RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeAnother Oppenheimer ARS Investor Unloads on New York AG Cuomo
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 8th, 2010 8:12 AM |
Investors defrauded in the distribution of auction-rate securities deserve a voice. Sense on Cents is happy to provide it. Aside from feeling screwed by Wall Street banks and money managers in the distribution of auction-rate securities as a cash surrogate, investors now feel increasingly incensed by the lack of support in the judicial system and in selected attorneys general offices in our country.
The latest AG to feel the wrath of ARS investors is New York AG Andrew Cuomo for his recent settlement with Oppenheimer Holdings. Rather than reading my opinion of Cuomo’s settlement, let’s listen to an investor (who remains nameless for obvious reasons). In my opinion, this individual’s letter speaks volumes and echoes the sentiments of thousands of investors who continue to hold the $150 BILLION in frozen ARS. (more…)
Did Hawaii Purchase ARS from FINRA through Citi?
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 4th, 2010 7:29 AM |
The auction-rate securities market did not instantaneously freeze in early 2008. The fact is, the ARS market started to fail in mid-2007 on the heels of a variety of market segments repricing given the liquidity issues on Wall Street. Recall that mortgage hedge funds at Bear Stearns cratered in spring 2007. At that point, Wall Street was becoming much more risk averse while shepherding the use of its own capital and balance sheets. During this point in time, the ARS market started to fail and ultimately totally froze in early 2008.
Evidence is rampant that Wall Street worked feverishly from mid-2007 until early 2008 to offload auction-rate securities anywhere and everywhere without informing investors of the failing nature of the market. (more…)
WSJ Hits Mary Schapiro Hard on ‘Say on Pay’ but That’s Only Tip of the Iceberg
Posted by Larry Doyle on February 20th, 2010 11:58 AM |
The target on SEC Chair Mary Schapiro’s back is getting larger and gaining more focus. How so?
The lead editorial in this weekend’s edition of The Wall Street Journal goes after Schapiro hard in writing, Mary Schapiro’s Say on Pay. While the editorial leads with the ongoing battle Schapiro and the SEC are having with Bank of America’s lack of disclosure during its merger with Merrill Lynch, the Journal quickly turns the tables on Ms. Schapiro and addresses the lack of disclosure at Ms. Schapiro’s former haunt, FINRA.
Come to papa.
Regular readers of Sense on Cents are well aware of how consistently and steadily I have been banging this FINRA drum. It is long past due that America is truly introduced to Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). (more…)
ARS UPDATE: David Shulman Gets Off Easy
Posted by Larry Doyle on February 18th, 2010 1:10 PM |
Are cracks developing in the Wall Street facade covering the fraud which encompassed the auction-rate securities market? While thousands of investors with upwards of $150 billion remain frozen in their auction-rate securities holdings, a hint of progress seems to be developing on the legal front addressing this sector. How so?
David Shulman, former sales manager at UBS, just settled an outstanding claim that he effectively front ran the ARS market in December 2007. This claim was brought by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Bloomberg highlights this story in writing, Former UBS Muni Chief Settles Probe for $2.75 Million:
David Shulman, UBS AG’s former global head of municipal securities, agreed to pay $2.75 million to settle a probe by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in connection with the sale of auction-rate securities before the market collapsed in February 2008. (more…)
Disenchanted FINRA Member Speaks Out
Posted by Larry Doyle on February 15th, 2010 7:53 AM |
In an attempt to draw further attention to the questions of serious ethical issues in and around Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization FINRA, I am highlighting a comment left at Sense on Cents the other day. While protecting the identity of this individual for obvious reasons, I can vouch for the fact that this person works for a FINRA member firm and was present during the road shows promoting the merger of the NASD and NYSE Regulation to form FINRA.
I commend this individual for speaking out. I second the call to fully investigate the FINRA executives involved in the very formation of this organization and then the manner in which it was run.
FINRA and its board need to be compelled to fully open the books and records of this organization and its predecessors. Only then might America learn the answers to the following questions: (more…)
Will Ignorance Defense Continue to Screw Auction-Rate Securities Investors?
Posted by Larry Doyle on December 18th, 2009 8:03 AM |
Auction-rate securities investors remain at a decided disadvantage when it comes to pursuing legal claims. Misrepresentation by those distributing the auction-rate securities does not seem sufficient to warrant a claim, let alone retribution. The fact that investors are having difficulties bringing suit against Wall Street firms which distributed auction-rate securities should be further reason for investors to be cautious in engaging brokers and financial planners. Why? The fact that selected cases of auction-rate securities distribution have been designated as having occurred in a fraudulent fashion would seem to have established a significant precedent. The fact that the precedent has not been established is mind boggling.
$149 BILLION in auction-rate securities held by thousands of investors remain frozen. Where’s the justice?
Bloomberg provides a recent review of these developments in writing, Auction-Rate Investors Get Redo After Loss of First Fraud Suits:
Auction-rate securities investors who sued banks including Citigroup Inc. and UBS AG to recoup billions of dollars in losses went 0 for 5 as their first cases were thrown out. Now some are gearing up for a rematch over part of the $149 billion in securities that remain outstanding. (more…)
Wall Street Journal Goes in the Tank for FINRA
Posted by Larry Doyle on September 25th, 2009 9:18 AM |
When did real journalism move from asking the hard questions and demanding answers to the mere parroting of a party line? Recent polls indicate a lessened confidence in the media in our country. Why? Journalism has largely abdicated its responsibility to be the public conscience. I see evidence of this ‘parroting’ in today’s Wall Street Journal, which reports After 27% Fall, FINRA Plays It Safe.
FINRA, the Wall Street self-regulatory organization, has been under increasing pressure lately with the spotlight focused primarily on its investment portfolio activities. FINRA has provided virtually little to no transparency and, as such, currently faces 3 lawsuits by member firms. There is no doubt in my mind that today’s WSJ article is an attempt by FINRA to display a degree of transparency in order to keep the wolves at bay. Is FINRA fully transparent? Not in my opinion.
Did the WSJ pursue this story or was it conveniently placed to deflect the heavy criticism and charges FINRA faces in the lawsuits? Make no mistake, the WSJ has been largely absent in aggressively covering developments in and around FINRA. The returns generated by FINRA’s investment portfolio and its shift to a conservative strategy have been widely disseminated over the last few months and were highlighted here at Sense on Cents on June 29th when I wrote “FINRA 2008 Annual Report: A Special Type of Hubris”:
I personally believe it is very important for a financial self-regulatory organization, such as FINRA, to be totally transparent in every regard. Why? Very simply, transparency promotes confidence and FINRA’s position as a financial regulator should begin and end with that goal.
Against that backdrop, FINRA should not directly manage any of their own funds. To do so is an open invitation for conflicts of interest. FINRA’s own investment portfolio, managed by an Investment Committee, generated a negative 26% return in 2008. In April 2009, the FINRA portfolio shifted to a lower volatility approach but in 2008 it continued to have exposure to hedge funds, fund of funds, and private equity. As much as I believe this is a very big deal, it pales in comparison to the major issue I, and others, have with FINRA: their involvement with Auction-Rate Securities.
Why do I feel so strongly that the WSJ is serving as a mouthpiece for FINRA rather than truly digging for total transparency? Let’s zero in on how the WSJ addresses this auction-rate securities angle. As we do this, please recall the following:
1. $165 billion ARS remain frozen in investor accounts
2. A federal judge has designated the sales and marketing of ARS to be a fraud
3. FINRA did not post on its own website the failing nature and ultimate total failure of the ARS market until 2008, well after it liquidated its own position.
The WSJ, a proud financial periodical, provides less than cursory coverage to this piece of the FINRA story, in writing:
Finra used an outside consultant, Jeffrey Slocum & Associates of Minneapolis, to help choose money managers. In 2006, Finra hired as chief investment officer Boris A. Wessely, then treasurer at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Ms. Schapiro succeeded Mr. Glauber as the agency’s CEO in mid-2006.
One early step by Mr. Wessely’s team was the mid-2007 sale of about $650 million of auction-rate securities. The sale wasn’t influenced by any sign of weakness in the auction-rate market, which froze in 2008, but instead was a move to diversify Finra’s short-term investments away from such a niche product, people with knowledge of the move say. (LD’s highlight)
People with knowledge of the move say?? That is the best the WSJ can do to pursue what truly happened with FINRA’s sale of ARS? That statement is the equivalent of FINRA or whomever the ‘people with knowledge’ stating, ‘you’ll have to trust us on this.’
I would put forth that the days of blind trust are over and that for the thousands of investors sitting with those $165 billion in frozen ARS the days of verification are upon us.
I reiterate my longstanding call that FINRA must reveal all the details surrounding its ARS liquidation. Those details include the date of liquidation, the proceeds, the dealer or dealers through whom FINRA liquidated the ARS, and most importantly whether FINRA possessed material, non-public information and acted upon it.
I fully appreciate that my writing and questions here are aggressive, but at this point in our country’s history the American public deserves nothing less than full and total transparency from its financial regulators. Regrettably, both FINRA and the WSJ fall woefully short in providing it.
Comments, questions, constructive criticisms always appreciated.
LD
Is the Wall Street Cop, FINRA, Ready to Talk?
Posted by Larry Doyle on September 22nd, 2009 9:00 AM |
Pressure does funny things to people.
Is the pressure boiling inside the pot of the Wall Street “cop” known as FINRA getting ready to blow? A Bloomberg report indicates the steam is rising inside FINRA. I am not surprised that FINRA is feeling real pressure at this point in time. FINRA should be sweating. Why? Try the following:
>> Lawsuits Trying for Transparency at FINRA (September 21, 2009)
>> Attorney Claims Wall Street’s Cop, FINRA, Invested in Madoff (September 15, 2009)
>> An Open Letter to the Board of FINRA Regarding Auction-Rate Securities (July 27, 2009)
>> U.S. Attorney and SEC Investigating Lehman’s Auction Rate Securities Sales; They Should Also Investigate FINRA’s (May 29, 2009)
Bloomberg reports this morning, FINRA Board Said to Debate Releasing Report on Madoff, Stanford:
The U.S. brokerage regulator’s board is debating whether to release an internal report of its examinations of firms run by Bernard Madoff and R. Allen Stanford, according to people familiar with the matter.
Why should there even be a debate? Why isn’t it standard operating procedure that a financial self-regulatory organization such as FINRA would be mandated to provide total transparency of all its business dealings? Where FINRA has failed, transparency will serve as the leverage to compel them to improve their policies and procedures. If current policies and procedures and past failures are exposed in the process, so be it. History has always shown that coverups only make bad situations worse.
I am heartened that FINRA board member Charles Bowsher, a man of real integrity, seems to be pushing FINRA to release information. Bloomberg asserts:
Bowsher, the committee’s chairman, is adamant the document be released, according to one person. He didn’t return a phone call seeking comment.
Finra spokeswoman Nancy Condon said the board formed the committee to review the examination program “in light of the Madoff and Stanford cases.” A draft was shared with the board, which will decide whether to release it, she said yesterday. She declined to comment on whether any board members oppose making the document public.
Finra, funded by Wall Street firms and overseen by the SEC, inspects and write rules for more than 5,000 U.S. brokerages. The board includes 10 representatives of the financial industry along with former regulators and academics.
Recall that to this point, FINRA has never willingly released information on its internal investment or oversight activities over and above what has been published in its annual reports. FINRA spokespersons, Herb Perone and Nancy Condon, have always maintained FINRA has released more information in its reports than it is required. If in fact that is true, then clearly FINRA’s overseer, the SEC, needs to increase those requirements.
The simple fact is, given the historic times in which we live any self-respecting financial regulator should be obligated to provide full and total transparency across all its initiatives. While FINRA may be embarrassed – if not worse – in the process, FINRA must provide this transparency if we are ever to regain confidence in our markets and our regulators.
Why else may FINRA want to talk? In a current lawsuit brought by Standard Investment vs. FINRA, the judge assigned to hear the case is none other than our friend of the American public, Jed Rakoff. Yes, the same Jed Rakoff who recently undressed the SEC’s contrived $33 million fine levied on Bank of America and stated the fine, “does not comport with the most elementary notions of justice and morality.”
Yes, indeed, pressure does funny things to people!!
LD
Attorney Claims Wall Street’s Cop, FINRA, Invested in Madoff
Posted by Larry Doyle on September 15th, 2009 3:23 PM |
On the heels of President Obama’s speech on Wall Street in which he called for meaningful financial regulatory reform, I welcome submitting to him and the American public the following video clips. These clips are from Fox Business News “America’s Nightly Scoreboard” with David Asman on September 3rd.
While President Obama and Congress may believe financial regulatory reform needs to focus on the SEC, the Federal Reserve and assorted other governmental agencies, I would remind the President and his Congressional colleagues that Wall Street is regulated not only by the SEC but to a great extent by the self-regulatory organization known as FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority).
This discussion on “America’s Nightly Scoreboard” is separated into two parts.
Highlights from the videos include:
1. Richard Greenfield, an attorney representing Amerivet Securities, makes the claim that FINRA under the leadership of Mary Schapiro failed to protect investors.
2. Former SEC chair Harvey Pitt defends Shapiro and FINRA
3. Greenfield indicates that a FINRA insider claims FINRA invested in Madoff!!
4. In Part II of the video clips, your host here at Sense on Cents joins the panel and provides details as to why FINRA, via its parent the NASD, did have responsibility to oversee Madoff. I also comment on the nature of the relationship between Wall Street and Washington, FINRA’s investment and timely liquidation of its Auction-Rate Securities position, and the need for total transparency at FINRA.
4. Head of the Madoff Victims Coalition for Investor Protection, Ronnie Sue Ambrosino, weighs in that the entire regulatory structure from the SEC to FINRA to SIPC (Securities Investor Protection Corporation) have failed to protect investors.
In my humble opinion, the conclusion of this show highlights the screaming need for FINRA to open its books and records for a full and thorough independent analysis and review. In so doing, hopefully investors specifically and the American public at large can regain a degree of confidence in the badly shattered Wall Street regulatory process.
If you care about the markets and our country, I beseech you to watch this 18 minute video in its entirety.
Thoughts, comments, questions always welcome and appreciated.
LD
PART I
PART II
