RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeWho Protects Investors from Regulators?
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 19th, 2009 2:44 PM |
Is there anything worse than being violated by an individual in a position of trust? Crimes perpetrated by regular citizens are one thing, but crimes perpetrated by individuals in a position of public trust, in my opinion, are the most heinous. I am speaking of members of the clergy, teachers, law enforcement, and public servants.
When engaged in private business, individuals typically remain on guard from fraudulent and criminal behavior. That innate defense mechanism is usually relaxed when engaged with a public or quasi-public official. Given that vulnerability, the violation is far more painful due to the emotional damage even if the actual financial costs are minimal.
As I go down this path, let me emphasize the obvious – that is, the presumption of innocence and due process.
1. Today we learn that as part of the case against Allen Stanford, an indictment has also been handed down against Antiguan financial regulator Leroy King. Bloomberg reports that King not only took bribes from Stanford but also showed Stanford information relating to the government’s developing case.
If in fact these allegations are true, King aided and abetted the fraud which is speculated to be of a magnitude of $1-7 billion dollars.
2. In regard to the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, we have no evidence to indicate criminal intent or activity on behalf of anybody at the SEC. That said, the SEC – by its own admission – failed to perform its duties. For those impacted by the Madoff fraud, the lack of accountability by the SEC is no less damaging than if there were criminal activity. Why is that? The length of time over which Madoff perpetrated the scheme along with the amount of evidence provided by Harry Markopolos was so overwhelming and should have minimized the damage, both financial and emotional.
3. We do have evidence of potential culpability on behalf of FINRA in the Auction-Rate Securities fraud. FINRA was headed by Mary Schapiro, current head of the SEC. This fraud is MANY MULTIPLES the size of the fraud perpetrated by Allen Stanford. Professionals, both inside and outside of the financial industry, have estimated that there are anywhere from $80 billion to $175 billion ARS (of a $330 billion market) still outstanding.
Let’s take the midpoint of those estimates, $125 billion, as a best guess of outstanding ARS positions. These securities do not actively trade, like government bonds, but in speaking with Kevin O’Connor of Second Market, he shared that bonds trade around 75 cents on the dollar. Thus, we are looking at approximately $30 billion in losses on a mark-to-market basis.
FINRA’s potential culpability stems from the fact that they liquidated their own ARS holdings in 2007. I have asked repeatedly and will put forth once again, for the benefit of those thousands of investors and billions of dollars:
-what was the exact trade date of FINRA’s ARS liquidation?
-through whom did they liquidate their ARS position?
-what price were they paid for their ARS position?
-did they possess material non-public information about the ARS market failing and act upon it?
The U.S. attorney and SEC are investigating executives from Lehman (Gia Rys, Alex Kirk) for potentially front running the ARS market in 2007. Will we ever find out if FINRA did the same? FINRA is charged with protecting investors. They certainly failed to protect investors in Auction-Rate Securities.
4. Given the fraud involved in the marketing and distribution of ARS, I am blown away by the fact that the SEC, now headed by Ms. Schapiro, blessed the marketing and distribution of the new version of municipal ARS, known as x-Tender, or henceforth called Porky Pig here at Sense on ¢ents. Please see my post earlier today, An Auction-Rate Pig by Any Other Name Is Still a Pig.
Sad but true, as we enter the Brave New World of the Uncle Sam economy, investors need to remain diligent and should not assume that regulators are necessarily protecting them.
LD
NASD Knew Auction Rate Securities Weren’t Cash
Posted by Larry Doyle on May 11th, 2009 10:45 AM |
Everybody knows Auction Rate Securities (ARS) were cash or cash-like, correct? FINRA certainly did NOTHING to protect investors from the ARS sales and marketing scam perpetrated on investors.
FINRA spokesman Herb Perone would like to wash his hands and those of FINRA of any negligence or incompetence in regard to FINRA’s investments in Auction Rate Securities. The easiest manner of washing one’s hands is to point the finger at the entity which initially made the investment, in this case the NASD (National Association of Securities Dealers). If you recall, FINRA was formed in mid-2007 from the regulatory arms of the NYSE and NASD. In any event, Perone tries to deflect culpability on FINRA’s part in the recently reported Bloomberg story (FINRA Oversees Auction-Rate Arbitrations After Exit) highlighting FINRA’s sale of their Auction Rate Securities prior to the market’s implosion leaving thousands of investors and billions of dollars frozen. Bloomberg reports:
“The market was functioning normally when NASD was investing in these securities,” Perone said. At the time, auction-rate securities “were viewed as high-quality cash equivalents and as acceptable investment for institutions,” he said.
Perone further offers:
“It was for cash that we needed to have parked for a temporary period of time,” Perone said. “It was common to take cash you needed to hold and put it in auction-rate securities.”
If ARS were viewed as high-quality cash equivalents, why didn’t the NASD actually account for them in that manner? The NASD goes out of its way in its Annual Reports for 2003-2005 to highlight the fact that ARS were not cash or cash-like.
From page 38 of the NASD’s 2005 Annual Report, published on May 10, 2006:
Available-for-sale investments also include investments in auction rate securities, which are either preferred stock or bonds with interest rates that reset periodically, typically less than every 90 days, based on a Dutch auction process. Given the longer-term maturities of these securities, they are classified as available-for-sale investments, rather than cash and cash equivalents.
From page 30 of the NASD’s 2004 Annual Report, published on April 29, 2005:
Available-for-sale investments also include investments in auction rate securities, which are either preferred stock or bonds with interest rates that reset periodically, typically less than every 90 days, based on a Dutch auction process. Given the longer-term maturities of these securities, they are classified as available-for-sale investments, rather than cash and cash equivalents.
From page 27 of the NASD’s 2003 Annual Report published on June 7, 2004:
Available-for-sale investments also include investments in auction rate securities, which are either preferred stock or bonds with interest rates that reset periodically, typically less than every 90 days, based on a Dutch auction process. Given the longer-term maturities of these securities, they are classified as available-for-sale investments.
I have been questioning whether FINRA was negligent, incompetent or both in regard to their investment in ARS. FINRA could not have been negligent. Their parent organization, the NASD, lays it out in three separate Annual Reports that ARS were not cash or cash equivalents.
Thus, FINRA was merely incompetent in not protecting investors, as is its mandate!!
How may this be adjudicated? It is now speculated that Uncle Sam may establish a liquidity facility which investors can tap to get their money. This liquidity facility may be part of a larger government entity. I do hope this facility is enacted and that ARS investors can receive a timely return of their funds.
However, to whom does the obligation and cost shift? The American taxpayer. Once again, the taxpayer may pick up the tab for an activity (the sales and marketing of ARS by banks and investment managers) deemed a fraud by federal judges.
LD
ARS Investor Makes Public Plea
Posted by Larry Doyle on May 3rd, 2009 2:02 PM |
On the heels of Bloomberg breaking the news of FINRA’s investment in Auction Rate Securities, I have received a number of e-mails from ARS investors thanking me for my pursuit in publicizing that information. One e-mail in particular touched me. This investor purchased ARS from Oppenheimer. His e-mail to attorneys general around the country and major media outlets is powerful. I share his questions; they deserve answers. With the writer’s permission: (more…)
“FINRA Is Supposed To Police The Market”
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 29th, 2009 6:52 AM |
I have written extensively about FINRA’s ownership of Auction Rate Securities over the last few months. This morning Bloomberg reports, FINRA Oversees Auction-Rate Arbitrations After Exiting Market.
The Bloomberg article (I am humbled by Bloomberg quoting me in the story) answers a number of questions I have raised, while also opening the door to other issues needing to be addressed:
1. Was FINRA blinded – if not totally conflicted – in addressing the trading, selling, and marketing of Auction Rate Securities? Try 862 million times.
2. Was FINRA lucky, prescient, or well informed in the timing of the sale of their own Auction Rate Securities? We may never know but given that their first “guidance for investors” was not published until after the market had totally frozen, they certainly did not provide much investor protection as is their mandate.
3. I have also written, and Bloomberg highlights, that FINRA had money invested in hedge funds. In light of market developments, I think the public has a right to know which hedge funds. Will FINRA release that information?
4. I unearthed all the information of FINRA’s investment activities from its 2007 Annual Report published in April 2008. I am still waiting for FINRA to release its 2008 Annual Report and wonder why it seems to be delayed.
5. As we move forward with likely regulatory changes for Wall Street, I believe the very nature of a self-regulatory organization funded by the banks it is charged to oversee presents massive conflicts of interest. This specific situation of FINRA’s investment in ARS is indicative of those conflicts. Will Congress have the courage to address these conflicts and serve the public interest in the process?
“To me it smacks of incompetence and negligence,” said Larry Doyle, who worked 23 years on Wall Street and runs a Web site called Sense on Cents. “Finra is supposed to police the market.”
I view FINRA as akin to the palace guard. The question remains, Does The Palace Guard Have No Clothes?
LD
