Perhaps it is out of shame that JPM did not want to disclose the fact that based on an apples to apples methodology the firm no longer loses money. Any money. Ever. So what did JPM do? Why it introduced oranges of course. From the just released 10-K:
Effective during the fourth quarter of 2013, the Firm revised its definition of market risk-related gains and losses to be consistent with the definition used by the banking regulators under Basel 2.5. Under this definition market risk-related gains and losses are defined as: profits and losses on the Firm’s Risk Management positions, excluding fees, commissions, fair value adjustments, net interest income, and gains and losses arising from intraday trading. The following chart compares the daily market risk-related gains and losses on the Firm’s Risk Management positions for the year ended December 31, 2013, under the revised definition. As the chart presents market risk-related gains and losses related to those positions included in the Firm’s Risk Management VaR, the results in the table below differ from the results of backtesting disclosed in the Firm’s Basel 2.5 report, which are based on Regulatory VaR. The chart shows that for the year ended December 31, 2013, the Firm observed two VaR band breaks and posted gains on 177 of the 260 days in this period.
In other words when one excludes such trivial things as “f,ees, commissions, fair value adjustments, net interest income, and gains and losses arising from intraday trading” and why one would exclude gains and losses from intraday trading when the bulk of JPM’s revenue comes precisely from this is beyond us, JPM did in fact lose money. It just didn’t lose money when everything is included.
And that, among all the other well-known reasons, is why Jamie Dimon is once again richer than you.