Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

JPMorgan Gives Hedging a Black Eye

By

It seems as if JPMorgan was timing its bets based on market moves, was being reactionary to short-term market swings, and was using indexes that were not perfectly correlated.

PrintPRINT
JPMorgan's (JPM) loss last week of $2 billion was reported by the company to have occurred in an account used for hedging. That is quite a loss in a short time frame for an account that was supposed to be the hedging vehicle. Seems unlikely, even.

So, what do we make of it? JPMorgan has promised more information at the end of the quarter on the trade. But the Wall Street Journal is reporting some details on the three legs of the trade that caused the loss.

The first leg was a protective position. It was a derivative that would have paid off if the index it was based on went lower. The index was a high yield corporate bond index. Given JPMorgan's rather large exposure to corporate bonds, such a position would make a lot of sense as a hedge. The buy & hedge investor should recognize this: You would own the underlying (i.e., the high yield corporate bonds) and then have protection on the index (i.e., the put). Together, they create a married put.

If JPMorgan had just stopped there, it would certainly have been in a traditional hedged position. But it didn't stop there.

The second leg of the trade, according to the Wall Street Journal, was a position in which it sold protection on another bond index. This index was for investment grade corporate bonds. The protection it sold to others was in the form of credit default swaps (CDSs). These are protection from default. But in this case, since it was sold on an index, it really was like selling protection to someone else that guarantees that the index won't drop. That is effectively the same as being bullish the investment grade bonds. In fact, typically for selling the CDS, the seller would collect the interest on the bonds as the ongoing payment for the CDS protection. That trade was set to expire in 2017.

So, JPMorgan, for the CDS that it sold, created a bullish position on investment grade corporate bonds. So, let's recap: JPMorgan owned high yield bonds. Check. It bought protection for those bonds. Check. It then complicated matters by selling the CDS protection on investment grade bonds. Check?

At this point, it is bullish high yield bonds. And it has a spread trade of long investment grade bonds and short high yield bonds. Now, it is starting to look like JPMorgan made a bet, not a hedge.

Then came the third leg of the trade. It bought protection for the investment grade bonds, but the protection expired at the end of 2012. But indications are that it mixed different indexes in trying to build this last position. In other words, it may not have been a perfect hedge for the investment grade position. After all, if it had been, then JPMorgan would have had two nicely hedged positions: a married put on its high yield bond portfolio and a market neutral investment grade hedge that was neutral through 2012 and biased long from 2013-2017.

But since the indexes JPMorgan used to hedge did not correlate as well as it had hoped to the investment it was meant to hedge, the investments did not act as expected. It all seems very confusing, but in the end it seems as if JPMorgan was timing its bets based on market moves, it was being reactionary to short-term market swings, and it was using indexes that were not perfectly correlated. The result: a big black eye.

The lesson for buy & hedge investors: Don't time the market. Don't time your hedges. Make sure your hedges are well correlated with the underlying investments. And if they aren't well correlated, monitor things very closely as you might have to make a quick exit after a brutal loss!

Editor's Note: For more from Wayne Ferbert, go to Buy & Hedge ETF Strategies.
< Previous
  • 1
Next >
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PrintPRINT
 
Featured Videos

WHAT'S POPULAR IN THE VILLE