AEI's Wallison: Why the Volcker rule would not have prevented the JP Morgan Chase losses

In a just-published post, AEI financial services expert Peter Wallison argues that the Volker rule would not have prevented JP Morgan Chase's losses (full text below).

"[W]hat happened at JPMC is proof that the Volcker rule is unworkable and should be abandoned....The rule bans proprietary trading by banks, but specifically authorizes hedging transactions. It appears from news reports that JPMC was suffered the losses while pursuing a hedging strategy. If so, the losses would not have been prevented by the Volcker rule."

Peter Wallison is available via email at [email protected] or though Veronique Rodman, [email protected] or 202.862.4871.
________________________________________
JP Morgan's losses prove that the Volcker rule is unworkable
Peter Wallison

Much of the commentary about the JP Morgan Chase losses suggests that either this is proof of the need for the Volcker rule, or is a reason to get the Volcker rule in place promptly. Neither is true. In fact, as thus far reported, what happened at JPMC is proof that the Volcker rule is unworkable and should be abandoned.

The rule bans proprietary trading by banks, but specifically authorizes hedging transactions. It appears from news reports that JPMC has suffered the losses while pursuing a hedging strategy. If so, the losses would not have been prevented by the Volcker rule.

More broadly, it is virtually impossible to determine whether a specific trade or a series of trades is a hedging transaction--an effort to reduce risk that the bank has already taken on--or speculation, a risk that the bank is taking. That is the fundamental flaw in the Volcker rule, and the reason why it should be repealed.

If the answer cannot be determined except by knowing all the circumstances surrounding a trade, and what was in the mind of the trader when the trade was put on, it is not suitable for a regulation--i.e., for a written rule like the Volcker rule. Instead, it is suitable for a subsequent supervisory action; an investigation by a bank supervisor to determine the facts after the event, which may then result in a penalty for the bank if it has failed to comply with the distinction between speculation and hedging.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Peter J.
Wallison

What's new on AEI

Holder will regret his refusal to obey the Constitution
image 'Flood Wall Street' climate protesters take aim at their corporate allies
image 3 opportunities for better US-India defense ties
image Is Nicolás Maduro Latin America's new man at the United Nations?
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 29
    MON
  • 30
    TUE
  • 01
    WED
  • 02
    THU
  • 03
    FRI
Thursday, October 02, 2014 | 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Campbell Brown talks teacher tenure

We welcome you to join us as Brown shares her perspective on the role of the courts in seeking educational justice and advocating for continued reform.

Event Registration is Closed
Friday, October 03, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Harnessing the power of markets to tackle global poverty: A conversation with Jacqueline Novogratz

AEI welcomes you to this Philanthropic Freedom Project event, in which Novogratz will describe her work investing in early-stage enterprises, what she has learned at the helm of Acumen, and the role entrepreneurship can play in the fight against global poverty.

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.