Subscribe: RSS Feed | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Home | Contact Us

Posts Tagged ‘did FINRA invest in Madoff’

FROM THE ARCHIVES: Attorney Claims Wall Street’s Cop, FINRA, Invested in Madoff

Posted by Larry Doyle on January 29th, 2010 8:31 AM |

Time.

The policies implemented in Washington are trying to buy time in hopes that our economy recovers. Japan took the ‘buying time’ approach and twenty years later they are still waiting for real recovery.

Moving forward.

The approach being taken by those within our financial regulatory structure (SEC and FINRA) is to ‘move forward.’ Well, unless the critically unanswered questions and issues embedded within these organizations are fully exposed and addressed, America can never truly move forward with confidence in the markets and those overseeing them.

President Obama wants real financial regulatory reform. Then Mister President, compel your chair of the SEC, Mary Schapiro, to open the books and records of FINRA. Mr. President, compel Ms. Schapiro to unseal documents regarding the very formation of FINRA itself.

America knows something still smells on Wall Street. What is it? (more…)

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

Attorney Representing Amerivet Securities Makes Claim FINRA Insider Confirms Investment in Madoff

Posted by Larry Doyle on September 4th, 2009 1:20 PM |

Did we just find the smoking gun which indicates that FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) actually invested in the Madoff Ponzi scheme?

I was on a panel last evening on America’s Nightly Scoreboard on Fox Business News (the entire transcript can be found at this link). The topic was one which regular readers of Sense on Cents are most familiar, that being FINRA.

The show is hosted by David Asman. Panelists included Richard Greenfield, an attorney representing Amerivet Securities in its suit against FINRA; former SEC chair Harvey Pitt; Madoff Victims Coalition head Ronnie Sue Ambrosino and her husband Dominic; and yours truly.

I commend the host of the show, David Asman, for being thorough, professional, balanced, and aggressive in addressing the topic. We covered a number of angles including:

1. Amerivet Securities complaint vs. FINRA

2. Mary Schapiro’s tenure and compensation at FINRA

3. FINRA’s investment portfolio, including its sale of auction-rate securities.

4. Did FINRA invest in Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme?

There were a few bombshells that came out of our discussion, including a claim by Mr. Greenfield, the Amerivet Securities attorney, that “somebody well-placed within the organization (FINRA) that told us, in no uncertain terms, there was an investment with Madoff.”

Additionally, former SEC chairman Harvey Pitt provided a qualified endorsement of FINRA opening its books and records in an acknowledgement of the need for greater transparency.

I am happy to provide the transcript of the dialogue which encompassed these two momentous statements:

ASMAN: Harvey, for example, I used to work at the “Wall Street Journal” and we had very strict restrictions about what we could buy, how long we could hold stocks if we bought it, and how we had to disclose it and that sort of thing. It doesn’t seem at least that those disclosure policies apply to FINRA, at least in the case finding out whether they invested with Madoff.

PITT: I don’t — there has been a fair amount of, shall we say, opacity with respect to what the investment activities are and the like. In a real sense, I think that’s probably ill-advised for an enterprise that has regulatory responsibilities.

But so putting that to one side, I do think that people are entitled to know where their money is coming from, where their money is going, what it is being spent and the like. The fact of the matter is the SEC does oversee all these operations. It does overlook all these things. FINRA has been under the microscope at the SEC for many, many years, long before Mary Schapiro got to the SEC.

ASMAN: I want to bring in other parties. But I want to go back to Counselor Greenfield.

Richard Greenfield, how did you get information suggesting that indeed FINRA was investing with Madoff?

GREENFIELD: Well, we got the information, number one, in two different ways. Number one, it has been rumored through many people on Wall Street that there was an investment either through a feeder fund or some other means. Secondly, we also got information from somebody well-placed within the organization that told us, in no uncertain terms, there was an investment with Madoff.

ASMAN: OK. All right. So I think it’s fair to say that FINRA owes the public some answers here.

So joining us now with — are some people who are demanding answers. Larry Doyle, a Wall Street veteran, 23 years, who currently operates his own web site, Sense on Cents — “sense” with an “S” and “cents” with a “C” — which is geared to help people navigate the landscape.

Ronnie Sue and Dominic Ambrosino, good friends of “Scoreboard”, they are Madoff victims who are mobilizing a campaign for greater transparency.

Thanks for coming in.

RONNIE SUE AMBROSINO: Thank you.

ASMAN: Larry, first to you. What do you think about Harvey’s description of the situation?

LARRY DOYLE, WALL STREET VETERAN & SENSE ON CENTS WEB SITE OWNER: I would say two things in regard to the former chairman’s statement. First and foremost, Madoff did not become a registered investment advisor until 2006. FINRA obviously wasn’t formed until 2007. FINRA’s parent, that being, FINRA was formed from the regulatory arms of the New York Stock Exchange, and the NASD.

ASMAN: Right.

DOYLE: The fact is, the NASD did have oversight of Madoff, and so there is an obligation by, to look into the NASD’s activities because, at that point, it was just a broker-dealer.

ASMAN: Have you formulated your own opinion whether there was a conflict of interest here?

DOYLE: Without a doubt. Without a doubt. The fact of the matter is FINRA is a big-money organization. We know they invested in hedge funds, fund of funds, private equity. And they also had a significant investment in auction rate securities, which is sector of the market that has been designated as a fraud by federal judges. The fact of the matter is we know, and have learned from FINRA, that FINRA exited their auction rates securities position, $647 million worth, in mid 2007, as the market was failing, and when they were supposed to be protecting investors.

Further along in the dialogue, we engage in the need for FINRA to open its books and records:

ASMAN: That is great point, Ronnie Sue.

And, Larry, it goes to the point that a lot of people are looking from the outside at what goes on inside in Wall Street and Washington. It’s that Wall Street, Washington nexus. They see all these folks kind of related with each other. The SEC related with FINRA, and related with NASD. You look at Mary Schapiro’s career and you see that. They can miss things because they’re only talking to each other.

DOYLE: I think the term there is incestuous. So the fact of the matter is Washington has an opportunity through this financial regulatory reform to bring total transparency.

ASMAN: How would you do that? Open the records of FINRA?

DOYLE: Open the books. What — what individual in America right now wouldn’t make — doesn’t it make sense for FINRA to be forced to open their books and records, full and total transparency? The markets demand it. The economy demands it. Ronnie Sue and Dominic demand it. For market confidence.

ASMAN: Harvey, if we demand it of banks, why not FINRA or for that matter, why not the Fed? We have a lot of people in Congress saying everybody needs to open the books, everybody needs to be transparent?

PITT: Well I think there’s no question that we need far more transparency throughout the regulatory environment, both for those regulated and those doing the regulation. That, I think, is a very clear proposition, and one that I’m hopeful will be addressed in whatever new legislation comes about.

ASMAN: So we have to leave.

But, Harvey, does that mean you’re in favor of FINRA opening the books so we can find out if they invested in Madoff?

PITT: I’m in favor of there being far more transparency, permitting privacy concerns to allow certain information to be withheld, as long as somebody is overseeing what they’re doing.

I am thrilled that these issues which Sense on Cents has been focused on for the last 8 months are coming into the public light. That said, there remains plenty of work left to do to generate the truth, transparency, and integrity that our markets, economy, and country so badly need.

You can help by spreading this story amongst friends and colleagues. While the Amerivet complaint vs. FINRA will be addressed in the Washington D.C. courts, the fact is the issues revolving around FINRA and regulatory transparency need to be highlighted in the court of public opinion.

What do you think?

LD

If you like what you see and read here, please subscribe to Sense on Cents via e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, or an RSS feed. Thanks for your support.

Related Sense on Cents Commentary

Madoff Victims Call Out FINRA (September 3, 2009)

Amerivet Complaint Against FINRA Alleges Madoff Investment (August 25, 2009)

How Courageous is Mary Schapiro? (June 4, 2009)

U.S. Attorney and SEC Investigating Lehman’s Auction Rate Securities Sales; They Should Also Investigate FINRA’s (May 21, 2009)

FINRA Is Supposed to Police the Market (April 29, 2009)

Madoff Victims Call Out FINRA

Posted by Larry Doyle on September 3rd, 2009 8:26 AM |

Is Uncle Sam, in the form of the SEC, attempting to issue a mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa in the bungling of the Madoff investigation and trying to conveniently turn the page?

The American public learned very little with the release of the SEC Inspector General David Kotz’s review of the SEC’s failure to expose the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme. In fact, having just finished reading the Executive Summary of his investigation, I would maintain it is largely an extended regurgitation of much of what Harry Markopolos provided in his Congressional testimony last February.

What was Harry’s conclusion of his exhaustive pursuit to expose the Madoff scam? The SEC is incompetent.

What was the Inspector General’s conclusion from his investigation? In so many words, Kotz lays out the same results. The SEC was incompetent on so many fronts from the early 1990s until Madoff was exposed last December. For those who would like to read Kotz’s 22-page summary of his investigation, just click on the image below.

Is this all the public gets? Is this all the public can expect from our regulators? Nothing more than a mea maxima culpa? How about a real pursuit of the total truth? This Madoff affair has many more legs. Let’s navigate.

Ronnie Sue Ambrosino, head of the Madoff Victims Coalition for Investor Protection (my guest on NQR’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle on August 16th), and her husband Dominic comment on the Inspector General’s report and simultaneously call out FINRA last evening during an interview on Fox Business News.

Ronnie Sue and Dominic effectively connect the dots while highlighting the following:

1. Current head of the SEC Mary Schapiro formerly headed FINRA

2. Harry Markopolos defined FINRA as being “in bed” with the industry when he provided Congressional testimony this past February detailing his decade-long pursuit to expose the Madoff Ponzi scam.

3. FINRA had an internal investment portfolio (Sense on Cents would add that the portfolio was invested in hedge funds, fund of funds, and also had hundreds of millions in Auction-Rate Securities).

4. Amerivet Securities has recently filed a complaint against FINRA. The complaint indicates it has information and reason to believe that FINRA’s investment portfolio invested in Madoff.

Sense on Cents would add that the Amerivet complaint looks to have FINRA provide a full and thorough review of the following:

>> interactions with the major Wall Street banks

>> its compensation practices

>> its liquidation of its auction-rate securities position in 2007

>> all investment activities

Sense on Cents would further add that the Madoff family had extensive relationships with the NASD, Nasdaq (Bernie helped establish this exchange) and FINRA.

Let’s listen to Ronnie Sue and Dominic Ambrosino:

Is the Madoff investigation over? Any rational individual can understand there are many more regulatory questions needing answers. Where do those questions lead us? Inside FINRA and specifically to its investment portfolio. Why shouldn’t a Wall Street self-regulatory organization mandated to protect investors be obligated, and if need be compelled, to provide total transparency of all its business dealings?

I can only hope major media outlets and Washington pick up this story and understand the need to fully investigate FINRA.

I ask you again . . . is the Madoff investigation over? Not by a long shot!

What do you think?

LD

Related Sense on Cents Commentary:
“Amerivet Complaint Against FINRA Alleges Madoff Investment” (August 25, 2009)
NoQuarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle Interviews Head of Bernard Madoff Victims Coalition (August 16, 2009)
“FINRA Is Supposed to Police the Market” (April 29, 2009)
“Riveting Testimony from a Great American, Harry Markopolos” (February 4, 2009)






Recent Posts


ECONOMIC ALL-STARS


Archives