RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeWall 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
FINRA 2008 Annual Report: A Special Type of Hubris
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 29th, 2009 3:14 PM |
At first blush, I viewed the text of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA’s) 2008 Annual Report as nothing more than standard corporate fare. With the benefit of a few days to ponder FINRA’s delivery, I am actually amazed, although never surprised, by the gall of this regulatory organization. In fact, I can only describe FINRA as displaying a special type of hubris in addressing the fraud encompassing Auction-Rate Securities.
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. Let’s dive into this part of the report and comment as appropriate.
FINRA sets the table:
Throughout the financial crisis, FINRA has worked closely with other regulators, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve, to examine firm activities for compliance with FINRA rules and federal securities laws, investigate wrongdoing and, when rules were broken, enforcing those rules.
As well they should. However, Finra obviously did not work too closely with the SEC to detect the fraud ongoing with Bernie Madoff. In fact, Finra’s only reference to the Madoff situation is one sentence highlighting the fact that the current financial regulatory structure does not overlap the efforts overseeing broker-dealers with those of investment advisors.
FINRA continues to make their case in stating:
The instability in the markets, and at a number of financial institutions, heightened investor fears. FINRA helped to allay those fears, and foster confidence, by working to ensure the protection of customer assets at troubled institutions.
How can they make this statement with a straight face knowing that thousands of investors and tens of billions of dollars remain frozen in Auction-Rate Securities? A number of Wall Street institutions continue to collect fees from these securities. Hubris? You think?
FINRA continues:
Vigorous enforcement of rules and regulations is a cornerstone of FINRA’s work to protect investors. In 2008, FINRA focused its efforts in several areas of investor harm—including excessive commissions, unsuitable mutual fund share class recommendations and sales, penny stock sales and auction rate securities recommendations and sales.
The hubris grows.
Let’s move forward. FINRA boldly and specifically addresses the Auction-Rate Securities market. I would have thought FINRA may have ducked this topic given the fact that they had sold $647 million ARS in 2007. The fact that they have willingly ‘opened this can of worms’ leaves them subject to fair and open questions. FINRA puts forth: (more…)
Business as Usual
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 19th, 2009 7:28 AM |
“That’s the way we’ve always done it!!”
How often have you heard a person answer in that fashion when asked why something is done a certain way? A lot, I’m sure. Why? Change is stressful. Adjusting to change is perhaps even more stressful.
As we are forced to adjust to the Brave New World of the Uncle Sam Economy, we will certainly witness many individuals, business units, and industries resist change. I’m seeing them all around me. Let me share a few with you:
1. FINRA: at a time when our economy is screaming for increased transparency and accountability, this Wall Street self-regulatory organization has not yet released its 2008 Annual Report. Why? I view it as unacceptable.
The facts, figures, and transactions for 2008 are in the books. A mere accounting should be simple and straightforward. With the exception of Bloomberg, do you even hear of FINRA from major media outlets?
Rest assured, I will review the FINRA Annual Report thoroughly, with particular focus on their investment activities, and question them as need be. At some point, perhaps, the mainstream media may want to engage them as well.
2. Wall Street: why do banks so badly want to pay back TARP funds? The primary reason is compensation. In fact, in recently speaking with a number of colleagues on the street, banks are again paying “guaranteed” contracts to recruit personnel. Certain of these banks remain flush with government funds.
What propels banks to do this? Because they can, meaning there is no transparency or accountability. Additionally, they do not want to “cede turf” to startup firms which can offer opportunity but no guarantees. In layman’s terms, the large banks are flexing their muscles to impede smaller organizations from gaining a foothold in their ‘hood.’ Fair and open competition is one thing, but using taxpayer funds to pay guaranteed contracts is an entirely different issue.
3. Banking: why do banking industry execs feel compelled to maintain the perks of prior years? Ego. The Wall Street Journal highlights CEOs of Bailed-Out Banks Flew to Resorts on Firm’s Jets.
Business is business and executives, whether working at firms flush with government aid or not, need to compete. That said, if the executives are at firms still in receipt of government assistance . . . “back of the bus, pal.”
LD
A Real Regulatory Review: Sense on Cents Interview with Bill Singer
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 15th, 2009 1:35 PM |
I feel so strongly about my interview last evening with Bill Singer, the preeminent veteran Wall Street regulatory lawyer and market reform advocate, that I am providing a transcript of highlights. My transcription is not totally word for word, so at the end of this post I will provide a BlogTalkRadio audio player so that you can playback the complete interview.
As time allows, I sincerely hope you read the entirety of this transcript and will listen to the complete interview. In my opinion, the issues addressed are that important. You will not be disappointed.
Given Bill’s extensive experience and relationships, he is uniquely positioned to comment on these timely and cutting edge issues. And now, on to the transcript . . .
Sense on Cents: Bill, we have just gone through a tsunami of epic proportions. Our financial industry brought our nation to its knees. We now get the sense that the regulatory oversight of our financial industry may not truly change. What are your feelings about that?
Bill Singer: I think you are right on point. My greatest fear is at the end of the day, we all go back to square one. It’s like asking for a mulligan in golf. People’s lives have been shattered and businesses destroyed. If you listen to the ‘garbage’ coming out of Washington, it’s as if the solutions are the same old things. We’ll set up panels, write papers, but what will really change? I don’t know what planet these people are living on, but last I looked, we haven’t gotten out of this crisis. We owe the next generation a much better regulatory system and a much fairer market. You just get this overwhelming sense that the ‘fix is in.’
Wall Street is wiping their brow and sweat and saying “whew, that was a close one.” It’s as if Wall street is telling Washington, “You’re still with us, aren’t you? We’re still paying for your campaigns.” I’m just afraid that nothing will really change other than some cosmetic changes.
Sense on Cents: I hope some real statesmen step up to address these issues. Since I’ve been writing, I believe we always get into the sufficiency of regulations. Which regulations need to be improved and which should be wiped away. I strongly believe, first and foremost, any industry has to have transparency and integrity in its process. As you just mentioned, it seems as if the ‘fix is in.’
Bill Singer: Larry, I’ve been reading your columns for quite some time now. This is not the time for anybody to be blowing smoke up anybody’s “you know what.” We have a career cast of politicians and regulators who by and large have never really worked for a living and who don’t really have a sense of what the ‘everyday Joe’ goes through. What we need right now is new ideas, new blood. You can’t break into the system. If you have been one of the individuals who has been warning about the major issues for years, you’d think that you would be invited in to ask to contribute ideas to fix them. That never happens. Those folks who regulate us are a very closed society. We have a system in our country that feeds cronyism and there is no way out of it.
I have reached out repeatedly over the years to regulatory bodies and as a 30 year veteran, and a former regulator, if I can’t even get an interview (and I’m not saying I would even want the job; they probably couldn’t afford me), that tells me how corrupt the system is.
When the public reads about Harry Markopolos and Gary Aguirre who have tried to expose issues and they aren’t embraced, that speaks volumes. Regulation has been “in bed” with Wall Street for very long. We need a vibrant and intelligent regulatory system to protect the public against fraud and the industry against its own folly. (more…)
Low Tide Will Reveal Rats Scurrying Amidst The Garbage
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 28th, 2009 9:09 AM |
Every exterminator will tell you that he never finds just one rat. Bernie Madoff has been exposed as an enormous rodent. Is Allen Stanford also a rat? Who else may be in the pack? Mary Schapiro, head of the SEC, revealed yesterday that the SEC is reviewing 150 other hedge funds to determine whether they also operated Ponzi schemes. Reuters reports, U.S. SEC Has About 150 Hedge Fund Probes.
Hedge funds are currently unregulated. How could the SEC have found potentially another 150 “rats” in the space of a mere three months since Ms. Schapiro has been on the job? My instincts lead me to believe the following:
1. Ms. Schapiro is trying to convey a sense of leadership and progress on fraud investigations after the abysmal performance on the Madoff scheme. The SEC needs to burnish its image and Ms. Schapiro is trying to address that with this news release.
2. I have no doubt that many other hedge funds did operate as Ponzi schemes and likely had money invested in Madoff knowing he was the largest rat. As investigators from the SEC have reviewed the list of Madoff investors, the info there has likely led to other hedge fund frauds.
Additionally, do not forget that many hedge funds suspended redemptions in the latter half of 2008. Ponzi schemes, like rats, only thrive given a steady source of food and water in the form new investments. Suspending redemptions is akin to a rat rationing its food supply. While plenty of those suspensions could be legitimate, it would be naive to think that all of them are.
3. We know that FINRA, the self-regulatory organization overseeing Wall Street, had investments in hedge funds, fund of funds, and private equity. That info was provided in the FINRA 2007 Annual Report. We are STILL waiting for the release of the FINRA 2008 Annual Report. Could FINRA have invested in Madoff? Could FINRA have invested in other hedge fund Ponzi schemes? Why by April 28th has FINRA still not released their Annual Report? (more…)
