摩根大通交易巨虧，對沖基金得利

????旨在降低銀行業風險的多德弗蘭克法案（Dodd-Frank）要為摩根大通（JPMorgan）的巨額交易損失負責嗎？

????今年早些時候，經營Hutchin Hill對沖基金的尼爾?克里斯在接受彭博社（Bloomberg）采訪時表示，大銀行可能會因為多德弗蘭克法案的實施而退出一些頭寸，他希望買入這些頭寸獲利?？磥硭业搅艘粋€機會。據傳，很多對沖基金從摩根大通巨虧20億美元中賺了錢，Hutchin Hill就是其中之一。

????明星對沖基金經理博阿茨?維恩斯坦看來也從摩根大通的巨虧交易中分了一杯羹，這位國際象棋大師在《財富》雜志（FORTUNE）評選的40位40歲以下商界精英中名列第17位。早在2月份，他就在一個慈善活動上告訴眾人說，他首要的投資主張是買進基于CDX IG 9指數的10年期信貸違約掉期（CDS）合約，這正是摩根大通的倫敦鯨交易員賣出的CDS合約。他告訴那次與會者稱，這個CDS合約“十分有吸引力”，而且交易價格有折價。

????Hutchin Hill的一位發言人和維恩斯坦的 Saba Management拒絕發表評論。

????專營CDS市場的華爾街人士稱，看來有數十家對沖基金在這項交易上同摩根大通進行了對賭。包括藍山基金（BlueMountain Capital）和 Lucidus Capital在內的很多基金都是由摩根大通前交易員經營的?；蛟S這也不奇怪。CDS合約基本上是由摩根大通在10多年前創造出來的。因此，市場中最有經驗的交易員來自該行也合情合理。但這也顯露了一點，很多交易員離開大銀行后如今卷土重來，成為了老東家的噩夢。

????當然，造成20億美元交易損失的主要責任還在于摩根大通以及它信奉的“對沖同時可以賺錢”的錯誤理念。但不管怎樣，多德弗蘭克法案可能還是放大了摩根大通的損失。多德弗蘭克法案本意是要將華爾街的高風險業務從大銀行轉移到對沖基金；大銀行有聯邦政府擔保的存款以及政府暗里的支持。大家都知道銀行會虧錢，因為必須要關停新禁入業務。但除此之外，對沖基金看來已琢磨明白，這一轉換蘊藏投資商機，有望攫取銀行的一部分利潤。摩根大通就是第一個鮮明的例子，預計未來會看到更多。

????如果沒有這一法案，摩根大通原本可向這項交易投入更多資源。實際上，多德弗蘭克法案據稱是一些對沖基金進入此項交易的一個首要原因。它們發現摩根大通擁有大量頭寸，監管機構可能最終會對摩根大通進行嚴厲制裁，迫使它虧損賣出這些頭寸。事實并沒有完全按照這個方式展開。意在限制銀行業高風險交易的沃爾克規則（Volcker rule）未來兩年不會正式生效。不管怎么說，隨著更多對沖基金涌入這項交易（買進摩根大通曾經認為價值會下跌而出售的CDS合約），這種壓力推動CDS合約價格上漲，造成摩根大通虧損。

????Is Dodd-Frank, the law that is supposed to make the banks less risky, actually to blame for JPMorgan's huge trading loss?

????Earlier this year, Neil Chriss, who runs hedge fund Hutchin Hill, said in a Bloomberg interview that he was looking to profit by buying up positions that the large banks might be forced to exit because of Dodd-Frank banking reforms. It appears he found one. Hutchin Hill is one of the many hedge funds rumored to be making money on JPMorgan's $2 billion trading blunder.

????Star hedge fund manager and chess master Boaz Weinstein, who ranked 17 on FORTUNE's 40 under 40 last year, appears to be on the other side of the JPMorgan trade as well. Back in February, he told a crowd at a charity event that his No. 1 investment idea was to buy 10-year credit default swaps on the CDX IG 9, which are the exact type of CDS contracts being sold by JPMorgan's London whale. He told the attendees at the conference that the CDS contract was "very attractive" and was trading at a discount.

????A spokesperson for Hutchin Hill and Weinstein's Saba Management declined to comment.

????Wall Streeters who specialize in the CDS market say it appears that dozens of hedge funds have piled into the anti-JPMorgan trade. A number of the funds, including BlueMountain Capital and Lucidus Capital, are run by traders who formerly worked at JPMorgan. Perhaps that's not all that surprising. CDS contracts were basically created at JPMorgan more than a decade ago. So it makes sense that the traders with the most expertise in the market would come from the bank. But it's just another sign that many traders who are fleeing the big banks are coming back to haunt their old employers.

????To be sure, much of the blame for the $2 billion trading loss should be heaped on JPMorgan and its flawed idea that you could make money and hedge at the same time. Nonetheless, it appears Dodd-Frank may be amplifying JPMorgan's losses. Dodd-Frank was supposed to move the risky business of Wall Street out of the really large banks that have federally insured deposits, and, oh yeah, an implied backing from the government, and into hedge funds. It was known that banks would lose money because they would have to close businesses they were no longer allowed to be in. But on top of that hedge funds appear to have figured out that there is money to be made by exploiting the transition and that money is coming out of the profits of the banks. JPMorgan is the first clear example of this, but expect to see more.

????Without the law, JPMorgan probably would have been able to devote more resources to the trade. In fact, Dodd-Frank was reportedly one of the reasons some hedge funds got into the trade in the first place. They figured JPMorgan's position was so large that regulators under would eventually crack down on the bank and force it to sell its positions at a loss. It didn't exactly happen that way. The Volcker rule, which is suppose to limit risky trading at the banks, doesn't officially go into effect for another two years. Nonetheless, as more hedge funds rushed into the trade - buying the CDS contract that was being sold by JPMorgan, which was betting it would fall in value, that pressure instead caused the CDS contract to rise in value producing losses at JPMorgan.