For months, JP Morgan supported by the blind faith of functional journalists to the system, fed investment optimism on the Argentine economy. In his reports of the Global Data Watch – Global Economic Research, a robust recovery of GDP, an effective disinflation, and even tax improvements that would allow to sustain economic growth for 2025.
However, in parallel and discretion the report of its same bank of June 27, 2025, its Latin America Emerging Markets Research recommended leaving the Argentine bonds, showing that, since April 15, 2025, they are doing it, while they argue now because they have been operating it. This contradiction is not anecdotal, it highlights a functional informative asymmetry to the benefit of their own traders, to the detriment of their slower or most institutional customers, and ultimately, of the stability of the Argentine financial system.
THE MECHANICS OF THE FINANCIAL ARRIOR
According to the classical asset valuation theory (Rodríguez Cacio, 2021; Van Horne & Wachowicz, 2010), the price of a bonus reflects the expectation about its discounted flows at a rate that incorporates the country risk. Market confidence, in this context, is a critical input. That is why it is alarming that, while JPMorgan reports highlighted private consumption growth, and tax improvements, their own internal recommendations of Trading Marque that were in retreat; They sold Lecap bonds with an excellent return.
These actions are not neutral. In a global financial market dominated by sophisticated actors, the coordinated disarmament of positions can shoot sudden corrections, as already happened in other Latin American crises (Rodrik, 2011; Sassen, 2010). What in the weekly macroeconomic report expresses a “prudent waiting for electoral risks”, in fact translates into a strategic output of Argentine risk by those who already obtained their profits.
The notion of asymmetric information, developed by Joseph E. Stiglitz And awarded the Nobel Prize in 2001, he argues that in many markets agents do not access the same level of information when making economic decisions. This informative inequality is not an accidental defect, but often a structural characteristic of the system, which allows actors with privileged information to benefit to the detriment of others less informed.
In financial markets, this imbalance can generate inefficiency, manipulation and even strategic behaviors that touch the legal scam. Stiglitz demonstrated how these imbalances not only distort prices, but also affect the distribution of risk and opportunities in the economy, generating recurring crises. In the Argentine case, JP Morgan’s behavior can be read as a contemporary manual example; Public reports that induce an optimistic reading Meanwhile, by internal channels, a strategy to disarms positions with informative advantage is executed. The result is that those who trust the official information are trapped in overvalued assets, while the Insiders have already collected benefits and out of the scene.
From the optics of the valuation per fundamental, this maneuver is not less. If the value of the bonus depends on the expectation of repayment and macroeconomic stability, inducing an optimistic perception and then disinverates it is equivalent to altering the market conditions artificially. The DCF (Discoued Cash Flow) model used for debt value in emerging markets requires an ethical reading of risk and information (Rodríguez Cacio, 2021; Damodaran, 2023).
An Argentine déjà vu?
The behavior of JP Morgan – giving encouraging public signals while their private operations detach from bonds – remembers practices seen in episodes such as the Carry Trade prior to the crisis of 2018 or even the Selective default of 2001. The information differential, far from being a technical problem, becomes here a political and financial lever with regressive distributive effects.
If the global financial elite leaves the Argentine bonds after inducting confidence, the markets will respond overreaction, and the effects will be transferred to the exchange rate, the cost of refinancing and eventually, to political stability. This “global micro cheat”, as we could define it, is a systemic risk for countries that, as Argentina, continue to depend on external humor rather than internal institutional solidity.
It is time to warn, with evidence, that Research’s reports of large investment banks are not neutral documents: they are geopolitical artifacts with real impact. And when the traders have already sold, the risk is assumed by those who read late.
References: Damodaran, A. (2023). Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques for Detering The Value of Any Asset (4th ed.). Wiley Rodríguez Cacio, AB (2021). Rodrik, D. (2011). The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. WW Norton & Company. Sassen, S. (2010). Territory, Authority, Rights: Medieval To Global Assemblages. Princeton University Press. Van Horne, JC, & Wachowicz Jr., JM (2010). Fundamentals of Financial Administration. Pearson Education. JPMorgan. (2025, June 27). Global Data Watch – Global Economic Research & Latin America Emerging Markets Research [Internal Report]. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Source: Ambito
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
