FRM Fun 10. JPMorgan's CIO VaR JPMorgan's first quarter filing (Q1 10Q) originally reported a value at risk (VaR) of $67 million for its CIO desk (recall the CIO desk put on the synthetic credit derivative trade that's lost the firm ~$5.9 billion) under a new version of their VaR model. The same VaR was later restated to $129 million, when JPMorgan reinstated their old model. Colin Lokey argues that JPMorgan switched from the old to the new VaR model precisely in order to justify a risker position(s), see http://seekingalpha.com/article/713571-jpmorgan-likely-switched-to-new-model-to-pave-way-for-risky-trade. According to the published task force report (see https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9plg31ga9zujkf/JP-Morgan-CIO_Taskforce_FINAL_0713.pdf) in Early May: "VaR model analyzed and implementation errors detected; previous model reinstated." To recap (as the above links are NOT needed to answer the question): the old VaR model produced a $129 VaR, but JPMorgan switched to a new VaR model that produced a $67 million VaR, under otherwise identical portfolio and market circumstances. Question: Here is the JPM Q2 10Q: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/000001961712000213/jpm-2012033110q.htm Among the three (3) major VaR approaches, which does JPMorgan utilize? If the agenda was indeed to lower the VaR by manipulating the risk model, how might "implementation" be exploited to lower the VaR under this approach?