RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeBritain Sweeps Madoff Investigation Under the Rug
Posted by Larry Doyle on February 2nd, 2010 11:12 AM |
Great Britain just took the definition of America’s strongest ally to a whole new level. How so?
News this morning that the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) will not pursue legal action against the local operations of Bernard Madoff Investment Securities is just another kick in the balls to investors everywhere and the innocent Madoff investors especially.
The New York Times highlights this breaking news story in writing, Britain Will Not Pursue Legal Action Against Madoff:
Britain’s Serious Fraud Office said Tuesday that it would not pursue legal action against the local operations of Bernard L. Madoff, the U.S. financier now in jail in the United States.
In a statement, the S.F.O. said its investigation had found “ insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction” against either the company or its directors.
What did investigators find? (more…)
Will Wall Street Banks be Compelled to Compensate Madoff Investors?
Posted by Larry Doyle on December 15th, 2009 11:46 AM |
Will Congress hit the Wall Street banks with a one-time assessment in order to compensate Madoff investors? Why might that happen? Very simply because SIPC (Securities Investor Protection Corporation) was woefully underfunded given the fact that SIPC member-firms, including all the large Wall Street banks, paid a token $150 (yes, that is not a misprint, a token $150) annual premium from 1996 until April 2009 for SIPC coverage.
Each and every investor in America should be livid at the insurance scam perpetrated by SIPC and its member firms, but especially by the largest firms taking the greatest risks!
I will address this insurance scam in a post later today, but for now I want to highlight an engagement between Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) and Stephen Harbeck, the head of SIPC that occurred last week during a hearing on securities investor protection reform.
This interaction should have received massive coverage by the mainstream media. Regrettably, but not surprisingly, it did not. Why? If it received the appropriate coverage, it would shine a laser beam on the incestuous nature of the relationship between Wall Street firms and its regulators (SEC and FINRA) and insurer (SIPC).
From the transcript of the hearing last week: (more…)
Helen Davis Chaitman Provides Congress with Sense on Cents
Posted by Larry Doyle on December 15th, 2009 6:53 AM |
Helen Davis Chaitman, esteemed and distinguished attorney with Phillips Nizer in New York City, was my guest on No Quarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle on November 5th. We addressed the gross inequity embedded in the business practices of SIPC (Securities Investor Protection Corporation). How gross? What inequity? The fact that SIPC member firms (i.e. every broker dealer and bank on Wall Street) paid a “whopping” $150 annual assessment from 1996-2009 in order to promote and accord protection for their investors.
$150 per year for Goldman Sachs? JP Morgan? Bank of America? Yes, for 13 years SIPC member firms paid annual assessments of only $150. Of all the travesties on Wall Street, this SIPC joke may be the biggest of them all.
Ms. Chaitman, who has worked diligently on behalf of the Madoff Coalition for Investor Protection on a pro bono basis, provided riveting details and dialogue during my interview. This past Wednesday, Ms. Chaitman did the same for the House Finance Sub-Committee on Capital markets chaired by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA).
I strongly exhort people to realize that the Madoff scam is not merely a fraud strictly impacting Madoff investors. The failure of our financial regulators, the financial regulatory system, and SIPC impacts us all. The regulators, the regulatory system, and SIPC have failed all investors. Why? How?
The lack of confidence in our markets on behalf of investors remains pervasive. Helen Davis Chaitman provides a tremendous public service in highlighting the aformentioned failures. I encourage readers here at Sense on Cents to watch this 9-minute video clip of Ms. Chaitman’s testimony. She speaks for all of us.
LD
Is Wall Street On the Up and Up?
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 3rd, 2009 11:57 AM |
The core of that question resides within the regulatory oversight of our financial industry. The American public is beginning to learn a lot about this financial regulatory oversight. How so? A month ago, SEC Inspector General David Kotz released a report, Investigation of Failure of the SEC to Uncover Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme (embedded here). Yesterday, the Wall Street self-regulatory organization, FINRA, released Report of the 2009 Special Review Committee on FINRA’s Examination Program In Light of the Stanford and Madoff Schemes.
What did we learn from yesterday’s report? Plenty. For that, I commend all those involved in this effort. With all due respect to FINRA employees who have legitimately tried to fulfill their obligations to the best of their abilities, yesterday’s report is nothing short of a massive indictment of FINRA’s management, FINRA’s board, and the SEC which is charged to oversee FINRA. Why? Having read this report twice and studied critical components of it, FINRA is exposed as nothing more than a collection of crossing guards . . . said with all due respect to crossing guards. Have the supervisors of the crossing guards been so heavily influenced by Wall Street so as to render large parts of the FINRA mission ineffective? Many believe this to be true, including me.
Why so harsh? Let’s navigate and be a little more aggressive than the mainstream financial media in analyzing this report. In the process, I think you will appreciate my assessment and also realize there are many more questions which need to be answered.
The FINRA report is largely divided into the organization’s dealings with the financial frauds encompassing Allen Stanford and Bernard Madoff. Referencing the massive regulatory failings on FINRA’s behalf in these two cases, the authors provide recommendations which FINRA’s management will present for approval or ratification at the December 2009 Board meeting.
For purposes here, I will not regurgitate the numerous individual failings of FINRA examiners and management in each of these cases. Rather, I will highlight those failings which I find most egregious. In turn, I want to focus on highlighting the recommendations so the American public can truly understand how woefully inept, incompetent, and ill-prepared this financial self-regulatory organization has been and currently is to uphold its mission to protect investors. Against that backdrop, I will then lay out questions which I deem to be critically important for FINRA to answer if the American public can ever regain a degree of confidence in the oversight of Wall Street.
>> Stanford Case
1. In 2003, the Stanford broker-dealer generated 68% of its revenues from the sale of Stanford International Bank CD’s. Are you kidding me? Red Flag!! That finding did not prompt the examiner to dig deeper?!
2. A 2003 Anonymous Tip Letter laid out the Stanford scheme in detail.
3. In 2005, a FINRA examiner learned that the Stanford broker-dealer is paid an annual fee of 3% of the deposit sum for every CD. Another red flag! Standard practice would have bankers or securities salespeople earning a one-time fee of maximum .25%.
At this point, Stanford International Bank had raised approximately $1.5 billion in what would grow to a $7.2 billion scam.
With all due respect to FINRA employees who may have continued to look into Stanford over the 2005-2008 time period, truth be told FINRA did not further aggressively pursue this case until the Madoff situation broke in December 2008.
>> Madoff Case
1. FINRA largely limits its review of the Madoff scam to the 2003-present time period. Why not go back further? FINRA had longstanding oversight of the Madoff enterprise.
2. FINRA largely reduces the extensive relationships between Bernie Madoff and family members with FINRA to nothing more than a footnote. That footnote on page 46 provides a cursory approval of FINRA’s relationship with the Madoff firm and family. Why aren’t these relationships more deeply explored?
3. The report acknowledges what we always knew about FINRA having oversight of Madoff’s operation. FINRA representatives, including Mary Schapiro, have willingly and intentionally misrepresented the fact that FINRA had oversight of Madoff’s enterprise. Did Mary Schapiro perjure herself on this topic during her confirmation hearings to be Head of the SEC? Well, she may not have perjured herself, but she and others have willingly misrepresented FINRA’s required oversight of Madoff over the long time period when Madoff was strictly a registered broker-dealer and ran this massive Ponzi scheme within that framework.
4. FINRA failed to detect the full breadth of the relationship between Cohmad Securities and Madoff. Bernie Madoff and his brother Peter owned 24% of Cohmad, and the Cohmad broker-dealer operated within the same office space as Bernard Madoff Investment Securities. Cohmad was largely a front for feeding customers into Madoff’s scam. The report provides:
Cohmad was registered as a broker-dealer and reported having approximately 750 to 850 customer accounts, which were held by and cleared through Bear Stearns Securities Corporation. These accounts usually generated roughly 300 transactions per month, mostly in equities and, to a lesser extent, municipal bonds.
I would very much like to know more details about these municipal bonds. Were they municipal auction rate securities?
5. How did FINRA miss the Madoff scam? This report acknowledges the fact that FINRA examiners merely took Madoff and his representatives at their word that Madoff was running nothing more than a broker-dealer. Are you kidding me? It was common knowledge that Madoff had a money management business. FINRA maintains that the FINRA ‘crossing guards’ checked the little boxes on their Madoff review sheets and went on their way. (more…)
No Quarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle Welcomes Former SEC Attorney Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, Sunday Night at 8PM EDT
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 2nd, 2009 11:44 AM |
UPDATE: This episode of NQR’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle has concluded. You can listen to a recording of the episode in its entirety by clicking the play button on the audio player provided below. Once the audio begins, you can advance or rewind to any portion of the episode by clicking at any point along the play bar.
********************
Please join me this Sunday evening for NQR’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle as we dig deeper and work harder in navigating the economic landscape. My special guest will be Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot.
Ms. Walker-Lightfoot was previously employed as an attorney in the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. for almost five years, where she worked on policy matters and conducted field examinations and inspections of transfer agents, brokerage firms, hedge funds, trading exchanges, ATSs, SROs, credit rating agencies, mutual fund companies and investment advisers.
Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot
Genevievette was the lead attorney on the 2003-2004 Madoff examination conducted by OCIE and identified the substantial elements of his fraud in 2004, as detailed in a July 2, 2009, Washington Post article. However, despite her attempts to pursue her findings, her supervisors directed her efforts elsewhere, missing an opportunity to have caught Madoff’s Ponzi scheme four years prior to him turning himself in to authorities.
Ms. Walker-Lightfoot received the SEC’s Chairman’s Award for Excellence for her work on the Mutual Fund Reform Team, as well as the SEC’s Capital Markets Award for her work on the Research Analyst/Investment Banking Conflicts of Interest Team. Prior to the SEC, Genevievette was employed with the American Stock Exchange’s Member Firm Regulation Division in New York and the Dispute Resolution Department of the NASDR, now known as FINRA, in Washington, D.C. (more…)
BREAKING NEWS: Amerivet Complaint Against FINRA Alleges Madoff Investment
Posted by Larry Doyle on August 25th, 2009 10:47 AM |
Two weeks ago, Amerivet Securities filed a complaint against FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), the Wall Street self-regulatory organization. This morning, Donna Mitchell of Financial Planning provides further insight on this complaint. Ms. Mitchell writes FINRA Rebuffs Amerivet’s Demand to Inspect Records. She reports:
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) says it will not open its books and records to inspection by Amerivet Securities, the California brokerage firm which recently sued the regulator.
“We disclose a great deal of public information in our annual reports, far more than we are required to do,” says Herb Perone, a spokesman for FINRA. “Our records are not open for public examination.”
Sense on Cents questions why any financial self-regulatory organization mandated to protect investors would not be required to fully open all of its books and records for public review. Additionally, having extensively studied all of FINRA’s annual reports as well as those of its predecessor, the NASD, I echo the questions being raised by Amerivet. Does FINRA have any appreciation for the need for total truth and transparency in our markets and economy? The questions beg: why won’t FINRA fully open its books? are they trying to hide something? do they have reason to be concerned?
OPEN THE BOOKS!!!
Financial Planning continues:
The request for records is part of a civil suit filed Aug. 10 in the Superior Court of Washington, D.C., by Inglewood, Calif.-based Amerivet Securities. It stems from a July 23 letter sent to FINRA from Amerivet, in which the company initially asked to review FINRA’s documents.
In the lawsuit, Amerivet accuses FINRA of a litany of wrongdoings, from mismanaging the organization’s investment assets to placing substantial funds with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, the former broker-dealer and investment advisory firm that was brought down amid a $65 billion Ponzi scheme.
WOW! The allegation of an investment by FINRA in Madoff is a BLOCKBUSTER. What information did Amerivet and its legal representation unearth to make this allegation? This information must be revealed and FINRA must open its books and records to address this charge. (Click on image to access copy of Amerivet complaint)
Financial Planning further reports:
Amerivet also alleges that FINRA failed to regulate and oversee the operations of large securities firms such as the former Bear Stearns & Co., the former Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch & Co., and Stanford Financial Group.
Amerivet also claims that FINRA overpaid its executives, sustained investment-related losses of $568 million and separately incurred substantial losses in the auction-rate securities market. “FINRA has failed in what it represents in its advertising to be its core function, i.e. the protection of investors,” Amerivet says in the lawsuit.
Is there any doubt that FINRA has failed to protect investors? Is there any doubt that senior executives at FINRA were paid handsomely?
In regard to the auction-rate securities allegation, is Amerivet maintaining that FINRA lost money on the ARS which it owned or is Amerivet referring to money lost by investors? Details of FINRA’s liquidation of ARS in 2007 must be released. Did FINRA front-run the market in the course of selling its own ARS?
OPEN THE BOOKS!!
Financial Planning gains a degree of insight from FINRA and reports:
FINRA would not comment about the lawsuit directly, but Perone said the organization had steered clear of investing with Madoff.
“As for any claim or question as to whether we had money invested with Madoff, we had no investments of any kind in Madoff or in any of its feeder funds,” Perone said.
The allegations and implications of the Amerivet complaint strike right at the core of our financial regulatory framework. Any credible media outlet should be running the Amerivet complaint as a lead story.
The American public deserves answers.
OPEN THE BOOKS!!
LD
Related Sense on Cents Commentary:
Amerivet Securities Files Complaint vs. FINRA for Release of Investment Information and More (August 17, 2009)
FINRA Must Play by Its Own Rules (August 19, 2009)
*****************************
UPDATE as of 11:20AM - Financial Planning has removed from its website the article referenced in this post. I am in the process of receiving the actual Amerivet complaint and will review it and comment later this afternoon.
UPDATE as of 12:05PM – I just received a copy of the Amerivet Securities vs. FINRA complaint. See pages 8-9, points #24-28 for details regarding the allegation that FINRA was invested with Bernie Madoff.
NoQuarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle Interviews Head of Bernard Madoff Victims Coalition, Sunday Night at 8PM
Posted by Larry Doyle on August 15th, 2009 5:04 PM |
UPDATE: The show has concluded, but you can listen to a recording in its entirety by clicking the Play button on the audio player below. Once the playback has started, you can forward or rewind to any portion of the show by clicking at any point along the play bar. My interview with Ronnie Sue Ambrosino was extremely interesting, touching upon elements of investor protection that concern us all. For your reference, I’d like to provide two important websites that my guest mentioned: Bernie Madoff Victims Coalition and an online petition to show a unified support for investors to receive fair and legal treatment by the Securities Investor Protection Corp (SIPC).
************************
Has our government ever failed us to the extent involved in the regulatory oversight connected to the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme? How could these failures have perpetuated for such an extended period? How are these failures and their impact on the victims being handled? Is insult being added to injury?
Can the victims possibly receive real justice in terms of restitution and retribution? Where did the system falter? How are the victims of this travesty being treated by the powers that be on Wall Street, Washington, and in the media?
I am thrilled to address all these issues on my weekly program, No Quarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle, this Sunday evening August 16th from 8-9pm as I welcome Ronnie Sue Ambrosino, head of the Bernard Madoff Victims Coalition.
As a sneak preview, Ms. Ambrosino was interviewed by Charlie Rose on June 29th, the day Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. Ms. Ambrosino appears in the video clip at the 3 minute, 5 second mark.
The issues I will address with Ms. Ambrosino run well beyond the immediate concerns of the Madoff victims. The integrity and transparency of our financial regulatory system and legal process remain very much in question.
Don’t miss this important discussion Sunday evening on NQR’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle.
LD
Related Sense on Cents Commentary:
Madoff Victim Makes Impassioned Plea (August 12, 2009)
SEC Complaint vs. Frank DiPascali, Jr. (August 13, 2009)
Is the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) a Mere Facade?
Posted by Larry Doyle on August 11th, 2009 4:55 PM |
What good is insurance if after the storm you do not get paid? What good is insurance if the premiums charged are so badly mispriced that they misrepresent and do not cover the embedded risks? Welcome to the world of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.
Is SIPC a mere facade presented by the Wall Street titans?
Let’s get the take of those who recently relied upon SIPC to fulfill its obligations. To whom do I refer? The victims of the Madoff scam.
If these investors were not protected, then how are we to believe that other investors will be protected on a going forward basis?
Why do I make that statement? None other than current head of the SEC Mary Schapiro addressed this topic in recent Congressional testimony. In a press release put out by Madoff victims, Schapiro admitted that SIPC did not have sufficient funds to pay all of the Madoff claims.
Who funds SIPC? The Wall Street banks. Yes, those banks that have been printing massive revenues and believe that they are back to ‘business as usual.’ Why aren’t the premiums immediately increased on these institutions to properly compensate Madoff victims?
To the extent that certain Madoff investors were aware of the Ponzi scam, obviously they should not receive restitution. I have to believe that number is in the distinct minority.
Given the general lack of confidence in our financial regulators,(the SEC and FINRA) would Congress have the heart and courage to take on the financial behemoths on Wall Street in an attempt to protect the investing public?
These questions and issues lie at the core of badly needed financial regulatory reform. Yes, that reform which seems to be on the back burner now that the markets have rebounded and Wall Street is printing money once again.
Make no mistake, though, that pot is still boiling and these questions need to be fully addressed and answered to the public’s satisfaction.
For a deeper understanding of these questions from the perspectives of the victims of the Madoff scam, please read this recent press release from the Bernard Madoff Victims Coalition. Click on the image below to access a PDF of the full 2-page press release. Let me know what you think.
LD
