Bernard Madoff

Porn More Interesting to Media Than Flaws of Financial ‘Reform’ Bill; Obama Is “Lying His Face Off”

by Hans Bader on April 26, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Insurance, Legal, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony

There are plenty of problems with the financial “reform” bill, but the media aren’t interested in that.  They’re much more interested in revelations that senior enforcement staff at the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, which would gain new powers under the bill, spent many hours looking at porn on their office computers.

The porn issue certainly deserves some attention, given just how much time some SEC staff wasted looking at porn at taxpayers’ expense: “A senior attorney at the SEC’s Washington headquarters spent up to eight hours a day looking at and downloading pornography. When he ran out of hard drive space, he burned the files to CDs or DVDs, which he kept in boxes around his office.”  You have to wonder if this kind of inattention to its duties led the SEC to ignore the $50 billion fraud by Bernard Madoff, which was repeatedly brought to its attention to no avail, and the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme committed by Robert Allen Stanford.  But it probably didn’t.

While the media, including the New York Times, has reported on the porn, it has largely ignored substantive criticism of the financial “reform” bill, which is a Trojan horse that would reinforce risky practices that led to the housing bubble, while ignoring needed reforms, harming insurance policyholders, and giving executive branch officials arbitrary power to bail out or take over banks and financial institutions.

As journalist Matt Welch notes, Obama “is lying his face off about financial reform.”

President Obama has collected millions from Wall Street special interests, his administration contains many Wall Street lobbyists, and he supported the unnecessary $700 billion bank bailout.  But now, he’s pushing a deceptive financial regulation bill with phony rhetoric about “reform,” claiming it is “not legitimate” to point out that the bill could lead to yet more bailouts and government takeovers (as economists and banking experts like Peter Wallison have demonstrated).

Obama’s legislation would do nothing to rein in the worst offenders behind the mortgage crisis, the government-subsidized mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even as it would enrich the politically-connected liberal Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs (recently accused of fraud), enrich left-wing lobbying groups and community organizers, and give the government the permanent ability to bail out and take over Wall Street firms.

Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury Secretary, tax cheat Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.” Worse, the Obama administration lifted the $400 billion limit on bailouts for Fannie and Freddie, so that they could continue to buy up junky mortgages at taxpayer expense, and showered their executives with $42 million in compensation.  The Obama administration is now expanding the bailouts of these mortgage giants so that they can lavish pay on their CEOs and reduce the payments of deadbeat mortgage borrowers.  (At the direction of the Obama administration, Freddie Mac is now running up $30 billion in lossesto bail out mortgage borrowers, some of whom have high incomes.  Federal regulators sought to make Freddie Mac hide the resulting losses from the SEC and the public.)

Fannie and Freddie helped spawn the mortgage crisis by acting as loan toilets, buying up risky mortgages and thus creating an artificial market for junk.  “From the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime.”

Why did they buy these risky loans?  They put up with Clinton-era affordable-housing regulations that required them to buy up lots of risky loans, in order to curry favor on Capitol Hill and thus retain their annual $10 billion in tax and other special privileges (which they possessed owing to their status as “Government-Sponsored Enterprises” or GSEs). They paid their CEOs millions in the process, and engaged in massive accounting fraud — $6.3 billion at Fannie Mae alone — to increase the size of their managers’ bonuses.  As GSEs, they were exempt from the capital requirements that apply to private banks, so they did not have enough reserves to cover their losses when their mortgages started defaulting.

Banking expert Peter J. Wallison, who prophetically warned against the risky practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years, says that Obama’s proposals will lead to “bailouts forever” and give big, politically-connected banks that are “too big to fail” the ability to drive smaller rivals out of business at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.  His colleague Alex Pollock notes that Obama has not lived up his Administration’s claims that it would back reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Obama claims that it will not lead to more bailouts, but even congressional Democrats admit that it will.  As Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) admitted, the “bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. . .The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority.”

Government pressure on banks to make loans in economically-depressed neighborhoods was another key reason for the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis.  If Obama has his way, that pressure will increase.  The House earlier approved Obama’s proposal to create a politically-correct entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.”  It would do so without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness, even though the Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.

Obama’s proposed financial regulations would also harm retail banking operations used by middle-class people and small businesses.

LibertyWeek 32: FCC Don’t Tread on Me

by Richard Morrison on March 5, 2009

in CEI Projects, Podcast

Your hosts Richard Morrison and Cord Blomquist bring you Episode 32 of the LibertyWeek podcast with special guest Sam Kazman and surprise guest co-host Jeremy Lott. We start by looking into the possible future of the Federal Communications Commission with nominee Julius Genachowski about to ascend to the chairmanship, and then take another stroll through the New Great Depression with high-level financial talks between unpopular British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and über-popular President Barack Obama. Oregonian brewers fight a proposed fifteen cents a pint tax in Beer News, and the Lady Madoff tries to stash away tens of millions from the feds in this edition of Scandal Watch. We hit our stride with an interview with CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman and his tales of the icy global warming rally staged earlier this week here in Washington, D.C. Finally, a little belt-tightening Olympic News from the USOC.

Listen here!

SEC penalty policy change could harm innocent investors

by John Berlau on February 6, 2009 · 2 comments

in Bailout Watch, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

In one of her first actions as SEC chairman, Mary Schapiro announced today that she was getting rid of a policy that required SEC officials to get approval from the commissioners before negotiating corporate penalties. According to the Associated Press, “Schapiro said that practice ‘just sends the wrong message.’”

But Schapiro should perhaps focus a little less on message and a little more on an action’s consequences for investors the SEC is supposed to protect. Because unfortunately, this change will have the effect of further harm to shareholder victims of corporate fraud.

Corporate penalties take money not from individual executives guilty of fraud, but from the corporate treasury that ultimately belong to the ordinary investors in the company. Frequently, these penalties have the effect of harming shareholder victims of corporate fraud twice: once when the corporate executives misuse a company’s money, and a second time when when the corporate penalty further reduces the company’s assets that belong to all shareholders. That’s why it is more just and more effective for the SEC to levy penalties against individual wrongdoers rather than the corporation as a whole.

The 2006 policy Schapiro wants to reverse was prompted by concerns expressed for former Commissioner Paul Atkins and others that the interests of innocent shareholders weren’t being given enough weight in negotiation of corporate penalties. The rule was a sensible change that didn’t outlaw corporate penalties, but ensured that their use was carefully considered by SEC commissioners before enforcement staff could levy an arbitrary fine that could harm shareholder interests.

Moreover, the policy only applied to penalties on corporations, not individuals accused of wrongdoing or private broker-dealers such as the firm of Bernard Madoff.

Schapiro, whom I have praised previously for her regulatory prudence, is correct in wanting the agency go after corporate wrongdoers with full force. But she should seriously rethink instituting this policy change that would have the unintended but predictable effect of punishing innocent shareholders twice.

Short-seller praised by Mass. Democrat at Madoff hearing

by Fred Smith on January 8, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Politics as Usual, Regulation

In the House Financial Services Committee hearing Monday on Bernard Madoff’s $50 billion alleged Ponzi scheme, some good points were raised by Congress members of both parties. One was particularly relevant:

Representative Stephen F. Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts, said short-sellers seemed to know about the Madoff fraud and the S.E.C. should have seen it coming. “The short-sellers knew it was coming and they invested in it — how did they know and the S.E.C didn’t,” Mr. Lynch asserted. “These short-sellers were able to diagnose it, bet on it and make a killing on it.”

Lynch’s point was a little unclear. Madoff’s company was not publicly traded, and thus couldn’t be shorted in the traditional sense. Lynch could have been referring to two related issues though. One is that hedge fund managers such as Harry Markopolos were apparently coming to the SEC to blow the whistle on Madoff. But their appeals fell on deaf ears

The other point is, as John Berlau has noted before on OpenMarket, that short-sellers knew the subprime crisis in general was coming and profited from that fact. Had short-selling rules been liberalized for vehicles such as mutual funds as well as hedge funds, many more retail investors could have profited as well, and the bubble may not have grown nearly as big if more shorts had balanced out the bullish longs.

Lynch should be applauded for standing up for the beleaguered shorts. And his words of praise for them hold out hope that Congress may, at last, come to realize that contrarians – those who view rapidly (apparently) appreciating assets as dangerous and invest so as to dampen such “irrational exuberances” — play a valuable and suppressed role in the market. Perhaps, that thinking may lead to reforms of laws discriminating against short sellers.

A Silver Lining in the Terrible Madoff Ponzi Scheme?

by Hans Bader on January 2, 2009 · 2 comments

in Legal

Point of Law carries a news item called “Left-Wing Legal Groups Reeling from Madoff Affair.” Bernard Madoff, the architect of a $50 billion ponzi scheme, was entrusted by left-wing “public interest” groups and law firms with their endowments. (Madoff himself gave generously to liberal causes and liberal politicians). As a result of the collapse of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, the left-wing JEHT Foundation will soon close its doors, reports the National Law Journal.

Unfortunately, many of the non-profits defrauded by Madoff are not left-wing. Sadly, the defrauded charities also included many worthwhile charities for the needy, including some for critically ill people needing transplants or other life-saving medical treatment.

And the left-wing groups that have lost money as a result of Madoff will continue to receive money at the expense of taxpayers and consumers. As I noted in the Washington Post, class-action lawsuit proceeds are routinely diverted to left-wing groups by liberal state judges under doctrines such as cy pres and “fluid recovery.”

Madoff: Hiding in Plain Sight, Thanks to SEC

by John Berlau on December 28, 2008 · 18 comments

in Bailout Watch, Features, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Zeitgeist

When news broke of Bernard Madoff’s alleged $50 billion worldwide Ponzi scheme, news accounts first protrayed him as a shadowy hedge fund manager outside the scope of regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. But as the sheer magnitude of the fraud became clearer, so did the picture of Madoff’s place in the Wall Street-Washington world.

Madoff’s businesses were actually subject to a variety of financial regulations, something Madoff would actually use as a selling point to investors. Last year in a speech, Madoff said, “In today’s regulatory environment, it’s virtually impossible to violate rules.” He registered as an investment adviser in 2006, and had been under the SEC’s extensive regulatory framework for securities broker-dealers since he founded his firm almost 50 years ago.

And far from being a shadowy figure, Madoff was a pillar of the financial establishment. He showered campaign contributions on politicians, mostly Democrats. He was also quite chummy with many of the financial regulators charged with overseeing him.

For instance, Clinton administration SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, who has championed onerous mandates like the burdensome Sarbanes-Oxley accounting mandates to preserve “market intergrity,” appointed Madoff during his SEC tenure to what the New York Times describes as “a large advisory commission … that explored the rapidly changing structure of the financial markets.”

An even closer connection was SEC assistant inspections director Eric Swanson who, according to CNBC reporter Charles Gasparino, “was part of the team that examined Madoff’s brokerage firm” in 1999 and again in 2004. “During those exams, the SEC team said it found almost nothing wrong,” Gasparino writes in The Daily Beast. In 2007, after leaving the SEC, Swanson married Madoff’s niece Shana, who is the regulatory compliance attorney at her uncle’s firm

While there is no evidence of wrongdoing with regard to Madoff by either Levitt or Swanson, SEC officials, for whatever reason, looked the other way, despite numerous allegations and “red flags,” some received as early as 1992. And since 1999, rival investment manager Harry Markopolos had sent the agency detailed analysis of why he though Madoff consistent postive returns were mathematically impossible without running a Ponzi scheme or insider trading. In a 2005 submission he made to the SEC that was recently made public by the Wall Street Journal, Markopolos charged that it was “highly likely” that “Madoff Securities is the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.”

But despite the SEC’s incompetence in heeding these warnings, many are still arguing that to prevent future Madoff-type frauds, we need more regulations that give more power to the SEC. But it’s hard to see how any additional powers could have made a difference in this case, given that the SEC almost seemed determined to look the other way for violations of the most basic rules against securities fraud that had long been in place.

Since hedge funds were among Madoff’s clients (and biggest victims, as this WSJ editorial points out), calls are again being intensified for further hedge fund regulation to bring them under the cumbersome registration process for investment advisers. (The SEC already has full authority to investigate hedge funds and other unregistered investment entitities if there are suspicions of fraud.) This is what the agency tried to do a few years ago, only to have a three-judge federal appeals court panel throw out the rule in 2006 in a unanimous finding that the agency had stretched the law.

But the SEC can’t argue that this would have helped them prevent Madoff’s fraud, because, as noted above, Madoff had registered as an investment adviser in 2006, and was registered as a broker-dealer for decades.

This broker-dealer registration gave the SEC full power to investigate all affiliated businesses. As MarketWatch commentator David Weidner pointed out (in a column with a curious headline about “lack of regulation” that is the exact opposite of the author’s point — often columnists, unlike bloggers, don’t wite their own headlines), “Broker-dealers are supposed to be the most scrutinized of the investment community. If Madoff was running separate businesses, the SEC and FINRA should have been looking at all of them as a whole.”

In fact, the fact that Madoff was under such heavy regulation probably helped him in constructing the alleged facade. As business reporters Binyamin Appelbaum and David S. Hilzenrath wrote in their perceptive Washington Post article, “the fraud Madoff allegedly constructed was successful in part because it avoided the appearance of risk.” The article quoted an expert as saying that SEC regulators “had to make judgments, and they decided to look at derivatives, short sales, insider trading, all the things that Madoff never had.”

So The SEC was too busy hounding unregistered hedge funds, short-sellers, and entrepreneurial companies for trivial minutiae from Sarbanes-Oxley and other mandates to notice the fraud right in front of them. The regulators didn’t just “drop the ball,” as President-Elect Barack Obama recently asserted. They lost focus on where the most important “ball” was.

Getting that “ball” back by paying attention to warning signs about where the real fraud is, and rolling back the mounds of red tape on honest investors and entrepreneurs that also wastes the time the agency has to go after the real problems, must be the number one priority of newly designated SEC chairman Mary Schapiro.

What’s $50 Billion Among Friends?

by Hans Bader on December 18, 2008 · 4 comments

in Legal

Bernard Madoff defrauded investors out of an unprecedented $50 billion, in a massive Ponzi scheme that was perhaps the vilest swindle of the century.  But a judge has let him await trial in his cushy $7 million Park Avenue home, bought no doubt with the proceeds of fraud.  And that’s even though he failed to meet the conditions originally set for bail.  You can thank U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein for this outrage.

Here is a partial list of Madoff’s biggest victims, which included many charities for the needy.  He didn’t deserve bail of any kind.  The death penalty is insufficient punishment for what Madoff did, and the countless lives he ruined.