摩根大通交易巨亏，对冲基金得利

    旨在降低银行业风险的多德弗兰克法案（Dodd-Frank）要为摩根大通（JPMorgan）的巨额交易损失负责吗？

    今年早些时候，经营Hutchin Hill对冲基金的尼尔•克里斯在接受彭博社（Bloomberg）采访时表示，大银行可能会因为多德弗兰克法案的实施而退出一些头寸，他希望买入这些头寸获利。看来他找到了一个机会。据传，很多对冲基金从摩根大通巨亏20亿美元中赚了钱，Hutchin Hill就是其中之一。

    明星对冲基金经理博阿茨•维恩斯坦看来也从摩根大通的巨亏交易中分了一杯羹，这位国际象棋大师在《财富》杂志（FORTUNE）评选的40位40岁以下商界精英中名列第17位。早在2月份，他就在一个慈善活动上告诉众人说，他首要的投资主张是买进基于CDX IG 9指数的10年期信贷违约掉期（CDS）合约，这正是摩根大通的伦敦鲸交易员卖出的CDS合约。他告诉那次与会者称，这个CDS合约“十分有吸引力”，而且交易价格有折价。

    Hutchin Hill的一位发言人和维恩斯坦的 Saba Management拒绝发表评论。

    专营CDS市场的华尔街人士称，看来有数十家对冲基金在这项交易上同摩根大通进行了对赌。包括蓝山基金（BlueMountain Capital）和 Lucidus Capital在内的很多基金都是由摩根大通前交易员经营的。或许这也不奇怪。CDS合约基本上是由摩根大通在10多年前创造出来的。因此，市场中最有经验的交易员来自该行也合情合理。但这也显露了一点，很多交易员离开大银行后如今卷土重来，成为了老东家的噩梦。

    当然，造成20亿美元交易损失的主要责任还在于摩根大通以及它信奉的“对冲同时可以赚钱”的错误理念。但不管怎样，多德弗兰克法案可能还是放大了摩根大通的损失。多德弗兰克法案本意是要将华尔街的高风险业务从大银行转移到对冲基金；大银行有联邦政府担保的存款以及政府暗里的支持。大家都知道银行会亏钱，因为必须要关停新禁入业务。但除此之外，对冲基金看来已琢磨明白，这一转换蕴藏投资商机，有望攫取银行的一部分利润。摩根大通就是第一个鲜明的例子，预计未来会看到更多。

    如果没有这一法案，摩根大通原本可向这项交易投入更多资源。实际上，多德弗兰克法案据称是一些对冲基金进入此项交易的一个首要原因。它们发现摩根大通拥有大量头寸，监管机构可能最终会对摩根大通进行严厉制裁，迫使它亏损卖出这些头寸。事实并没有完全按照这个方式展开。意在限制银行业高风险交易的沃尔克规则（Volcker rule）未来两年不会正式生效。不管怎么说，随着更多对冲基金涌入这项交易（买进摩根大通曾经认为价值会下跌而出售的CDS合约），这种压力推动CDS合约价格上涨，造成摩根大通亏损。

    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.