May 8, 2024

DealBook: In Energy Case, a Fresh Tactic by JPMorgan: A Push to Settle

9:05 p.m. | Updated It is unclear whether FERC will pursue a separate action against Blythe Masters, a senior JPMorgan executive.Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated PressIt is unclear whether FERC will pursue a separate action against Blythe Masters, a senior JPMorgan executive.

JPMorgan Chase, the Wall Street giant whose reputation in Washington has eroded in a matter of months, is now moving to avert a showdown over accusations that it manipulated energy prices.

The nation’s largest bank, which has previously clashed with its regulators, is seeking to settle with the federal agency that oversees the energy markets, according to people briefed on the matter. The regulator, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, found that JPMorgan devised “manipulative schemes” that transformed “money-losing power plants into powerful profit centers,” a commission document said.

The potential deal, the people said, is expected to cost the bank about $500 million, a record for the commission, which has adopted a harder line with Wall Street over the last year. For JPMorgan, which reported a record $6.5 billion quarterly profit last week, the fine will hardly dent the bottom line.

The accusations against JPMorgan surfaced this spring in the confidential commission document, reviewed by The New York Times, that outlined a pattern of illegal trading in the California and Michigan electric markets. The document, a warning that investigators would recommend that the agency pursue civil charges, also claimed that a senior JPMorgan executive, Blythe Masters, gave “false and misleading statements” under oath.

It is unclear whether Ms. Masters would be included in the potential settlement, but people close to her said that the regulator was unlikely to file a separate action against her. Initially, investigators planned to recommend that the agency hold Ms. Masters and three of her employees “individually liable,” a move that would have cast a shadow over her long career on Wall Street, where she is known for developing complex financial instruments.

While the bank still disputes the accusations, the recent settlement talks signal a shift in strategy for JPMorgan, which previously declared its intention “to vigorously defend” itself. Other banks, including Barclays, are fighting the commission in similar cases, casting the agency as overly aggressive. A settlement with JPMorgan could undermine Wall Street’s counterattacks and pave the way for more settlements.

JPMorgan’s Trading Loss

With the recent overture, JPMorgan appears to have taken a more conciliatory approach to Washington broadly, as it works to mend relationships with regulatory agencies. Its new tack, advocated by top JPMorgan lawyers, underscores the bank’s realization that it was swiftly losing credibility in Washington.

Within regulatory circles, JPMorgan had become known as something of a bully, a bank quick to strike a combative tone with regulators. In a Congressional report examining a $6 billion trading loss the bank sustained last year, investigators faulted it for briefly withholding documents from regulators. The energy markets regulator also accused the bank of stonewalling investigators.

A settlement with the commission would enable JPMorgan to resolve the embarrassing accusations without fighting a lengthy legal battle. It also would allow the bank to focus on its other legal woes as it remains caught in the cross hairs of at least eight other federal offices. In addition to inquiries stemming from the trading loss, banking regulators are weighing enforcement actions against the bank for the way it collected credit card debt.

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive who was once known as Washington’s favorite banker, acknowledged in his annual letter to shareholders that “unfortunately, we expect we will have more” enforcement actions in “the coming months.” He apologized for letting “our regulators down” and vowed to “do all the work necessary to complete the needed improvements.”

To reinforce the conciliatory approach, the bank has more readily dispatched executives to Washington. It also committed resources to bolster internal controls, a measure that could appease regulators.

The people briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, cautioned that JPMorgan and the energy regulator were still negotiating a potential fine. The terms are subject to change. Any action recommended by investigators — settlement or otherwise — requires approval by a majority of the five-member energy commission.

The prospect of a deal with JPMorgan Chase was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.

A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment. The commission also declined to comment.

JPMorgan’s run-in with the energy regulator escalated in March, when investigators sent the document outlining the findings of their inquiry. In response, the bank issued a lengthy response to the accusations in mid-May, the people briefed on the matter said, ultimately spurring settlement talks in recent weeks.

For the energy regulator, a settlement would be the latest in a string of actions against big banks. On Tuesday, the commission ordered Barclays to pay a $470 million penalty for suspected manipulation of energy markets in California and other Western states by some of its traders. The bank is fighting the charges.

Like Barclays, JPMorgan faces accusations stemming from its rights to sell electricity from power plants. The rights come from assets the bank accumulated in the 2008 takeover of Bear Stearns.

But soon after the acquisition, the plants became a losing business that relied on “inefficient” and outdated technology. Under “pressure to generate large profits,” investigators said in the March document, traders in Houston devised a solution. Adopting eight different “schemes” between September 2010 and June 2011, the traders offered the energy at prices “calculated to falsely appear attractive” to state energy authorities. The effort prompted authorities in California and Michigan to pay about $83 million in “excessive” payments to JPMorgan, the investigators said.

In a 2012 filing in federal court, the energy regulator took aim at JPMorgan for attempting to thwart the investigation. The bank, the regulator said, refused to comply with a subpoena seeking e-mails that JPMorgan claimed were confidential because they contained private conversations between the bank and its lawyers.

In the March document, the investigators elaborated on the bank’s pushback. The 70-page document said that the bank “planned and executed a systematic cover-up” of documents that exposed the trading strategy, including profit and loss statements.

The investigators also traced some of the obfuscating to Ms. Masters. After California authorities began to object to the bank’s trading strategy, Ms. Masters “personally participated in JPMorgan’s efforts to block” the state authorities “from understanding the reasons behind JPMorgan’s bidding schemes,” the regulator, known as FERC, said.

The investigators also cited an April 2011 e-mail in which Ms. Masters ordered a “rewrite” of an internal document that questioned whether the bank had skirted the law. The new wording: “JPMorgan does not believe that it violated FERC’s policies.”

A branch of JPMorgan Chase in New York.Leslye Davis/The New York TimesA branch of JPMorgan Chase in New York.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/jpmorgan-in-talks-to-settle-energy-manipulation-case-for-500-million/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Major Retailers Start Selling Financial Products, Challenging Banks

While Ms. Neubauer, 27, said she was surprised to find the warehouse club selling financial products, she and her husband saved about $200 a month by refinancing there this year. She also bought home insurance from Costco, she said, again because it was cheaper there.

“It opened us up to the fact that Costco is more than toilet paper,” said Ms. Neubauer, who lives in Dallas.

As the nation’s largest banks stay stingy with credit and a growing portion of the population has no bank at all, major retailers are stepping into the void. Customers can now withdraw cash at an A.T.M. with a prepaid card from Walmart, take out a loan at Home Depot for a kitchen renovation or kick-start a new venture with a small-business loan from Sam’s Club. This year, Walmart even started to test selling a life insurance policy.

Consumer advocates are torn about the growth of this shadow banking industry. Financial products are making it into the hands of people who otherwise might not qualify for them, but these products are not always subject to the same regulations as bank products are. And to turn a profit, retailers generally have to charge more to people with poor credit or none at all.

“These products can come with high fees and few real protections,” said Norma P. Garcia, a senior lawyer with Consumers Union.

For the retailers, banking products are not huge profit centers but a business strategy, meant to put money into customers’ hands and get them buying more.

“You’ve got to remember, Walmart is intended to be a one-stop shop,” said Charles M. Holley Jr., the company’s chief financial officer.

Retailers were once interested in actually becoming banks. Sears, in the 1980s, tried a “socks and stocks” strategy that included acquiring the Dean Witter brokerage firm. And Wal-Mart Stores sought a banking charter for almost a decade before finally abandoning the quest in 2007.

While supermarket chains have leased space to bank branches for years, they are now offering their own products or teaming with small financial firms to do an end run around big banks. While the banks are likely to bristle at such competition, supporters of the retailers say the stores are stepping into areas that banks have abandoned.

“The banks kind of dropped the ball, and in my mind, and in the consumers’ mind, they left it open for different approaches,” said Robert L. Phillips, a professor at Columbia Business School.

Part of the lure is the so-called underbanked population — people who use few, if any, bank services. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation estimates that roughly 10 million households in the United States do not use a bank, up from nine million three years ago. And the agency says 24 million more households have a bank account but still use nonbank financial services, like prepaid cards.

Mr. Holley said that 20 to 25 percent of Walmart customers were unbanked.

“The more kinds of services we can offer our core customer like that, the better for them,” he said.

Last month, Walmart unveiled a prepaid card with American Express. The card operates much like a debit card except that it is not attached to a bank account. It comes with free customer-service telephone support, and fees are relatively low, but the account is not backed by the F.D.I.C.

Frustrated with the fees charged by her bank, Nancy Fry, a real estate broker in Logan, Utah, bought a prepaid card from Walmart this year. But this was even worse, she said — she was charged $3 every time she loaded money onto the card. “I really don’t have very much money and can’t afford these fees,” she said.

Consumer advocates complain that prepaid cards are loosely regulated and can cannibalize the money put on them. Consumer lawyers have pushed for greater disclosure of fees and more stringent regulation of the card providers. The government is expected to issue new rules this year.  

Walmart began to test selling a one-year MetLife life insurance policy this year, and customers can wire money or pay bills at any Walmart store.

Costco is also courting customers who are fed up with their banks. “A lot of members think their bank fees are too high, or the trust level has gone down over the years, or they’re having issues with debit and credit cards,” said Jay Smith, Costco’s director of business and financial services.

Costco sells auto and homeowners’ insurance, offers credit card processing for small businesses and began making mortgages in late 2010. It does not make money on the mortgages, which are offered by small lenders, Mr. Smith said. The idea is to get people to renew their store memberships, where Costco makes a large chunk of its profit.

Home Depot, whose customers are mainly homeowners, is trying to increase sales by extending credit to people who would otherwise have trouble getting it. Last year, the company began offering loans of up to $40,000, and this year it extended its no-interest credit card payment terms. “We have the ability to get credit to consumers in this tight credit market, and we wanted people to take advantage of that in a market where people don’t have access to home-equity lines of credit like they used to,” said Dwaine Kimmet, Home Depot’s treasurer and vice president for financial services.

Mr. Kimmet said the loans were especially useful for people who needed emergency items, like a water heater, though shoppers use them for other home décor projects as well.

They are also helpful for Home Depot, whose sales growth has been squeezed by the housing crisis.

Mr. Kimmet said the store loans, unlike home-equity lines of credit, did not require collateral, meaning Home Depot could not seize someone’s house for a failure to pay.

The interest rate on Home Depot’s credit card is higher than that on a typical credit card — 18 percent to 27 percent, depending on credit score, compared with an average of 14.59 percent, according to Bankrate. But Mr. Kimmet said the retailer offered cards to people with credit scores as low as 600, below what many lenders accept.

Other retailers are also trying to make it easier for people to qualify for financial products. Office Depot and Sam’s Club offer loans backed by the government’s Small Business Administration, and both involve quick, one-page initial applications. More than 1,000 Sam’s Club members have used the program since its introduction two years ago, the company said.  

When Kent Prater was about to open a restaurant in Lumberton, N.C., he searched online for loans backed by the Small Business Administration and found that Sam’s Club sold them. He applied online for a $25,000 loan and was approved for a $10,000 loan, with an interest rate of about 10 percent. With a bank, “I think it would probably be a little bit more difficult, because of the environment — the economy and the regulatory environment,” said Mr. Prater, who opened Thai Chili last month.

Paco Underhill, who researches shopper behavior as founder and chief executive of Envirosell, said retailers offering financial products was only the beginning.

“The banks are going to scream bloody murder when retailers try to obtain banking charters,” he said. “But it’s not hard for a retail organization to look across the landscape and say, ‘Who are my customers, and what else could I be selling them?’ ”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/business/major-retailers-start-selling-financial-products-challenging-banks.html?partner=rss&emc=rss