JPMorgan

A recent investigation and analysis into auto-callable structured products has uncovered massive losses for investors, with the 100 worst-performing ones collectively losing over $1 billion. To put that into perspective, that’s more than 55% of their original total value of $1.84 billion. This sheds light on the significant risks tied to these complex financial investment products, which are commonly issued and recommended by financial institutions like UBS, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley.

Auto-callable structured products are a type of investment that pays periodic interest and can be redeemed early, but only if certain conditions tied to an underlying asset are met. If the asset performs well, the investment is called early, and investors get their principal back with interest. But if things go south and the asset’s value drops beyond a certain point, investors can face serious financial losses.

According to an article analyzing the $1 billion loss in 100 auto-callable notes, Goldman Sachs alone is linked to $234 million of the losses from the worst-performing 100 auto-callables. Other major financial institutions, such as JP Morgan, UBS, Morgan Stanley, and Credit Suisse each racked up more than $100 million in losses. According to the article, there are also concerns that UBS, Credit Suisse, and Bank of Montreal may have overstated their initial valuations in their regulatory filings, which could explain why their products experienced higher-than-average losses of 62.6%, compared to 53.4% for other issuers.

In May 29, 2015, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (collectively “JPMorgan”) moved to renew a motion, before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a preliminary injunction (the “Motion”) against six (6) former registered representatives (the “Brokers”), who left JPMorgan to join Morgan Stanley. According to court documents, the Brokers managed $2 Billion of client assets derived from four-hundred (400) families’ accounts that produce approximately $15 million in revenue per year. The purpose of the preliminary injunction was the preserve the status quo ante by enjoining certain client solicitation activities by the Brokers, while JPMorgan and the Brokers resolved issues related to the Brokers’ transition to Morgan Stanley through arbitration.

In its Motion, JPMorgan alleged, inter alia, that since transitioning from JPMorgan to Morgan Stanley, the Brokers illegally solicited JPMorgan clients and converted JPMorgan’s confidential and proprietary client information. JPMorgan’s Motion argued that a preliminary injunction preventing the Brokers from continuing to solicit JPMorgan clients is necessary because the resulting financial harm and loss of customers’ confidence is unascertainable and as such, no other adequate remedy at law exists.

On June 8, 2015, the Brokers filed a forty-page Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Injunctive Relief (“Opposition”). Generally, the Brokers’ Opposition argued that the District Court should deny JPMorgan’s Motion because JPMorgan is a signatory to the Protocol for Broker Recruiting (the “Protocol”) and all of the Brokers’ activities were permitted under the Protocol. Briefly, the Protocol is an agreement between many of the major securities firms that is designed to give clients the opportunity to choose their financial advisory on the merits of their relationships, rather than though the court system. Under the Protocol, a registered representative who transitions from one Protocol signatory firm to another is permitted to solicit his or her clients once they join the new firm and is permitted to retain certain limited client information.

Articles Posted in JPMorgan

Investment Losses in Auto-Callable Structured Products

J.P. Morgan Challenges Its Limited Participation Under The Protocol For Broker Recruiting By Seeking A Preliminary Injunction Against A Six-Broker Team Transitioning To Morgan Stanley