<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/08/15/harpooning-the-london-whale-is-no-substitute-for-reform/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 18:34:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Harpooning the London Whale is no Substitute for Reform</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/08/15/harpooning-the-london-whale-is-no-substitute-for-reform/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=harpooning-the-london-whale-is-no-substitute-for-reform</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/08/15/harpooning-the-london-whale-is-no-substitute-for-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Aug 2013 19:14:59 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Banking & Financial Institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HLS Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Op-Eds & Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JPMorgan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=51469?d=20230310130037EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Editor&#8217;s Note: Mark Roe is the David Berg Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he teaches bankruptcy and corporate law. This post is based on an op-ed by Professor Roe that was published today in The Financial Times, which can be found here. And so the drama moves on to a courtroom. Two prime traders [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background: #F8F8F8; padding: 10px; margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><strong>Editor&#8217;s Note:</strong> <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=127" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mark Roe</a> is the David Berg Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he teaches bankruptcy and corporate law. This post is based on an op-ed by Professor Roe that was published today in <em>The Financial Times</em>, which can be found <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1417bcba-0596-11e3-8ed5-00144feab7de.html#axzz2c3j07zV4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.</div>
<p>And so the drama moves on to a courtroom. Two prime traders in JPMorgan Chase’s “<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6bd7f9cc-044e-11e3-8aab-00144feab7de.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">London whale</a>” misadventure have been indicted. Side plots may unfold, perhaps via extradition proceedings. But here is the big question: will the indictments lead to better, stronger financial markets? Well, yes and no.</p>
<p>Recall the problem: JPMorgan’s London trading desk made trades that would be profitable if the post-crisis American economy remained weak. As the economy improved, the traders sought to reverse the investments, but could not, ultimately losing the bank and its shareholders $6bn.</p>
<p>The indictments are not for the loss, but for deliberately misstating the size of the loss to higher-ups at the bank. That, in turn, led to misstated financial statements to the public and the bank’s regulators. Whether higher-ups pushed for lower reported losses remains to be seen.</p>
<p>Misleading the regulators is serious: if the losses threatened the bank itself, the regulators would have needed to know early so they could act. True, JPMorgan is well capitalised so a $6bn loss was painful but not life threatening; and, the indictment says, the deception was sized in hundreds of millions of dollars. But regulators still want to be alerted, to see if other big institutions were making similar bets. The financial crisis hit in 2008 because too many made similar (bad) bets on the American housing market’s ability to support its massive levels of poor-quality mortgage securities. An early warning system will not work if financiers hide problems.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/08/15/harpooning-the-london-whale-is-no-substitute-for-reform/#more-51469" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Harpooning the London Whale is no Substitute for Reform">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/08/15/harpooning-the-london-whale-is-no-substitute-for-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
