Stephen’s Posterous

Technology. Finance. Tidbits. 
Filed under

Bernard Madoff

 

Three New Books About Bernard Madoff

     
Click here to download:
Three_New_Books_About_Bernard_.zip (100 KB)

Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison because of being the mastemind behind a multibillion dollar Ponzi scheme. He had attracted 8,000 investors along with seven sophisticated funds.

Three books try to provide an account of the Ponzi scheme along with the master mind behind the plan: Too Good to Be True by Erin Arvedlund, Betrayal by Andrew Kirtzman, and Madoff With the Money by Jerry Oppenheimer.

Mr. Madoff opened his own brokerage company at 23 years old. Mr. Madoff's brokerage firm became one of the largest market makers for trading outside of the New York Stock Exchange in the U.S.

Mr. Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme under the pretense of an investment advisory business. The company operated one floor below his brokerage company in a suite of offices that were locked.

"Too Good to Be True" is a book that is one of the most reported out of the three books as Ms. Arvedlund was one of the earliest journalists to investigate Mr. Madoff's activities having written a critical piece on Mr. Madoff in Barron's in 2001.

Ms. Arvedlund brings great clarity to the subject and provides context about the devices that Mr. Madoff used to perpetuate his game. She even demonstrates how the Securities and Exchange Commission works or fails to work.

"Betrayal" is accurate and very readable, but does not have that contextual depth. Mr. Kirtzman does provide a thorough account of the suspicions of analyst Harry Markopolos, whose warnings regarding Mr. Madoff to the SEC were ignored.

"Madoff With the Money" comes filled with entertaining stories about Mr. Madoff's personal life, including massages and affairs, but the material is a bit speculative and sourced anonymously.

The problem with many of details of the Madoff scandal is that it is really too early to know what is true since the investigations are still continuing. It is it not known when the Ponzi scheme was launched and the chronology of events is still a key aspect of the schema.

No one knows how, or by whom, the billions that were removed from the Ponzi scheme. There is much more to come.

Too Good to Be True: The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff by Erin Arvedlund
Portfolio, 310 Pages, $25.95
Read an excerpt.

Betrayal: The Life and Lies of Bernie Madoff by Andrew Kirtzman
Harper, 306 pages, $25.99
Read an excerpt.

Madoff With the Money by Jerry Oppenheimer
Wiley, 256 pages, $24.95
Read an excerpt.

Source.

Filed under  //   Andrew Kirtzman   Bernard Madoff   Betrayal   Charles Ponzi   Erin Arvedlund   Jerry Oppenheimer   Madoff With the Money   Ponzi Scheme   Too Good to Be True  

Comments [0]

Ari Fleischer Says Everyone Should Pay Taxes

From Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for President George W. Bush

If you thought Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme was bad, wait until you hear about the inverted pyramid scheme the federal government is working on. While Mr. Madoff preyed on people who trusted him with their money, the federal government has everyone's money, and the implications of its actions are worse.

Picture an upside-down pyramid with its narrow tip at the bottom and its base on top. The only way the pyramid can stand is by spinning fast enough or by having a wide enough tip so it won't fall down.

The federal version of this spinning top is the tax code; the government collects its money almost entirely from the people at the narrow tip and then gives it to the people at the wider side. So long as the pyramid spins, the system can work. If it slows down enough, it falls.

It's also what's called redistribution of income, and it is getting out of hand.

A very small number of taxpayers, the 10% of the country that makes more than $92,400 a year, pay 72.4% of the nation's income taxes. They're the tip of the triangle that's supporting virtually everyone and everything. Their burden keeps getting heavier.

As a result of the 2001 tax cuts enacted by a bipartisan Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, the share of taxes paid by the top 10% increased to 72.8% in 2005 from 67.8% in 2001, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Contrary to the myth that Mr. Bush cut taxes only for the wealthy, the 2001 tax cut reduced taxes for every income-tax payer in the country. He reduced the bottom tax rate to 10% from 15% and increased the refundable child tax credit to $1,000 from $500 per child, both cuts that President Barack Obama says we should keep.

In so doing, millions of lower income taxpayers were removed from the tax rolls, shifting the remaining burden to those at the top, even after their taxes were cut.

According to the CBO, those who made less than $44,300 in 2001, 60% of the country, paid a paltry 3.3% of all income taxes. By 2005, almost all of them were excused from paying any income tax. They paid less than 1% of the income tax burden. Their share shrank even when taking into account the payroll tax.

In 2001, the bottom 60% paid 16.3% of all taxes; by 2005 their share was down to 14.3%. All the while, this large group of voters made 25.8% of the nation's income.

When you make almost 26% of the income and you pay only 0.6% of the income tax, that's a good deal, courtesy of those who do pay income taxes. For the bottom 40%, the redistribution deal is even better.

In 2001, these 43 million Americans, who earn less than $30,500, made 13.5% of the nation's income but paid no income tax. Instead, they received checks from their taxpaying neighbors worth $16.3 billion. By 2005, those checks totaled $33.3 billion.

Today, Mr. Obama and many congressional Democrats want the "wealthy" to pay even more so there is more money for them to redistribute. The president says he wants the wealthy to pay their "fair share." Who can argue with that? But he never defines what that means.

Is it fair for 10% to pay 70% of the income tax? Does he believe they should pay 75%, or 95%, or does fairness mean they should pay it all? It's clever politics to speak like that, but it is risky policy.

Mr. Obama is adding to this trend with his "Make Work Pay" tax cut that means almost 50% of the country will no longer pay any income taxes, up from a little over 40% today. A certain amount of income redistribution in a capitalistic society is healthy, but this goes too far.

The economic and moral problem is that when 50% of the country gets benefits without paying for them and an increasingly smaller number of taxpayers foot the bill, the spinning triangle will no longer be able to support itself.

Eventually, it will spin so slowly that it falls down, especially when the economy is contracting and the number of wealthy taxpayers is in sharp decline.

In addition to exempting almost 50% of the country from income taxes, today nearly every other social cause is given a loophole or a preference in the tax code. Want to buy a hybrid vehicle? You get a tax break. Do you own a solar water heater? You get a credit. Want to give to charity? You get a deduction. Own a house?

There's another tax deduction for you. How about college savings, certain medical costs, and retirement savings? Yes, yes, and of course yes. Did you move, pay alimony, or "provide housing to a Midwestern displaced individual"? More deductions, credits and exemptions there too, if you qualify.

Everyone now has a sacred cow in the tax code. For my money, the most sacred thing of all is our country and its growth, but the sacred cows have turned into a pack of wolves. On both the spending and the tax side, the wolves are devouring our children's future.

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) wants to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the president's budget, but that's small potatoes given the size of the deficit. The debt problem is so big and hopeless, Congress's normal nips and tucks won't work. Something more fundamental needs to happen.

It's time to create an Economic Growth Code whose purpose is to fix and grow the economy, not redistribute massive amounts of wealth. A new tax code that creates growth and reforms our entitlement system is the only way to dig our way out of the hole we're in.

Under an Economic Growth Code, everyone in American would pay income taxes, everyone. Such a system would be designed to foster broad-based growth for all, in contrast to the loophole-ridden system we have today. Not only is the current code flawed from top to bottom, it is used by politicians to divide the public along class lines and fails to promote prosperity.

Growth is the key to keeping the pyramid spinning, and to keep spinning the pyramid's tip needs to be broadened. Otherwise a country that was raised to believe that national bankruptcy happened elsewhere may have to think again. Given the state of the economy and trillion-dollar deficits projected as far as the eye can see, we need to return to an era of more conservative, fiscal discipline.

Congress should start by refusing to go along with Mr. Obama's promise to cut taxes for 95% of the country. With the government running an almost $2 trillion deficit, no one should have their taxes cut, no one. Given the size of the deficit, fiscal responsibility demands nothing less.

Republicans in Congress need to develop their own version of an Economic Growth Code, an alternative tax code that directly targets the current mess and helps us to grow our way out of it. Republicans should not doodle in the margins; they should use their minority status to launch the next big movement in policy and politics. Nothing creates revenue like growth and that's where Republicans should make their mark.

I favor the abolition of all Social Security, Medicare and estate taxes. In their place, we should create a simple income tax system that has no deductions or credits at all. The result would be a progressive, multitiered income tax in which everyone pays.

The bottom 50% won't be excused from paying the cost of government and top earners will no longer have the loopholes they're used to. The middle-class, whose wages have stagnated, will benefit from economic growth. Social Security and Medicare will be funded from income taxes, ending the myth that these programs are supported through government trust funds and payroll taxes.

The tax base will broaden dramatically, allowing rates to fall and helping to foster what's most important, economic growth.

I'd also create a mechanism so tax rates go up or down for everyone, no more dividing the country by lowering taxes for some or raising them only for others. A revenue system whose purpose is to pay the government's bills should apply fairly to one and all. If Congress wants to raise or cut taxes, it should do so for everyone.

Another benefit is that such a system will create an environment in which spending programs receive the scrutiny they deserve. It's funny what happens when everyone pays the bills; Americans may want less spending so they can pay fewer bills.

Ari Fleischer is President of Ari Fleischer Communications.

Source.

Filed under  //   Ari Fleischer   Bernard Madoff   CBO   Congressional Budget Office   Economic Growth Code   George W. Bush   IRS   Kent Conrad   Make Work Pay Tax   Medicare   Obama   Ponzi Scheme   Redistribution of Income   Social Security  

Comments [0]

Funds of Hedge Funds Losing Out

Funds of hedge funds – the middlemen of hedge fund investing – thrived in the good times. But their assets declined around 30% in 2008, a bigger drop than hedge funds themselves suffered. And that was before the implications of the Madoff scandal sank in. Many could, and probably should, disappear.

That’s a harsh verdict. But consider the underpinnings of the industry, which even after last year’s declines managed $600bn-odd of investor assets, according to Hedge Fund Research. Funds of funds serve individuals, pension plans and others mostly too small to invest in hedge funds directly. During the boom that ended in mid-2008, fund managers could afford not to take calls from smaller investors. Now the boot is on the other foot.

Funds of funds also charge another layer of fees – typically 1% of assets and 10% of gains, on top of the 2-and-20 most commonly charged by hedge funds. Many employed additional leverage to amplify returns in an effort offset the additional fees – something that’s now difficult or impossible. Even so, the average fund of funds generally underperforms the average hedge fund, according to Hedge Fund Research.

Funds of funds were also supposed to be good at vetting hedge funds. The idea that they could at least screen out fraudsters wasn’t so far-fetched. But Bernie Madoff’s $50bn Ponzi scheme has punched holes in that notion.

The Madoff story broke on December 11, 2008, last year, so year-end data don’t capture the full extent of the fallout. The funds of funds most directly affected include some of the biggest: for instance, Switzerland’s Union Bancaire Privée, ranked second with $33bn under management as of December 31, according to InvestHedge.

Such unfortunates are probably already losing investors hand over fist. Even those that did screen out Madoff can expect pressure on fees. Some of the better funds of funds will no doubt do fine – there is still an investor base that needs them. But investors have more options now, and their eyes have been opened. As a result, an industry that lived off the top layer of hedge fund froth will rightly subside dramatically.

Source.

Filed under  //   Bernard Madoff   Fund of Funds   Hedge Fund Research   Hedge Funds   HFR  

Comments [0]

Why is My Investment Adviser Rich and Not Me?

A wealthy entrepreneur once told me why he never invested in hedge funds. “It’s the same reason I didn’t buy drugs in college. Why should I give money to a drug dealer who has a nicer car than I do?” Bernard Madoff and R. Allen Stanford had many things in common, aside from alleged investment frauds. They both liked traveling by private jet, multiple jets, in both cases. They both had homes in Florida and they both owned yachts.

Mr. Madoff owned a 55-foot boat in Florida, named “Bull,” as well as a boat in France. Mr. Stanford had a 120-foot yacht, according to paternity-suit papers. He also appears to have had a 112-footer in Antigua named Sea Eagle Bikini, where he would often live for days with his chef and housekeeper.

Clearly, both lived large. But is that necessarily a red flag under the “nicer car” theory? There are two schools of thought when it comes to the wealth of your investment adviser. One, which I heard often in wealth circles in the past five years, was, “Why should I invest with someone who wasn’t rich himself?”

The other was, “Why should my investment adviser get rich off me?” The issue isn’t so black and white. There are some very rich advisers who are money-losers and frauds, and there are some who will make their clients even richer. Likewise for not-so-rich advisers.

To me, what is a red flag are money managers who flaunt their wealth, with yachts, multiple megamansions and flashy donations posing as philanthropy. People should enjoy their hard-earned wealth. But when you are managing other people’s money, parading around your own riches is clearly bad form. It shows a lack of respect for your clients that could signal deeper problems.

In short, an investment adviser should do well, but they probably shouldn’t have nicer cars or bigger yachts than their clients.

Source.

Filed under  //   Bernard Madoff   Bull   Florida   Fraud   Ponzi Scheme   R. Allen Stanford   Sea Eagle Bikini   Yachts  

Comments [0]

Barron's Online Q&A with Steve Weisman

Until December, most investor fretted about how stock values were evaporating in their portfolios. But then the Bernard Madoff scandal broke and suddenly investors had a new reason to worry. The Madoff affair, along with a few other smaller scandals that become public in recent weeks, brought home for many investors that there are culprits beside a declining economy that can wipe out a portfolio.

The Securities and Exchange Commission reports that the number of cases it has brought against alleged Ponzi schemes has jumped from 15 in 2007 to 23 last year. And that doesn't include the many cases filed with state regulators. Steve Weisman, an estate lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., argues that investors can greatly reduce the risk of being ripped off by being vigilant and following a few simple common-sense rules.

Recently, Weisman, the author of The Truth About Avoiding Scams (FT Press, 2008), discussed his ideas with Barrons.com.

Barrons.com: First off, how did you, get interested in this topic?

Weisman: Well scams have always interested me, but then it turned out that an estate planning client of mine and a friend, a Boston-area financial planner, ended up taking money from his clients in a Ponzi scheme. His name is Brad Bleidt and he's now doing time in prison. And it was one of those situations where you could see how a master of psychology can lure in people who are otherwise intelligent and sophisticated.

Q: And up until you got the news, did you think he was a totally honest and trustworthy guy?

A: Absolutely, I was totally shocked after getting a call from his wife who was also a friend to tell me that Brad has tried to commit suicide and that he had been stealing from clients for years.

Q: Aren't there more common types of fraud besides Ponzi schemes that a typical investor faces?

A: You know there are a lot of them and some are as simple and as commonplace as a broker churning an account just to rack up commissions. But there are a fair number of Ponzi schemes in a year. While you never want to blame the victim, there are many things that are red flags that could keep these things from going too far.

For example, you don't want the person who is your investment manager at a small firm to also be the custodian of the funds. Madoff was acting as his own custodian. By having the funds held in custody by a Charles Schwab or a Fidelity or another big outside firm, then you have a level of protection that makes it much more difficult, almost impossible, for someone to do this type of a Ponzi scheme.

Q: Maybe I'm being overly conspiratorial here, but is there a way that the next generation of scam artist can pretend that they have hired an outside custody firm? They could even go to the bother of creating a Web site with a fake logo that can give an investor the illusion that the funds are being held by an outside reputable firm.

A: Yeah. It's possible that a smart thief could set up such an account. So then it becomes necessary for investors to actually call the company that the manager says is the custodian to find out if indeed they are the custodian. That's one way to protect yourself, but it's worth doing if you are opening an account with a lot of money.

Q: Most investors, however, use big brokerage or money management firms and these firms don't rely on outside custodians. They do it themselves. Is that a cause for concern?

A: Not really and one of the reasons is that they are just so big and have reputations to uphold. So when you are dealing with a Merrill Lynch, a Schwab, or a Fidelity, these are companies that may have bad-apple brokers or employees within them. But the company itself is being operated honestly and professionally and they will standby and make you whole when someone within their company does something improper. (Editor's note: Big firms generally have the capital to cover losses due to fraud or theft. In addition, they also cover portfolio insurance they might cover all or part of those losses.)

Q: So, in other words, these bigger firms have a reputation to uphold into the future, whereas a small fry investment manager can just shrug his shoulders as he is carted off to jail.

A: Yes

Q: How common is simple broker theft from a portfolio? It seems easy enough to pull off, especially if it's done in small amounts over time.

A: The problem is we don't know how big a problem this is and because there is reason to believe that kind of theft does occur. Very often the kind of monthly statements that people get can be confusing enough in regard to what things are taking out of. That's why it's really important to read statements like a hawk.

Q: If a friend came to you looking for a financial advisor, would you recommend a big well capitalized firm rather than a smaller firm?

A: Not necessarily. There's nothing wrong with using someone on a small level who can give you personalized attention. But you better make sure that they have safeguards in place such as an outside custodian at one of the big respected firms.

Q: What are all the considerations that an investor makes when deciding what assets with? In other words, give me a checklist.

A: I would check out the advisor first and there are a number of places. Go to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Web site (www.finra.org) The site even allows you to check on the reputation of an individual investment advisor. They also have a lot of user-friendly information about things to watch out for when you invest. You can also check with your own state's Secretary of State office to see if there are any complaints against a particular financial professional. I would also type the name of the person and the word scam or fraud in Google and see if anything bad comes up.

Finally, it's important to understand the type of investing that the money manager or broker does for you. If you feel that it's too complicated for you to understand, then you shouldn't be investing this way.

Q: Is there a possibility that an investor can lose his or her money by a brokerage going bankrupt?

A: It's a concern, but not a likely one. I do think that the big firms most often will be gobbled up by somebody else and the consumer is simply having his account transferred over. (Client accounts are held separate from the assets of the company.) And frankly, the effects of having a major brokerage house like a Merrill Lynch or a Morgan Stanley going out of business would be so harmful to the economy that you can almost be assured that there would be some kind of federal bailout or a forced merger with a bigger firm to prevent a bankruptcy.

Q: In other words, they're too important to fail.

A: Yes, that's exactly it.

Q: How necessary is it that investors place their money with a few different institutions rather than being reliant on one institution that could be up to no good?

A: I don't think it's necessary. I can understand someone doing that as a form of broker allocation. But it's not necessary if you have established that safeguards on his place protecting your assets with your adviser.

Q: Is there anything you want to add?

A: Yes. Some investors think that they can get their money back by suing and there are plenty of class actions after a broker is accused of fraud. You really can't count on that. The federal government is far from being active in spotting these frauds. So investors have to do their own work. Frankly, the place to look for a helping hand is at the end of your own arm.

Q: Thanks for your words of warning.

Source.

Filed under  //   Bernard Madoff   Charles Ponzi   Financial Industry Regulatory Authority   Fraud   Ponzi Scheme   Securities and Exchange Commission   Steve Weisman   The Truth About Avoiding Scams  

Comments [0]

Filing Discloses List Of Madoff's Clients

Comments [0]

How Madoff Reeled In Golf Buddies

At the Interbourse golf tournament held last May at Cabo San Lucas on the tip of Mexico’s Baja California peninsula, some participants suspected something amiss with Bernard Madoff.

No, what bothered some participants about the former Nasdaq chairman was his golf handicap. They suspected he had understated his skill to boost his chances of winning a prize. “It makes a difference if your handicap is the right or wrong one. I always had the impression that he was playing off a 14 or a 15,” says one who took part. But Mr Madoff’s score on the Golf Handicap and Information Network was 9.8, leading the fellow player to infer that the broker was better at the game than he told the organisers.

“He wasn’t altogether straightforward,” the participant says.

Seven months later, Mr Madoff was accused by US prosecutors of running the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme – a pyramid set-up that survived by using money from new investors to pay off earlier backers. He has allegedly confessed that his investment business, which drew money from all over the world, was “all one big lie” that may have cost investors $50bn (£36bn, €39bn). Prosecutors and the US Securities and Exchange Commission are combing through the books of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities and a court-appointed trustee is trying to track down what happened to the cash.

As Mr Madoff sits under house arrest in his Manhattan penthouse, the Financial Times has reconstructed the last year of his operation through interviews with dozens of his friends, colleagues and investors, most of whom do not wish to be named. They suggest he was endeavouring to keep up appearances, making the usual rounds of charity dinners, sporting events and industry gatherings and taking his regular summer vacation in the south of France. His family raised $151,000 for a leukaemia charity in October and he attended his company Christmas party hours before his arrest.

But beneath the surface, he and the dozens of hedge funds that sent him cash were growing increasingly strapped. For years, they had recruited new money with ease, thanks to an aura of exclusivity and Mr Madoff’s extraordinarily steady reported returns. In past years, would-be investors were often told the shop was closed to new money and they would have to wait before they could buy in. That changed. The credit crunch not only dried up new investment but also prompted many long-time clients to ask for some or all of their money back.

Authorities say this is what proved fatal; pyramid schemes collapse when the cash flow stops. Indeed, an examination of Mr Madoff’s 2008 activities reveals a desperate scramble for cash to keep the wheels spinning, before the alleged admission that he could not.

The scale of the losses is staggering. The trustee, Irving Picard, has mailed out more than 8,000 customer claim forms. A list compiled by Bloomberg suggests Madoff investors thought they had more than $41bn with the firm, although that may double-count investors and the funds they used.

While most financial frauds are confined to individual social groups or neighbourhoods, Mr Madoff stands accused of running the world’s first truly global Ponzi scheme. His early money came from Jewish charities and communities in New York and Palm Beach, earning him the nickname “the Jewish T-bill”. But by the mid-2000s, so-called feeder funds that supplied Mr Madoff were tapping deep – and not so deep – pockets all over Europe and Latin America. Seventeen funds in Luxembourg alone have halted redemptions due to Madoff-related losses.

Victims appear to include a remarkably wide range of people from Kevin Bacon, the US actor, to Liliane Bettencourt, the French heiress, along with a Hong Kong fisherman, a Spanish teacher and Mr Madoff’s own relatives. “There were no barriers to protect anyone from the wrath of Bernie,” says one American who was close to the Madoff family for years and had, so he thought, about $600,000 invested.

The year 2008 started as the previous one had, with a quarterly report to the SEC. Mr Madoff told the US regulator that his investment management arm held 443 different investments totalling $17bn. Many Madoff boosters believed the filing understated his total holdings because he supposedly moved into cash before reporting periods to avoid giving clues to his vaunted “split-strike conversion strategy”.

Its reported funds under management put the firm among the top 5 per cent of the 11,000 or so investment managers then registered with the SEC. But filing triggered no regulatory alarm bells. The SEC had inspected the Madoff firm in 2005 and briefly investigated him in 2007, yet neither that visit nor an attempt by Harry Markopoulos, a would-be whistleblower, to interest Jonathan Sokobin, the SEC’s new head of risk assessment, went anywhere. Mr Markopoulos, a former industry rival, had repeatedly tried to warn regulators of his suspicions that Mr Madoff was conducting a Ponzi scheme.

Mr Madoff did miss the Interbourse ski tournament in January – the winter version of the golf outing. He and his firm had been prominent sponsors in prior years, paying up to $15,000 to host the captains’ dinner and hobnob with European money managers. But one participant says his absence was put down to differences with that year’s French organisers rather than any larger problem.

Performance records of the European funds that sent money to Mr Madoff were meanwhile attracting attention – and money – from hundreds of ordinary retail investors. Among them was a Parisian property developer who asks to be identified as Pierre. Last February, he was simply looking for a place to park €600,000 he had raised from a property sale and chanced on the UBS-run Luxalpha fund while trawling the Morningstar internet aggregator. “I am normally very careful. I have never bought shares in my life,” he says.

But Luxalpha was listed as 80 per cent bonds and a relatively low-risk solid performer. He phoned UBS Luxembourg’s investor services and ended up putting the money into a sister fund called the Luxembourg Investment fund. He had never heard of Mr Madoff.

Spring passed uneventfully. Mr Madoff made the rounds of board meetings at New York’s Yeshiva University and the other charities he supported, attracting no more attention than before. Two fellow trustees of an educational institution where he sat on the board say they had long had reservations about his reported returns. However, they did not speak up and made no effort to prevent the school from investing with him.

“I thought he might be front-running [a form of insider dealing involving trades placed right before big orders] or something dubious like that – I never would have thought he was just inventing the whole thing,” says one.

Another charity was luckier. When a hedge fund manager joined its board last spring, he was instantly sceptical of the returns Mr Madoff had produced and asked his own staff to try and replicate the strategy, according to an industry colleague who was told about it at the time. When they could not, he convinced his fellow trustees to pull the charity’s money out.

After the May golf, Mr Madoff and his wife went to Port Gallice in the south of France, where he owned a yacht called Bull and regularly holidayed (and acquired a reputation among fellow luxury boat-owners for ill-humour, given to snapping at children). He bumped into Arki Busson, a London hedge fund manager, while collecting his luggage at Nice airport. “It was ‘hi, bye’,” Mr Busson says, adding that he gained no impression anything was wrong. EIM, Mr Busson’s fund, had about $230m invested with him. Mr Madoff also made the rounds at the US Open tennis tournament, held every August in Queens, and was introduced to one former tennis star with the words: “This guy is a miracle worker.”

Behind the scenes, Mr Madoff was trying to drum up money. In late summer, word circulated that he was ready to take in more cash, prompting one long-standing investor to set up a new feeder fund, Kallisto. “He had an outflow of money and he needed more cash,” says the investor, who first invested his own money with him 18 years ago. “I went to see him on October 2 and I said, ‘If I wanted $25m-$50m could I get it?’ and he said ‘sure’.”

Kallisto began early discussions with potential investors but, according to two people involved, its launch was conditional on due diligence being done on Mr Madoff’s back office, which had not occurred before the arrest.

The search for cash grew intense in October and November. Ezra Merkin, a money manager, met New York University’s chief investment officer and suggested the school start sending money to a Madoff feeder fund. When the school turned him down because of a lack of oversight, Mr Merkin did not say he had already invested nearly $25m of NYU’s money with Mr Madoff, according to a lawsuit filed by the university in the US federal court against Mr Merkin.

On November 12, Mr Madoff ordered his London business to wire $150m to New York, ostensibly to buy Treasury bills, and made a series of personal pitches. Among those he contacted were Ken Langone, founder of Invemed investment bank, who turned Mr Madoff down, and Carl Shapiro, the Boston philanthropist and longtime Madoff backer, who sent an additional $250m.

But the new money could not compensate for the funds that were flowing out. Some hedge funds needed cash to meet redemptions demanded by their investors. Others were concerned about the proportion of their money in Mr Madoff’s hands. Union Bancaire Privée pulled out $200m shortly before the collapse and Santander, the Spanish bank, sent Rodrigo Echenique, a director, to meet Mr Madoff in late November.

Individual investors were also trying to get out, sometimes with limited success. When one sought to pull money out of Luxalpha, the fund set up by UBS, he got a call from an intermediary trying to talk him out of it.

By early last month Mr Madoff had hit the wall, allegedly telling one of his two sons that he had received requests for $7bn in redemptions and was having trouble finding enough money, according to the government’s criminal complaint. On December 9 he told the other son he wanted to pay employees their bonuses two months earlier than normal. When the sons, Andrew and Mark, compared notes they decided to confront their father.

The next day, the two challenged Mr Madoff at the office but he asked to meet them later at his Manhattan apartment because “he wasn’t sure he would be able to hold it together”. Neither Andrew nor Mark put in an appearance at the Madoff firms’ Christmas party at the First Avenue branch of Rosa Mexicano that night, but Bernie Madoff did. He left at 7.45pm, according to one attendee.

At the apartment with his sons, Mr Madoff broke down and allegedly confessed, saying he had “nothing” and was “absolutely finished”, the complaint says. The losses, he added, would be as much as $50bn. He was going to turn himself in, he said, but first he wanted to use the $200m-$300m he had left to make payments to his family, employees and friends.

The sons called a lawyer, who alerted federal authorities. The SEC went into overdrive, putting more than a dozen employees on the case and drawing up documents to seek an emergency asset freeze. But even they did not quite understand the magnitude of what they were dealing with. “Is that a typo?” one official asked. “Isn’t that number meant to be $50m?”

Federal authorities took over Mr Madoff’s office in the Lipstick building on Third Avenue. They found in his desk $173m in signed cheques ready to be sent. Mr Madoff was interviewed at home. He was wearing his bathrobe and slippers when the agents arrived.

“There is no innocent explanation,” he allegedly told the agents. He had “paid investors with money that wasn’t there”.

When Pierre, the housebuilder, heard about Mr Madoff’s arrest he laughed, saying: “I knew I had not invested in these funds.” A few days later, his account adviser discovered that the fund was indeed invested with Mr Madoff. The Frenchman is now among those preparing legal action. Source.

Filed under  //   Bernard Madoff  

Comments [0]

Letter To Investors: UBP's Q&A On Madoff Fraud

The following is the text of a letter from Switzerland’s Union Bancaire Privée to its investors, many of whom where invested in a fund that lost money in the alleged Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme. Since the scheme was revealed earlier this month, UBP says it has stepped up its due diligence measures and has instructed the managers of its remaining hedge fund investments to pull money from any fund that does not employ an outside auditor.

Update on the Madoff fraud case
Questions & Answers

Private and Confidential – for the sole use of UBP Investors

Dec. 17, 2008

1. Who is Bernard Madoff?
 - Bernard Madoff, a figure in the securities industry in the US, is the founder and majority shareholder of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC, a broker/dealer with USD 700 mn of equity capital registered with the SEC and FINRA, the successor agency to the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) where he served as vice chairman.
 - He served as NASDAQ's chairman of the board of directors, and on its board of governors. He remained a member of the NASDAQ OMX Group Inc.’s nominating committee.
 - Mr. Madoff has been active in the NASD, a self-regulatory organisation for the US securities industry.
 - The firm was founded in 1960.
 - His firm was one of the five most active firms in the development of the NASDAQ.

2. What is the structure of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC?
 - Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC was a leading international market maker.
 - The firm has been providing quality executions for broker-dealers, banks, and financial institutions since its inception in 1960.
 - According to the Form ADV filed with the SEC on 1 July 2008, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC managed USD 17 billion across 23 accounts (in investment vehicles).
 - The media calculation that Madoff lost USD 50 billion is based on information within the US Attorney complaint. “MADOFF also stated that he estimated the losses from this fraud to be at least approximately USD 50 billion.”
 - The discovery process of ascertaining the exact amount of the loss and the nature of the fraud is still ongoing.

3. In which investment vehicles managed by Madoff did UBP clients invest?
 - UBP clients’ investments with Madoff were made mostly through four different investment vehicles with the following legal set ups, jurisdiction, auditors and regulatory oversights:

Ascot Fund Ltd
 - Incorporation: Cayman Islands – 10 February, 1992
 - Regulatory Authority: Cayman Islands Monetary Authority
 - Administrator: Self-administrated
 - Auditor: BDO Tortuga, Cayman Islands

Fairfield Sentry Ltd
 - Incorporation: British Virgin Islands – 30 November, 1990
 - Regulatory Authority: BVI Financial Services Commission
 - Administrator: Citco Fund Services (Europe) BV, Amsterdam (the Netherlands)
 - Auditor: PwC, the Netherlands 2

M-Invest Ltd
 - Incorporation: Cayman Islands – 23 January, 2003
 - Regulatory Authority: Cayman Islands Monetary Authority
 - Administrator: Citco Fund Services (Bermuda) Ltd, Bermuda
 - Auditor: Ernst & Young, Cayman Islands

Kingate Euro Fund, Ltd
 - Incorporation: British Virgin Islands – 19 April, 2000
 - Regulatory Authority: BVI Financial Services Commission
 - Administrator: BISYS hedge Fund Services Ltd, Bermuda
 - Auditor: PwC, Bermuda

Madoff made all investment decisions and executed the trades while the investment vehicles were set up as separate entities and run by different individuals/service providers as listed above (among the 23 known investment vehicles), which themselves were clients of Madoff’s broker/dealer operation. Essentially, these vehicles were used to gain exposure to Madoff’s strategy. UBP initially invested through Ascot and Fairfield Sentry and subsequently through M-Invest.

4. What are the positions currently invested in Madoff investment vehicles across UBP Funds of Hedge Funds as at 1 November 2008?

Of the 22 funds of hedge funds advised by UBP, the positions allocated* to Madoff are the following:

Dinvest - Total Return 3.05%
Dinvest Concentrated Opportunities 2.31%
Dinvest - Select I 6.51%
Dinvest - Select II 6.32%
Dinvest - Select III 6.35%
Dinvest Concentrated Opportunities III Exquity 4.46%
UBP Multi-Strategy Alpha Fund (direct & indirect) 6.92%
TrendSquare I 2.90%
Selectinvest ARV 5.79%
Selectinvest ARV II 4.50%
Selectinvest ABF Ltd 3.91%
Selectinvest Multistrategy 0.00%
Selectinvest Multistrategy Advantage 0.00%
Selectinvest Event Driven 0.00%
Selectinvest Global Equity L/S 0.00%
Selectinvest Global Resources 0.00%
Selectinvest Focus Recovery 0.00%
Dinvest Concentrated Opportunities Distressed 0.00%
Dinvest - L/S US 0.00%
Dinvest Japan & Asia 0.00%
Dinvest - L/S Europe 0.00%
Dinvest Concentrated Opportunities II 0.00%
* The percentages above include the amounts put up for redemption at the end of November, which are now unfortunately considered at risk.

5. What is the total amount invested through Madoff investment vehicles?
 - The aggregated amount in the discretionary portfolios and fund of hedge funds products at UBP is around USD 700 mn.

6. Will the position be fully written down?
 - We will take a write-down for our 30 November NAV across all portfolios but have not yet determined whether a full write-down is necessary as we will need to obtain feedback from the various administrators and auditors. However, given the situation, there is a high likelihood that a full write down might be required.

7. What was the underlying investment strategy followed by Madoff?
 - The Madoff strategy was described as trading in the stock and options markets based on proprietary trading signals, coupled with Bernard Madoff’s oversight.
 - In more detail, the strategy was: (i) the purchase of a basket of long equities that were expected to highly correlate to the S&P 100 Index (known as the OEX); (ii) the simultaneous sale of an out-of-the-money call option on the S&P 100 with a notional value similar to that of the long equity portfolio; and (iii) the simultaneous purchase of an out of the money put option on the S&P 100 also with a notional value similar to the long equity portfolio. Each basket holds about 50 large capitalisation equities from the S&P 100, and the options traded are exchange-traded or over-the-counter-exchange-traded lookalikes. The split-strike conversion strategy was allegedly implemented 6-8 times per year and the investment cycle can range from 2-8 weeks. Between investment cycles, the funds’ assets are invested in US Treasuries.

 - The investment presented the opportunity to participate in a unique return stream that combined a splitstrike option strategy with the market information of one of the world’s largest market-makers in equity securities.

 - In essence, the perceived edge was Madoff’s ability to gather and process market-order-flow information and use this information to time the implementation of the split strike option strategy.

8. What was the key rationale for investing with Madoff?
 - The reasons that led us to approve various investment vehicles for investment within the scope of our hedge fund mandates essentially relates to the perceived attractive investment opportunity offered and the highly recognized pedigree of the manager, Madoff, through his extensive reach and involvement in the financial services industry.

 - From the outset, our analysts spent significant time understanding and following the strategy and the manager. Madoff’s split-strike conversion strategy offered stable returns with a long and audited trackrecord. The downside to the strategy seemed very limited in the sense that around the core investment in S&P 100 stocks he sold out-of-the-money calls and used proceeds to buy out-of-the-money puts, thus creating a range which effectively limits both losses and profits. This strategy was therefore also very liquid.

 - Furthermore, due to his significant volume size as a broker/dealer, we were assured that he had some visibility as to the momentum of the markets, allowing him to implement a bearish or bullish position within the parameters of the above-mentioned loss and profit limits. The outcome, proven by the long track record, audits and regulatory oversight, showed a compelling investment opportunity with stable returns, limited volatility and good liquidity, which we deemed appropriate to reduce overall volatility within a balanced portfolio.

 - The various companies within the Madoff structure are regulated by the SEC, CFTC, FINRA as well as the FSA in the UK. These regulators performed regular audits with no material findings, contributing to our comfort with the manager, which was essential to approving the fund from a structural risk viewpoint.

9. Consistency of returns: was it too good to be true?

 - Madoff was not betting on markets going up or down.

 - With his split-strike approach, his system told him when to activate it and the rest of the time he was only invested in US treasuries.

 - Our expectation for the returns is largely what they have been because systematic strategy predicated on his position as a market maker, seeing market volume, having data going back over the years, having technology to produce signals to indicate when to get in and out.

 - This strategy was not supposed to generate outsized returns but stable returns and a good proxy for the expected returns was 2-3 times the risk-free rate (high single digit).

10. What was the size of Madoff’s business?
 - Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC had USD 700 mn of equity capital.
 - Madoff had 200 employees, with 100 people in trading, 50 in technology, and 50 in the back office.
 - 170 people in New York and 30 in London.
 - Madoff securities represented +/-10% of NYSE trading volume.
 - The auditors of the firm were Friehling & Horowitz (US) and KPMG (UK).
 - 12 people are dedicated to the split strike conversion strategy, lead by Bernard Madoff.
 - Bernard Madoff sat on many reputable boards (NASDAQ, Depository Trust and Clearing Corp., Securities Industry Association).

11. What about the non-segregation of investment management, executing broker and custodian functions?
 - We identified this as a risk of the investment from a structural risk perspective but found comfort in two mitigating elements: his status as a large and reputable broker/dealer which was subject to routine SEC and FINRA regulatory audits and Madoff’s longstanding reputation in building Wall Street’s financial markets infrastructure (through his work with NASDAQ, the NSCC, and the DTCC).
 - Madoff is a regulated broker/dealer executing trades and an investment advisor to the vehicles, thus it seemed to make sense that Madoff would have had the custody and be its own prime broker.
 - The investment vehicles managed by Madoff were separate legal entities with their own administrator and auditor, all large and reputable firms as highlighted under the point 3 of this document. The auditors of the investment vehicles provided us with clean opinions and attestations of their annual verifications.

12. Was Madoff only getting paid on commissions?
 - Madoff was predominantly a broker/dealer and as such was paid on commissions from the trades he was initiating and conducting.

13. And UBP’s retrocession from Bernard Madoff Investment Securities LLC?
 - UBP did not get any retrocession from Bernard Madoff Investment Securities LLC nor from the various nvestment vehicles managed by Madoff (as listed above).

14. What about Madoff’s auditors?
 - Madoff’s auditors Friehling & Horowitz were accredited by the SEC and all the investment vehicles were audited by the largest auditing firms. Despite the supposedly size weakness of Madoff’s auditors, the SEC has each year renewed its approval; SEC reports on the firm were regularly made available.

15. How was the NAV calculated?
 - The Bank relied on the NAV calculation made by the third party funds to the extent this calculation was checked by the funds' administrators, custodians and auditors.
 - Although Ascot had their NAVs calculated in house, it was possible to compare it against Fairfield Sentry’s, M-Invest’s and Kingate’s which benefited from an independent calculation of NAV’s.
 - Regarding M-Invest, Citco as the administrator, received daily trade tickets and provided us with monthly statements and NAVs.

16. Did it seem unlikely that the S&P 100 options market that Madoff purported to trade could handle the size of the combined investment vehicles?
 - Madoff traded all large cap stocks on the exchange (top 100) with a market cap close to USD 5 tn and an average daily volume of approximately USD 20 bn.
 - He traded OTC options on the S&P 100 Index.
 - Madoff was more focused on OTC derivatives so that you might not see a corresponding cover in the listed markets to his options. His counterparties were large financial institutions dealing under ISDA agreements.

17. What about due diligence and meetings over the years?
 - Various due diligence visits were repeatedly conducted at different levels – Madoff, Fairfield and Ascot.
 - Structural Risk Analysis considered the ongoing regulatory supervision of SEC and FINRA as mitigating factors. Madoff was SEC registered and reviewed twice a year. In addition to the broker dealer activity, Madoff’s investment management activity has been registered with the SEC since 2006 when the SEC wanted to force all money managers to register; when the SEC lifted this constraint later on, Madoff did not de-register as many other managers did subsequently. Again we took additional comfort in this approach.
 - We have met with Bernard Madoff and various principals several times at Madoff’s office, twice within the last year and have had numerous conversations in between.
 - Fairfield Sentry reviews were conducted in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
 - Several Senior Investment Professionals met with Madoff in 2004 and 2007; Structural Risk Analysis had a full review in 2006 and recently in 2008 with Madoff himself.
 - We had insight into the portfolio through the M-Invest investment vehicle.
- transparency into trades;
- review of the statements for reasonableness;
 - Citco and PwC in their administrator and auditor capacities for the investment vehicles visited Madoff’s premises periodically.

18. Some of our peers were not invested – why did we pursue this investment idea?
 - As a FoF, you also want to differentiate yourself with different holdings and this investment had been appealing.
 - Through M-Invest, Citco as the administrator received individual trade tickets on which we were copied. This transparency gave us an additional element of comfort.

19. Is there any chance you will recoup assets from this fraud?
 - Given the limited amount of information available to us at the moment, it is not possible for us to predict the outcome of this situation.
 - Our external legal counsels are currently evaluating this situation to determine our appropriate legal course of action.

20. What implications will this have for the hedge fund industry?
 - This particular case was a situation where investors and the investment vehicles were victims of a massive fraud perpetrated by Madoff. Madoff was the manager of various hedge funds (Ascot, Fairfield, etc).
 - This would be no different than investors losing an investment in, for example, Enron.
 - The hedge fund industry has faced in 2008 a very challenging year, but no different from just about every other participant in the financial markets.
 - This situation could put further media pressure on hedge funds. That being said, hedge funds should be seen as the victim, not perpetrator or cause of the fraud.

21. Are there any funds you are invested with that you are now concerned about after what has happened to Madoff?
 - These events reinforce the need for manager diversification.
 - Irrespective of Madoff, since the middle of 2007, we have increased our level of scepticism with the hedge fund managers on our approved list and are reassessing our convictions on a continuous basis, taking action whenever we deem it necessary.
 - One has to emphasize the nature of this massive fraud, probably the largest and longest in history and which spanned over the longest period of time.

22. What is UBP’s financial strength?
 - Investors should rest assured that this affair has not affected the Bank. Our financial robustness and the stability of our balance sheet are of the highest order: not only do we have a Tier 1 ratio of 16% in terms of shareholder equity, which is twice the minimum legal requirement of 8%, but we have also had a constant balance-sheet structure over several years and no investments at risk. The Bank does not have any own-account investments in the Madoff group. Credit exposure to Madoff’s investment vehicles in diversified client portfolios is immaterial.

Source.

Filed under  //   Bernard Madoff   UBP   Union Bancaire PrivĂ©e  

Comments [0]

Is the Medicine Worse Than the Illness?

It is a sorry place at which we Americans find ourselves this none-too-festive holiday season. The biggest names on Wall Street have gone to their rewards or into partnership with the U.S. Treasury. Foreigners stare wide-eyed from across the waters. A $50 billion Ponzi scheme (baited with, of all things in this age of excess, the promise of low, spuriously predictable returns)? Interest rates over which tiny Japanese rates fairly tower? Regulatory policy seemingly set by a weather vane? A Federal Reserve that can't make up its mind: Is it in the business of central banking or of central planning? And to think -- our disappointed foreign friends mutter -- all of these enormities taking place under a Republican administration.

Trust itself entered a bear market in 2008, complementing and perhaps surpassing the selloffs in stocks, mortgages and commodities. Never to be confused with angels, we humans seem to outdo ourselves when money is on the line. So it is that Bernard Madoff, supposed pillar of the community, stands accused of perpetrating one of the greatest hoaxes since John Law discovered the inflationary possibilities of paper money in the early 18th century.

Barely nudging Mr. Madoff out of the top of the news was the Federal Reserve's announcement last Tuesday that it intends to debase its own paper money. The year just ending has been a time of confusion as much as it has been of loss. But here, at least, was the bright beam of clarity. Specifically, the Fed pledged to print dollars in unlimited volume and to trim its funds rate, if necessary, all the way to zero. Nor would it rest on its laurels even at an interest rate low enough to drive the creditor class back to work. It would, on the contrary, "continue to consider ways of using its balance sheet to further support credit markets and economic activity."

Wall Street that day did handsprings. Even government securities prices raced higher, as if, somehow, Treasury bonds were not denominated in the currency with which the Fed had announced its intention to paper the face of the earth. Economic commentators praised the central bank's determination to fight deflation -- that is, to reinstate inflation. All hands, including President-elect Obama, seemed to agree that wholesale money-printing was the answer to the nation's prayers.

One market, only, registered a protest. The Fed's declaration of inflationary intent knocked the dollar for a loop against gold and foreign currencies. In many different languages and from many time zones came the question, "Tell me, again, now that the dollar yields so little, why do we own it?"

It was on Oct. 6, 1979, that then-Fed Chairman Paul A. Volcker vowed to print less money to bring down inflation. So doing, he closed one monetary era and opened another. With Tuesday's promise to print much more money, the Federal Reserve of Ben S. Bernanke has opened its own new era. Whether Mr. Bernanke's policy of debasement will lead to as happy an outcome as that which crowned the Volcker anti-inflation initiative is, however, doubtful. Whatever the road to riches might be paved with, it isn't little green pieces of paper stamped "legal tender."

Our troubles, over which we will certainly prevail, stem from a basic contradiction. The dollar is the world's currency, yet the Fed is America's central bank. Mr. Bernanke's remit is to promote low inflation, high employment and solvent finance -- in the 50 states. He wishes the Chinese well, of course, and the French and the Singaporeans and all the rest besides, but they don't pay his salary.

They do, however, buy the U.S. Treasury's bonds, which frames the emerging American dilemma. If the Fed is going to create boatloads of depreciating, non-yielding dollar bills, who will absorb them? Who will finance the Obama administration's looming titanic fiscal deficits? Who will finance America's annual surplus of consumption over production (after 25 more or less continuous years, almost a national trait)? Inflation is a kind of governmentally sanctioned white-collar crime. Every crime needs a dupe. Now that the Fed has announced its plan to deceive, where will it find its victims?

Mr. Bernanke has good reason to worry about the economy. We all do. In the boom, a superabundance of mispriced debt led countless people down innumerable blind investment alleys. E-Z credit financed bubbles in real estate, commodities, mortgage-backed securities and a myriad of other assets. It punished saving and encouraged speculation. Imagine a man at the top of a stepladder. He is up on his toes reaching for something. Call that something "yield." Call the stepladder "leverage." Now kick the ladder away. The man falls, pieces of debt crashing to the floor around him. The Fed, watching this preventable accident unfold, rushes to the scene too late. Not only did Bernanke et al. not see it coming, but they actually egged the man higher. You will recall the ultra-low interest rates of the early 2000s. The Fed imposed them to speed recovery from an earlier accident, this one involving a man up on a stepladder reaching for technology stocks.

The underlying cause of these mishaps is the dollar and the central bank that manipulates it. In ages past, it was so simple. A central banker had one job only, and that was to assure that the currency under his care was exchangeable into gold at the lawfully stipulated rate. It was his office to make the public indifferent between currency or gold. In a crisis, the banker's job description expanded to permit emergency lending against good collateral at a high rate of interest. But no self-respecting central banker did much more. Certainly, none arrogated to himself the job of steering the economy by fixing an interest rate. None, I believe, had an economist on the payroll. None facilitated deficit spending by buying up his government's bonds. None cared about the average level of prices, which rose in wartime and sank in peacetime. It sank in peacetime because technological progress and the opening of new regions to agricultural production made merchandise and commodities cheaper and more abundant.

Not everyone agreed that these arrangements were heaven-sent. In comparison to the rigor of the gold standard, paper money seemed, to many, an intelligent and forgiving alternative. In 1878, a committee of the House of Representatives was formed to investigate the causes of the suffering of working people in the depression that was five years old and counting. Not a few witnesses pleaded for the creation of more greenbacks. They asked that the government not go through with its plan to return to the gold standard in 1879. But the nation did return to gold -- it had financed the Civil War with paper money -- and the depression ended in the very same year.

Gold is a hard master, and a capricious one, too, insofar as growth in the world's monetary base depends on the enterprise of mining engineers. But, as we have seen lately, there is no caprice like the caprice of sleep-deprived Mandarins improvising a monetary solution to a credit crisis (or, for that matter, of fully rested Mandarins setting interest rates by the lights of their econometric models).

The times were hard in the 1870s and, for that matter, again in the 1890s, but Americans repeatedly spurned the Populist cries for a dollar you didn't have to dig out of the ground but could rather print up by the job lot. "If the Government can create money," as a hard-money propagandist put it in an 1892 broadside entitled "Cheap Money," "why should not it create all that everybody wants? Why should anybody work for a living?" And -- in a most prescient rhetorical question -- he went on to ask, "Why should we have any limit put to the volume of our currency?"

A couple of panics later, the Federal Reserve came along -- the year was 1913. Promoters of the legislation to establish America's new central bank protested that they wanted no soft currency. The dollar would continue to be exchangeable into gold at the customary rate of $20.67 an ounce. But, they added, under the Fed's enlightened stewardship, the currency would become "expansive." Accordion-fashion, the number of dollars in circulation would expand or contract according to the needs of commerce and agriculture.

Elihu Root, Republican senator from New York, thought he smelled a rat. Anticipating the credit inflations of the future and recalling the disturbances of the past, Mr. Root attacked the bill in this fashion: "Little by little, business is enlarged with easy money. With the exhaustless reservoir of the Government of the United States furnishing easy money, the sales increase, the businesses enlarge, more new enterprises are started, the spirit of optimism pervades the community.

"Bankers are not free from it," Mr. Root went on. "They are human. The members of the Federal Reserve board will not be free of it. They are human....Everyone is making money. Everyone is growing rich. It goes up and up, the margin between costs and sales continually growing smaller as a result of the operation of inevitable laws, until finally someone whose judgment was bad, someone whose capacity for business was small, breaks; and as he falls he hits the next brick in the row, and then another, and then another, and down comes the whole structure.

"That, sir," Mr. Root concluded, "is no dream. That is the history of every movement of inflation since the world's business began, and it is the history of many a period in our own country. That is what happened to greater or less degree before the panic of 1837, of 1857, of 1873, of 1893 and of 1907. The precise formula which the students of economic movements have evolved to describe the reason for the crash following the universal process is that when credit exceeds the legitimate demands of the country the currency becomes suspected and gold leaves the country."

Little did Mr. Root suspect that the dollar would lose its gold backing altogether -- that, starting in 1971, there would be nothing behind it more than the good intentions of the U.S. government and (somewhat more substantively) the demonstrated strength of the U.S. economy. Still less could he have guessed that the world would nonetheless fall in love with that uncollateralized piece of paper or -- even more astoundingly -- that the United States would enjoy so great a reservoir of good will that it would be allowed to borrow its way to a net international investment position of minus $2.44 trillion ($17.64 trillion of foreign assets held by Americans vs. $20.08 trillion of American assets held by foreigners). "It goes up and up," Mr. Root said of the inflationary cycle, but just how high he could not have dreamt.

Knowledge of the precepts of classical central banking prepared no one to understand, much less to anticipate, the Fed's conduct in this credit crackup. The central bank is lending freely, all right, but not at the stipulated "high" interest rate. As a matter of fact, it is starting to lend at a rate below which there is no positive rate. The gold standard was objective. Modern monetary management is subjective (under Alan Greenspan, it was intuitive). The gold standard was rules-based. The 21st century Fed goes with what works -- or seems to work. What it hopes is going to work for the fellow who fell off the stepladder is more debt and more dollars. Just how much of each can be found every Thursday evening on the Fed's own Web site. Open up form H4.1 and prepare to be amazed. Since Labor Day, the Fed's assets have zoomed to $2.31 trillion from $905.7 billion. And what is the significance of this stunning rate of asset growth? Simply this: The Fed pays for its assets with freshly made dollars. It conjures them into existence on a computer; "printing" is a figure of speech.

In this crisis, the Fed's assets have grown much faster than its capital. The truth is that the Federal Reserve is itself a highly leveraged financial institution. The flagship branch of the 12-bank system, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, shows assets of $1.3 trillion and capital of just $12.2 billion. Its leverage ratio, a mere 0.9%, is less than one-third of that prescribed for banks in the private sector. Such a thin film of protection would present no special risk if the bank managed by Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary-designate, owned only short-dated Treasurys. However, the mystery meat acquired from Bear Stearns and AIG foots to $66.6 billion. A writedown of just 18.3% in the value of those risky portfolios would erase the New York Fed's capital account. In congressional testimony eight years ago, Laurence Meyer, then a Fed governor, tried to allay any such concerns (which then must have seemed remote, indeed). "Creditors of central banks...are at no risk of a loss because the central bank can always create additional currency to meet any obligation denominated in that currency," he soothingly reminded his listeners.

Yes, today's policy makers allow, there are risks to "creating" a trillion or so of new currency every few months, but that is tomorrow's worry. On today's agenda is a deflationary abyss. Frostbite victims tend not to dwell on the summertime perils of heatstroke.

But the seasons of finance are unpredictable. Prescience is rare enough in the private sector. It is almost unheard of in Washington. The credit troubles took the Fed unawares. So, likely, will the outbreak of the next inflation. Already the stars are aligned for a doozy. Not only the Fed, but also the other leading central banks are frantically ramping up money production. Simultaneously, miners and oil producers are ramping down commodity production -- as is, for instance, is Rio Tinto, the heavily encumbered mining giant, which the other day disclosed 14,000 layoffs and a $5 billion cutback in capital expenditure. Come the economic recovery, resource producers will certainly increase output. But it is far less certain that, once the cycle turns, the central banks will punctually tighten.

The public has been slow to anger in this costliest and scariest of post World War II financial crises. Wall Street and the debt ratings agencies have come in for well-deserved castigation. But pointing fingers rarely find the Federal Reserve, whose low, low interest rates helped to set house prices levitating in the first place.

After Mr. Bernanke gets a good night's sleep, he should be called to account for once again cutting interest rates at the expense of the long-suffering (and possibly hungry) savers. He should be asked to explain how the central-banking methods of the paper-dollar era represent any improvement, either in practice or theory, over the rigor, elegance, simplicity and predictability of the gold standard. He should be directed to read aloud the text of critique by Elihu Root and explain where, if at all, the old gentleman went wrong. Finally, he should be directed to put himself into the shoes of a foreign holder of U.S. dollars. "Tell us, Mr. Bernanke," a congressman might consider asking him, "if you had the choice, would you hold dollars? And may I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that you are under oath?"

By James Grant, the editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, the author most recently of Mr. Market Miscalculates. Source.

Filed under  //   Ben Bernanke   Bernard Madoff   Federal Reserve   James Grant  

Comments [0]