RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeWhy Do We Need a Multi-Agency Financial Fraud Task Force?
Posted by Larry Doyle on November 18th, 2009 12:45 PM |
Should we take heart that the Obama administration is creating a multi-agency Financial Fraud Task Force? While there is no doubt there are massive frauds in the system, the mere creation of a task force does not necessarily mean the frauds will be rooted out. Why? If the agencies involved in the task force are themselves fundamentally and structurally flawed, then frauds will continue. If the agencies merely failed to execute or perform then perhaps this task force will expose those deficiencies and lessen fraudulent activities.
Which agencies will be involved in this task force? The Securities Industry News reports, U.S. Launches Multi-Agency Task Force to Prosecute Financial Fraud:
The task force will be led by the Department of Justice and chaired by Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., but will also include senior officials from the Department of Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Reserve System and other major federal agencies.
Thus, this task force would seem to consist of all government agencies while being led by AG Eric Holder and the Department of Justice. What does Mr. holder have to say? (more…)
Ignorance Defense Works on Wall Street
Posted by Larry Doyle on November 10th, 2009 8:47 AM |
Ignorance of the law is never an acceptable defense on Main Street; regrettably, the same does not seem to hold true on Wall Street. How so?
A recent auction-rate securities arbitration case involving an investor who purchased ARS from a Raymond James financial representative acknowledges the ignorance of the sales rep, but effectively absolves the firm in the process. The implications of this decision should not be underestimated. The Wall Street Journal sheds further light on this case in a recent review, GETTING PERSONAL: Investor Loses Out In Auction-Rate Case:
A complaint brought by an auction-rate securities investor offers insight into the plight of those stranded in the instruments as well as the arbitration process some investors dread.
Like many investors, Gene McCutchin, a real-estate entrepreneur, was holding auction-rate securities when the $330 billion market froze up in early 2008. He filed a complaint against his broker, Raymond James Financial Services Inc., in September 2008 asserting negligence, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, among other things. He said the brokerage failed to warn him about the risks before his purchase, and he asked for compensation and punitive damages.
A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel, in an Oct. 26 resolution, didn’t award damages or order that the share sale be rescinded. It supported some of McCutchin’s assertions, finding that a Raymond James broker, Rick Woolfolk, “was poorly trained with respect to the ARS product,” and it did order the brokerage to pay forum costs.
But the panel also said that McCutchin identified himself as “a sophisticated investor.” While McCutchin wasn’t informed about the extent of risk before the transaction, it was clear that his personal adviser, Dan Chilton, understood that he was buying ARS bonds, and that the higher returns they offered came with higher risk, the panel’s resolution said.
Let’s zero in on the phrase, “wasn’t informed about the extent of the risk before the transaction.” The fact that the FINRA arbitration panel is absolving Raymond James in this transaction, despite the fact that the customer was not informed of all the risks, should send chills down the spine of every investor in our public markets. With that statement, the arbitration panel is sending a message, loud and clear: “Buyer Beware!!” You are on your own.
To mitigate the enormous risk of purchasing an investment that a sales representative may not understand, I would strongly encourage individual investors to do the following: (more…)
‘There’s Something About Mary’ as Madoff Calls Schapiro “a Dear Friend”
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 30th, 2009 7:57 PM |
Did FINRA invest its own funds from its internal investment portfolio with Bernie Madoff? Would FINRA’s head Mary Schapiro invest with her “dear friend” Bernie? Stick with me on this and let’s navigate the newest development in this ongoing scam. My concluding remarks provide insights you won’t find in many mainstream media outlets.
High five to JD for tipping me off to a segment about Bernie Madoff that just aired on CNBC. While little is truly new in this segment, Bernie’s assessment of his relationship with former FINRA head and current SEC chief Mary Schapiro is startling. While Ms. Schapiro and her colleagues at FINRA have downplayed any sort of relationship with Madoff, Bernie has a different take.
There’s something about Mary as Bernie calls her “a dear friend.”
Will the government powers have the cojones to more fully explore this relationship? Or, are they already aware of it? As I wrote in my commentary of October 22nd, “Nasdaq Sale: Why Would Schapiro and FINRA Execs Lie?”:
Did Ms. Schapiro receive the “E-Z Pass” to the SEC from FINRA with the support of the powers that be on Wall Street? Was the chair of the SEC the ultimate payoff to Ms. Schapiro for the successful completion of the merger between NASD and NYSE Regulation to form FINRA?
What does Bernie have to say? Let’s review the CNBC segment, Madoff: It’s ‘Amazing’ I Didn’t Get Caught Sooner. . .
Jailed swindler Bernie Madoff said it was “amazing” that he didn’t get caught sooner in his multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme, and that everything the SEC did to investigate him prior to 2006 was a waste of time, according to a jailhouse interview he gave to SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz.
Madoff also told Kotz that SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro was a “dear friend,” although she “probably thinks, ‘I wish I never knew this guy.'” (more…)
Mary Schapiro Has Some ‘Splainin To Do…
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 8th, 2009 4:03 PM |
Mary Schapiro
Big money makes for a very strange bedfellow. Is FINRA sleeping well these days? A pending lawsuit against FINRA would like to pull back the covers and check to see if the money in the FINRA mattress was allocated appropriately. Let’s enter the sitting room and take a peek into this corner of the FINRA household.
In the process of consolidating the NASD with NYSE Regulation to form FINRA, the NASD allocated capital proceeds to its member firms. This capital was generated via the initial public offering of the Nasdaq. Did the NASD, now known as FINRA, significantly underallocate capital proceeds to its member firms? This alleged underallocation, known as being ‘picked off’ on Wall Street, is the basis for a lawsuit brought by two FINRA member firms, Benchmark and Standard Investment Chartered.
Why am I concerned about the arcane inner workings and legal issues of a Wall Street self-regulatory organization? For the very same reason that I’m concerned about that regulator’s internal investment portfolio activities. Transparency or the lack thereof and the resulting confidence or lack thereof that the American public has in our entire financial regulatory system. Those goals strike me as worthy especially in light of the systemic risks embedded in an array of organizations which this regulator was charged to oversee. Yes, a large amount of exposure and transparency is badly needed at this point in our economic history. Against this backdrop, let’s navigate and see what we can learn about this lawsuit.
The law firms of Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca along with Greenfield and Goodman are representing the plaintiffs. From the former’s website we learn:
Along with our co-counsel Greenfield & Goodman, LLC, we currently represent members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) (formerly known as the National Association of Securities Dealers or “NASD”) in United States District Court and Court of Appeals litigation. The complaints, which are based on state law, allege that defendants, among other things, obtained the NASD members’ vote in support of the consolidation of NASD and NYSE Regulation through an inaccurate and deceptive proxy statement and solicitation process. (LD’s highlight) At issue in the suit is whether NASD could have distributed to its members a larger share of the approximately $1.5 billion of NASD members’ equity. As members will recall, NASD repeatedly asserted that the IRS imposed a $35,000 “hard cap” on what the NASD could pay its members.
Wow. With a $1.5 billion pie, we are talking big money. In light of that, a charge labeled as ‘inaccurate and deceptive proxy statement and solicitation process’ is aggressive especially for an industry’s regulatory organization. Whatever happened to embracing accuracy and clarity? Let’s continue.
Some documents from the litigation that shed light on the truth of these statements are now public. However, FINRA has insisted that the key fact – the amount the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) told NASD it could distribute – remain secret, that is, under seal.
Secret? Under seal? Those terms aren’t synonymous with transparent. I thought under the ‘change’ being promoted by the Obama administration transparency would be embraced. What this looks like is more ‘business as usual’ on Wall Street. Navigating further we learn,
>The IRS did not limit the payment to member firms to $35,000 as NASD and its officials insisted.
>The IRS did not issue a formal ruling on the payment to members until March 13, 2007 – approximately two months after the member vote on the bylaws occurred.November 21, 2006.
>NASD Board Minutes demonstrate that the NASD Board discussed the $35,000 limit stating, “regardless of the amount agreed upon, it was paramount that the figure not be subject to negotiation.”
At this juncture, if I could be so bold as to steal a line from Ricky Ricardo in engaging Lucy, I would say to Mary Schapiro who headed FINRA, “you got some ‘splainin to do.”
For any legal beagles and overachievers in the audience, I am happy to submit the following legal documents pertaining to this case:
Communications between NASD and the IRS
Communications Between NASD and NYSE
Rest assured, I will be monitoring developments in this case closely.
LD
