Investments

Mr. R. Allen Stanford

Just when the financial world is trying to come to grips with the unravelling Madoff financial scandal and Ponzi scheme, another major financial scandal is breaking ! This time also from The US in the form of Texas billionaire R. Allen Stanford whose Stanford Financial Group is now under close scrutiny by the SEC and they have now Mr Stanford and two other persons with major financial fraud to the amount of 8 billion US$.

Forbes.com reports :

Hoping to halt what it called “a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world,” the Securities and Exchange Commissioncharged billionaire R. Allen Stanford and other executives at his massive financial services company, Stanford Financial Group, with operating a multibillion-dollar fraudulent investment scheme.

In a complaint filed early Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Dallas, the SEC alleged Antigua-based Stanford International Bank (SIB) fabricated investment returns in order to market and sell high-yielding certificates of deposits.

Certainly the method Mr Stanford and his partners went about their scheme has strong resemblances with Mr Madoff’s as the Forbes article highlights :

The complaint charged SIB with selling approximately $8 billion of CDs to investors by promising improbable and unsubstantiated interest rates.

The bank falsely claimed it was able to pay high interest rates because of its unique investment strategy, which allowed it to achieve double-digit returns on its investments for the past 15 years, according to the complaint.

Earlier Tuesday federal agents raided Stanford Financial Group’s offices in Houston. A sign hanging outside the office reads: “Now under management of a receiver.”

The SEC says it has frozen Stanford’s assets. He had no comment.

LA Times also looks  into Mr. Stanford’s “”unique investment strategy”" :

“Stanford and the close circle of family and friends with whom he runs his businesses perpetrated a massive fraud based on false promises and fabricated historical return data to prey on investors,” said Linda Chatman Thomsen, director of the SEC’s enforcement division. “We are moving quickly and decisively in this enforcement action to stop this fraudulent conduct and preserve assets for investors.”

The SEC called Stanford’s promises of high-interest returns on his bank’s certificates “improbable and unsubstantiated.” The 25-page complaint filed in federal court in Dallas cast doubt on Stanford’s claims of a “unique investment strategy” that allowed the bank to achieve double-digit returns on its investments over the last 15 years.

The US investigation will most likely be complicated by the fact that Mr Stanford’s entity is domiciled in Antigua but that will not deter the SEC from pursuing the case according to LA Times :

It wasn’t immediately clear how much of the Stanford empire would be subject to the SEC action. Federal investigators raided his Houston offices and shut them down, but much of the financial services group is based abroad, primarily on the tiny Caribbean island of Antigua, part of the two-island country of Antigua & Barbuda.

Stanford Group is regulated and audited by the Financial Services Regulatory Commission of Antigua & Barbuda. Commission Chairman Leroy King told Reuters news service Tuesday that he hadn’t initiated any special probe of Stanford’s operations because the commission hadn’t received any complaints from island citizens.

“We have no credible information coming to us to say that they are not sound,” King said.

However, news agencies later reported a run on the Bank of Antigua, a Stanford entity that was not named in the SEC complaint.

Stanford’s whereabouts were unknown. He has homes in Texas, Antigua & Barbuda and the U.S. Virgin Islands. A duty officer for the U.S. Marshals Service declined to say whether a warrant had been issued for Stanford’s arrest or whether the billionaire had been taken into custody.

Stanford Financial Group has offices in 14 U.S. cities in addition to its operations in the Caribbean.

Neither Brian Bertsch, a spokesman for Stanford Group, nor Rose Romero, the SEC’s Fort Worth regional director, responded to The Times’ inquiries about what authority the U.S. financial watchdog might wield over Stanford’s foreign-based assets.

Ironically, Stanford Group issued a calming letter to its investors in December 2008 amidst the height of the Madoff scandal according to LA Times :

In December, Stanford Group initiated a monthly newsletter to investors to calm their concerns over world markets and the failure of Madoff’s alleged $50-billion Ponzi scheme.

“We want our depositors to know that SIBL had no direct or indirect exposure to any of Madoff’s investments,” Stanford’s 30,000 clients were told. “Just as the bank had no direct or indirect exposure to the securitized debt or subprime meltdown.”

Where this breaking scandal ends no one knows but the timing could not have been worse for the US and its struggling financial markets and scene with investor confidence already at an all-time low. This blog will monitor this case even though this one is a mere US$ 8 billion !

Equity Investment, Investment Company, Investment Fund, Investment Management, US Investments Madoff Scandal, Ponzi scheme, R. Allen Stanford, The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox

 

The Bernard Madoff investment fraud scandal is still evolving with Mr Madoff having been brought before a judge in NYC recently and lately with an open admission of guilt by the SEC Chairman Christopher Cox.

This post highlights his admission of lack of control and investigation and considers what the experts feel about the same.

In a MarketWatch article on the subject Mr Cox is quoted for saying :

In a statement Cox said an initial probe into how Madoff’s alleged fraud remained undetected revealed “multiple failures” by the regulator to thoroughly investigate the former Nasdaq chairman and his firm.

“The Commission has learned that credible and specific allegations regarding Mr Madoff’s financial wrongdoing, going back to at least 1999, were repeatedly brought to the attention of SEC staff, but were never recommended to the Commission for action,” Cox said in the statement.

He’s revolted by what he found out, but it’s also in his interest to be revolted,” said James Cox, a securities law professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina who isn’t related to the SEC chairman. “He’s taken a lot of heat over SEC enforcement.”

Cox said he has ordered a full review to investigate the past allegations against Madoff and why they were not found to be credible. The probe, to be led by the regulator’s inspector general, will also look at all staff contact and relationships with the Madoff family and firm and whether they had any impact on decisions by SEC staff.

Equity Investment, Investment Banking, Investment Company, Investment Fund, Investment Management, Investment News, Investment Securities, Investment Services, US Investments Bernard Madoff, financial scam, Insider trading, The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

As if it isn’t enough for private as well as institutional investors world-wide to have the worst financial crisis upon them in decades, if not ever, to deal with, the world markets were rocked last week by the shocking exposure of the Bernard Madoff investment fund.

Investors are now scrambling to assess an alleged fraud up to US Dollar 50 billion and every type of investor is involved and exposed it appears, many of them high-profile (click here for a list over investors exposed). Mr Madoff’s Investment Securities firm is supposedly, and in the founder’s own words, “all just one big lie” and “basically, a giant Ponzi scheme”.

These investors are now angrily asking each other and more importantly the regulatory authorities : How could this be allowed to happen ?

This post looks into some of the prevailing arguments to this scandalous story of fraud, lack of control  and personal greed.

Bloomberg reports that The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) apparently never inspected the firm:

U.S. regulators never inspected Bernard Madoff’s investment advisory business, alleged to be a Ponzi scheme that cost investors $50 billion, after he subjected it to oversight two years ago, people familiar with the case said.

The Securities and Exchange Commission hadn’t examined Madoff’s books since he registered the unit with the agency in September 2006, two people said, declining to be identified because the reviews aren’t public. The SEC tries to inspect advisers at least every five years and to scrutinize newly registered firms in their first year, former agency officials and securities lawyers said.

Investors and analysts are shocked that a scam of this proportion could be allowed to go on for so many years and the article quotes a leading expert:

“Given what the SEC claims is the magnitude of the fraud, this is something you would hope an inspection would have uncovered,” said Mercer Bullard, a University of Mississippi law professor and former mutual-fund attorney at the SEC. “It’s hard to imagine a fraud of this alleged size not being accompanied by significant and pervasive compliance problems.”

CNBC has an interesting storyon a firm, Aksia, that during its due diligence of Madoff’s firm and fund discovered several reasons for not engaging in business with the company:

The firm, named Aksiaand run by Jim Vos and Jake Waltour, based its warning on several red flags it discovered during an investigation. Those included ….

1. The Madoff investment strategy, called “split-strike conversion,” is known to be very volatile; it involves trading huge positions around options expirations. Despite that volatility, its returns over the past decade were an amazingly stable 8-10 percent.

2. Aksia discovered a 2005 letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission from a financial advisor who supposedly studied Madoff’s operations. That letter asserted Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. There was also a Wall Street Journal story at the time about one of the Madoff’s associated “feeder funds” getting shut down in 1992.

3. Madoff’s strategy was bizarre: He said he would move $13 billion in various trades at once, yet Aksia couldn’t find traders who saw his trades. There were also no regulatory filings. And family members were running the firm.

The Wall Street Journal points to even more red flags having been raised towards Madoff’s investment fund:

Harry Markopolos, who years ago worked for a rival firm, researched Mr. Madoff’s stock-options strategy and was convinced the results likely weren’t real.

“Madoff Securities is the world’s largest Ponzi Scheme,” Mr. Markopolos, wrote in a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 1999.

Mr. Markopolos pursued his accusations over the past nine years, dealing with both the New York and Boston bureaus of the SEC, according to documents he sent to the SEC reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The article continue and quotes another expert, Chris Addy, for saying that there were also conflicts of interest involved:

Conflicts of interest also proved a concern. “There was no independent custodian involved who could prove the existence of assets,” says Chris Addy, founder of Montreal-based Castle Hall Alternatives, which vets hedge funds for clients seeking to invest money. “There’s a clear and blatant conflict of interest with a manager using a related-party broker-dealer. Madoff is enormously unusual in that this is not a structure I’ve seen.”

And the article goes on:

Recent securities filings showed that the firm held less than $1 billion of shares, raising questions about where the rest of the money was. Some of Mr. Madoff’s investors say they were told the firm put the bulk of its money in cash-equivalents at the end of each quarter, explaining why the public filings showed so few shares, but raising questions about where the proof was for all the cash.

Until at least November, 2006, the firm, which claimed to manage billions of dollars and be among the largest market makers in the stock market, used as its auditor Friehling & Horowitz, a small New City, New York firm.

Mr. Vos says his firm hired a private investigator and determined that the accounting firm had only three employees, one of whom was 78 and lived in Florida, and another was a secretary, and that it operated in a 13 foot by 18 foot office. His firm felt that was too small an operation to keep an eye on such a large firm operating a complicated trading strategy. A message left for the accounting firm was not returned.

Finally check out this video from YouTube on the scandal:

This post will continue to follow this amazing story ofd what could turn out to be the largest investment scam in decades if not ever.

Equity Investment, How it all works, Investment Company, Investment Fund, Investment Management, Investment News, Investment Securities Bernard Madoff, Fraud, Investment Scam, The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)