????摩根大通可能會躍入“澡盆”。有人想知道，該行會不會因為“倫敦鯨”交易虧損而在接下來的業績報告中來個“洗大澡”(big bath)呢？所謂的“洗大澡”是一個會計術語，是指為了讓后期業績更好看而夸大當期虧損的會計手段。

????本周二，杰米?戴蒙再次在國會就摩根大通旗下風險管理部門在僅一個多月的時間里造成20億美元巨額虧損一事作證，不過這次是在眾議院金融服務委員會（House Financial Services Committee）前作證。

????和上次聽證會類似，摩根大通首席執行官這次也不大可能就損失可能擴大的程度透露更多信息。不過很多人認為相關損失已經大幅擴大。問題是，當該行在一個多月后公布第二財季業績時，它會不會采取保守做法并宣布相關的最終交易虧損可能很大？或者，反之的話，它會不會盡量去淡化“倫敦鯨”所在的首席投資辦公室造成的這筆虧損？

????銀行在公布交易業績方面通常會有一定的回旋余地。根據市值計價會計準則，它們應對所有股票、債券以及衍生產品根據當前市場價格進行估值。有個問題是，有些投資資產并不經常交易。這樣一來，銀行就可以按照自己的判斷來對這部分資產進行估值。摩根大通這些虧損交易的標的資產據稱是復雜而流動性較低的衍生品。因此，如果該行采取靈活的估值方法，戴蒙能輕而易舉地予以辯護。

????對摩根大通來說，當期盡量夸大交易損失，即在賬務處理上“洗個大澡”是有好處的。該行歷史上就有過對虧損估算采取保守做法的先例。比如說，摩根大通曾對其表內有政府擔保的部分逾期抵押貸款進行了賬面虧損處理。盡管這些貸款幾乎算是萬無一失，就算出現虧損也能從政府那得到補償。而其他銀行就沒有對類似這樣的貸款做賬面虧損處理。

????如果摩根大通對“倫敦鯨”所做的交易也采取類似的保守估計，即對相關投資失策可能給該行造成的損失按預估區間高端計入當期，而如果這些交易產生的實際損失又并不像該行預計得那么糟糕的話，摩根大通的后期盈利則將獲得提振。確實，戴蒙在之前提到交易損失時所表現出的直言不諱已經使一些人感到吃驚了。有人已經質疑，為什么他一開始就沒有試圖隱瞞這些虧損呢？

????不過，想要淡化這些虧損的話，摩根大通手里也有利器。上周，戴蒙透露該行首席投資辦公室的投資組合中有70億美元的未實現收益。該行可以拋售投資組合中的一部分獲利頭寸從而降低首席投資辦公室造成的虧損。低于預期的總體虧損額有利于消除投資者對該行首席投資辦公室的憂慮情緒。在未來一段時間內，分析師、投資者和監管層都很可能會密切關注該行首席投資辦公室。

????JPMorgan Chase (JPM) could be headed for the tub. Some are wondering if the bank could take a so-called big bath - an accounting term for exaggerating losses in order to benefit later - on the London Whale's trading red ink.

????Jamie Dimon is testifying in front of Congress again on Tuesday, this time for the House Financial Services Committee, about how a unit of his bank that is charged with risk management was able to lose $2 billion in a little over a month.

????As with last week's hearing, JPMorgan's CEO is not likely to say more about how big the loss could get - though many think it has mushroomed. The question is whether JPMorgan will choose to be conservative when it reports its second quarter earnings about a month from now and say the trading loss could end up being large or instead try to make the red ink in the chief investment office, which is where the London Whale works, look as small as possible.

????Banks have a certain amount of leeway when reporting trading results. They are supposed to use so-called mark-to-market accounting, under which they would value all stocks, bonds and derivatives at current market prices. The problem is that some investments don't trade regularly. In those instances, banks can use their own judgment. JPMorgan's losing trades were reportedly in complex, illiquid derivatives, so Dimon could easily defend a more flexible approach to assigning value.

????There might be an advantage for JPMorgan to make the trading losses look as big as possible, taking a so-called big bath. JPMorgan has a history of being conservative about losses. For instance, JPMorgan has recorded losses on its books on some delinquent mortgage loans that are backed by government guarantees, even though it's almost certain to get its money back on those loans from Uncle Sam. Other banks have not taken a loss on similar loans.

????If JPMorgan were to take a conservative estimate on the London Whale's trades, recording the high-end of the range of what the misstep could cost the bank, JPMorgan could get an earnings boost later if the trades don't turn out to be as disastrous as the bank predicts. Indeed, Dimon has surprised some people about how vocal he has been about the trading losses. Some have questioned why he didn't try to bury the losses from the start.

????Nonetheless, JPMorgan has a number of different levers it could pull if it wants to make the loss as small as possible. Last week, Dimon said that the bank's chief investment office has $7 billion in unrealized gains in its portfolio. The bank could sell off some of those profitable positions to limit the losses in its CIO unit. A smaller than expected overall loss in that unit could quell some fears about the CIO office, which is likely to be under intense focus from analysts, investors and regulators for some time.