but this does not particularly affect you and me. JPMC suffered the loss, and given the size of
the bank and its earnings (it usually makes somewhere in excess of $4 billion
each quarter) it will little affect its bottom line. JPMC is not asking anyone else to cover its
losses, other than its own shareholders, and they will not feel it much if the
bank continues to be as well run as it has been.
Ah, but perhaps you are thinking that JPMC got some of that
TARP money so involved in the financial panic.
That is true, JPMC was one of the banks whose arms were twisted hard by
Treasury Secretary Paulson to take a forced government investment. Those TARP investments spooked regular,
private sector investors, who immediately ran for the sidelines, and the
financial crisis was on, propelled (as most are) by bad government efforts to
“fix” things. JPMC did not want the
money or need the money and in a few months paid it all back—with substantial
interest—as quickly as Congress and the regulators would allow them to. It reminds me of the elderly gentlemen who
finally yielded to family cajoling to take a ride in a stunt plane. Afterward he thanked the pilot for the two
rides, his first and his last. TARP was
such a bad deal for those who received the investments (except for the couple
of financial firms that might really have wanted it), that I do not think that
any would want a second ride, perhaps not even again at gunpoint.
The recent loss by JPMC, in any event, was one well covered
by the bank’s earnings in other of its many lines of business. Curiously, I do not hear the chattering
classes get exercised when each quarter Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac announces
several more billions of dollars of losses, losses that they do ask for the Treasury Department to
make whole. Maybe that is because the
regulators already run Fannie and Freddie.
Actually, there was a little bit of noise in the past few days when
Fannie Mae announced that it had actually turned a profit for the last quarter,
the first time in years.
One thing that disturbs me in all of the Washington humbuzzah over JPMC’s trading
loss is the implicit notion that there is something wrong about a business
losing money on an investment, something wrong enough to call forth a
government role. It seems to me that
losses are just as much a sign of a normal market as gains are, that healthy
markets have a good share of both.
Nobody seemed to lose money during the housing bubble, no matter what
they did, but that was hardly a sign of a healthy market place.
What markets do when they are allowed to is reward good business decisions and punish bad ones, with gains and losses providing some of the most effective means of helping businessmen and their investors understand truly which is which. JPMC made some bad business decisions and lost money, and the counterparties to those trades made good ones and earned money. What role can government play in all of that other than to mess it up?
To get government involved in this process rests upon at least
two preposterous notions. First, it
suggests that it is somehow the role of government to make sure that businesses
do not lose money, otherwise, why all the fuss?
That, of course, was the Soviet business model that did so much to
create modern Russia . Second, and following on the first mistaken
notion, it supposes that government officials will know better how to avoid
business losses. Anyone really believe
that? Share with me your examples, and I
will pass them on to the Federal budget planners.
No comments:
Post a Comment