Compliance Bricks and Mortar – JP Morgan ALM Edition

Compliance and JP Morgan Chase

JP Morgan paid $2 billion in fines and disgorgement for failing to file a suspicious activity report against Bernie Madoff. I provided my two cents. Here are some other views.

The invincible JP Morgan by Felix Salmon

This is sheer unmitigated — and, yes, probably criminal — incompetence. It takes a very special kind of banker to not notice that an account has more than a billion dollars in it, for a period of roughly four years, from 2005 through most of 2008. As Matt Levine says, “Madoff Banker 1 is like the one banker on earth who underestimated his client’s business by a factor of 100 or so. ‘Boss, I’ve made the firm thousands of dollars this year,’ he probably said, ‘and I deserve a bonus of at least $200.’”

What the JPMorgan Settlement Means by Peter Henning in Dealbook

In the end, JPMorgan decided that paying more than $2 billion was better than trying to fight claims that it aided the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. The winners in the settlements are Mr. Madoff’s victims, who will never be made whole but are at least a step closer to receiving a measure of compensation, due in part to a creative use of the law by federal prosecutors.

How Much Did J.P. Morgan Lose from Doing Business With Madoff? in WSJ.com’s Law Blog

Linus Wilson, a finance scholar at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, has tried to crunch the numbers. In a 2011 paper, he calculated how much J.P. Morgan earned from the direct deposit and custodial accounts at the bank containing the vast majority of funds that Madoff victims thought that they had invested with Madoff Securities.

The Madoff settlement is an enormous win for a guilty JPMorgan by Michael Hiltzik in the LA Times

If the government were really determined to root out white-collar crime and prevent outfits like JPMorgan from condoning lawbreaking that unfolds in front of its own eyes, it had the tools to do so: Indict the bank executives and officials who knew Madoff was crooked and did nothing, and threaten to revoke the bank’s charter. Would that be a great loss to the financial system? JPMorgan has been racking up multibillion-dollar settlements over white-collar misdeeds on an almost monthly basis lately. It hasn’t been operating like a bank, but like a criminal enterprise. And as this case now shows, it has been aiding and abetting its fellow criminals along the way.

J.P. Morgan’s Madoff Failure

jp morgan and compliance

Yesterday J.P. Morgan agreed to forfeit $1.7 billion for its failure related to the Bernie Madoff fraud, plus several hundred million in fines. As part its deferred prosecution agreement, the bank agreed that it did not have the proper systems in place to catch Madoff. It’s easy to target the bank for compliance failures but I wanted to dig a little deeper to see what went wrong. The picture is not very clear and I’m not sure why the bank forfeited so much cash.

J.P. Morgan was the main bank for Madoff from 1986 until the fraud collapsed. With money moving in an out of the accounts, J.P. Morgan could presumably have noticed something wrong with the flow of money. But that would likely be difficult. Madoff would have moved money around through several accounts. It would not be a simple task to track the flow of cash and see the fraud. If it were that simple, it would have been spotted much earlier. The agreement notes a few flags on the account and some inadequate diligence by the relationship personnel. None of that data seems to indicate a bigger problem with the flow of cash.

There was a mid 1990s transaction that looked like check kiting between an unnamed private bank client of Chemical Bank (which was eventually consumed by J.P. Morgan), Madoff and a second bank. The second bank ended up terminating the relationship and filing a suspicious activity report. J.P. Morgan did not. The private bank client did not terminate the relationship because Madoff had turned the investment from $183 million to $1.7 billion over 12 years. Madoff’s fake returns bought silence.

In the late 1990s and again in 2007 divisions of J.P. Morgan were considering having its private bank invest in Madoff. But Madoff was unwilling to help with the bank’s diligence efforts and the the bank expressed concerns when it was unable to reverse engineer Madoff’s returns.

In 2006 the London office of the bank had set up an exotic derivative that would provide clients with synthetic exposure to a hedge fund without making a direct investment in the fund itself. To cover the other side, J.P. Morgan invested in a Madoff feeder fund. Apparently, the derivative was wildly successful and hit the bank’s $100 million exposure limit. The traders went to an internal committee to get an exposure increase to $1 billion. The committee tabled approval because the bank couldn’t get the diligence it wanted. Madoff refused to allow the bank to conduct due diligence on his fund directly.

That triggered more diligence efforts and an increasing unease at the bank about having exposure to Madoff. J.P. Morgan began redeeming its interests in the Madoff feeder funds. This was 2008 and Lehman had just collapsed and the Madoff fraud would be exposed in a few months. J.P. Morgan also began unwinding those synthetic exposures. It looks like the bank was able to save $250 million before the Madoff collapse.

The key dagger seems to be when the London office of J.P. Morgan filed a report with the U.K. authorities as a result of its diligence. But J.P. Morgan did not file an equivalent report in the US. Under the Bank Secrecy Act, a bank needs to file Suspicious Activity Reports with FinCEN if the bank notes any suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation.

The second big failure was that the suspicions were not transmitted from the investment side of the bank to the commercial banking side of the bank. The investment side wanted to limit its exposure and minimize its losses for being invested in a fraud. The banking side would have to take steps to prevent funds from leaving for improper purposes.

From the time the report was filed in London, the Madoff bank account at J.P. Morgan had fallen from $3 billion to $234 million. The $1.7 billion paid by J.P. Morgan is supposed to represent a portion of the money that the bank allowed to leave the Madoff account during that period.

What is boils down to is that in the Fall of 2008, just before the collapse of the Madoff fraud, J.P. Morgan took steps to protect its own business interests but failed to notify FinCEN of the same suspicious, potentially fraudulent, activities.

In the end I suspect J.P. Morgan thought it would not win the case if it went to trial. It has some bad facts on its side. One of the diligence emails joked that they should visit Madoff’s accountant’s office to make sure it wasn’t a car wash. The bank would never find a jury that would offer one iota of sympathy or understanding.

Then it was just a matter of how much cash the bank was willing to pay. It sounds like the initial government ask was about $3 billion: the $2.75 billion that left the Madoff bank account, plus the $250 million that the bank managed to avoid losing by redeeming out of the Madoff feeder funds. I assume the bank is looking to end as much of the regulatory actions from the 2008 financial crisis hanging over its heads as it can. Another one down.

References:

The Books I Read in 2013

2013 reading challenge

My goal this year was to finish reading a book every other week. (For the math or calendar challenged, that’s a goal of 26 books.) I’m happy to say that I smashed through that goal. I ended up with 44 books on my Read in 2013 shelf during the year.

Compliance Books

For those of you looking for finance or compliance-related books, these may be of particular interest:

A-Z Challenge

You can see the cover for each and every book just below. If you look closely, you will see that the books are in alphabetical order. If you look even closer, you will see that each letter in the alphabet is represented.

I responded to a challenge on Goodreads to do so. It helped clear a few items that had been loitering on my to-read list, based solely on the first letter of the book’s title. As you might expect, the letters Q, X, Y, and Z have very limited choices.

 GoodReads

I’m tracking my reading activity in Goodreads. I find the platform to be a great way to share book recommendations and to discover books to read. Now I’m looking for reading suggestions for 2014. Do you have recommendations?
Have you joined Goodreads?

2013 Reading List:
2312Act of Congress: How America's Essential Institution Works, and How It Doesn'tAntifragile: Things That Gain from DisorderBunker Hill: A City, a Siege, a RevolutionCaught Stealing (Hank Thompson, #1)Comic Books and the Cold War, 1946 to 1962: Essays on Graphic Treatment of Communism, the Code and Social ConcernsThe Dog StarsEmpty Mansions: The Mysterious Life of Huguette Clark and the Spending of a Great American FortuneFoundation, Foundation and Empire, Second FoundationThe GunHigh Performance with High Integrity  The Infiltrator: My Secret Life Inside the Dirty Banks Behind Pablo Escobar's Medellín CartelJoylandThe King's Best Highway: The Lost History of the Boston Post Road, the Route That Made AmericaLucifer's HammerA Manual of Style for Contract DraftingMastering SnowboardingMortal Bonds (Jason Stafford, #2)The Most Memorable Games in Patriots History: The Oral History of a Legendary TeamMr. Penumbra's 24-Hour BookstoreMy Beloved Brontosaurus: On the Road with Old Bones, New Science, and Our Favorite DinosaursNocturnalThe Ocean at the End of the LaneOctopus: Sam Israel, the Secret Market, and Wall Street's Wildest ConThe Orphan Master's SonThe Ponzi Scheme Puzzle: A History and Analysis of Con Artists and VictimsThe Quick and the DeadReady Player OneRedshirtsThe Remaining: Aftermath (Remaining, #2)The Remaining: Refugees (Remaining, #3)SCIENCE: Ruining Everything Since 1543The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail - But Some Don'tSomeone Could Get Hurt: A Memoir of Twenty-First-Century ParenthoodThe Theory That Would Not DieUnbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and RedemptionThe Vast Unknown: America's First Ascent of EverestThe Walking Dead, Vol. 17: Something to FearThe Walking Dead, Vol. 18: What Comes AfterThe Walking Dead, Vol. 19: March to WarX-Men OriginsYear ZeroYear ZeroZone One

Starting New Compliance Habits in 2014

power of habit

One of my favorite books of 2012 was Charles Duhigg’s The Power of Habit. The book is full of interesting ideas and based on an impressive collection of research. But it does a great job of balancing intellectual seriousness with practical advice. Even better, it’s written in a lively style, making it easy to read and digest. (The book was on my to read list before the publisher sent me a review copy.)

Fostering better compliance in your organization (or in you) can be improved by instilling better habits. Mr. Duhigg offers great information on how habit patterns form and how to change them.

If you have not yet read the book and would like a copy, Mr. Duhigg has offered a complimentary copy of his new paperback edition to one of my readers. If you are interested, leave a comment or send an email to [email protected] by Wednesday, January 8 at 5:00 pm EST. I’ll randomly pick a winner.

For those of you looking to start an exercise routine as a New Year’s resolution, here is a handy flow chart from Duhigg to help you:

habit flowchart-599x1024

SEC Sanctions CCO for Custody Rule Violations

failure

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order against Mark M. Wayne, the president, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Compliance Officer of Freedom One Investment Advisors, Inc. for violations of the the custody rule under the Investment Advisers Act. Although that’s the headline, the SEC action shows many other compliance failures.

First, the custody issues. From 2008 through 2010, Freedom One had custody of client assets and violated the custody rule’s requirement that it have an independent public accountant conduct annual surprise exams to verify those assets. For 2008, Freedom One engaged a national public accounting firm to perform a surprise exam, but failed to follow through with its completion. For 2009 and 2010, another national public accounting firm conducted surprise exams but they were insufficient. Freedom One limited the exams to only a subset of the accounts.

In 2010, the new custody rule came into effect and required Wayne to have the custodian send account statements directly to his clients. He failed to do so.

The SEC charged Wayne with aiding and abetting and causing these violations because as CEO, a principal, and CCO of Freedom One, he took no action to ensure compliance. Apparently, he delegated responsibility for the 2009 and 2010 surprise exam to someone who had no compliance training or experience and who did not know which accounts Freedom One had custody over. Wayne approved Freedom One’s compliance manuals. Wayne he appointed recordkeeping responsibilities to someone who lacked the necessary skills and did not provide her with adequate support and training to accurately maintain Freedom One’s books and records.

Granted those actions are all violations but don’t seem so egregious that the SEC would bring an enforcement action. The order spends a few paragraphs describing some poor accounting practices, but the problem is the movement of money between the adviser and its record-keeping affiliate. The order states no improper movement of assets between the client and the adviser.

The SEC not only brought an action against the adviser, it also brought charges against the accountants who failed to complete the surprise examination in 2008.

The action shows me that the SEC is serious about custody rule compliance, even when client assets are not in danger.

References: