home

SEC Dropped The Ball On Madoff

Does it really take an investigation to answer the big question here?

The Securities and Exchange Commission said Tuesday night that it had missed repeated opportunities to discover what may be the largest financial fraud in history, a Ponzi scheme whose losses could run as high as $50 billion. The commission said it received credible allegations about the scheme at least nine years ago and will immediately open an internal investigation to examine why it had failed to pursue them aggressively.

SEC Chair Christopher Cox is astonished to learn that the commission failed to respond aggressively to allegations of Wall Street executive Bernard Madoff's "financial wrongdoing." He shouldn't be. The regulatory philosophy of the Bush administration (regulators should be helpful, not adversarial, in their oversight of the regulated industry) has always been an excuse for lax enforcement -- and it's a philosophy Cox embraced. That's why President Bush gave him his job.

[more ...]

Christopher Cox, a Republican United States representative from Orange County, Calif., and a Republican, was sworn in as the 28th chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2005.

“As a champion of the free-enterprise system in Congress, Chris Cox knows that a free economy is built on trust,” President Bush said when he nominated Mr. Cox, who in his 17 years in the House was known as an ally of Silicon Valley companies and the accounting industry. He ... fought against accounting rules that would have toughened tax treatment of executive stock options. And he sponsored legislation to limit shareholders' rights in lawsuits.

Of course, if the SEC really had "credible allegations about the scheme at least nine years ago," those allegations predated not only Cox but the Bush administration. It wouldn't be surprising if that's true, as the Clinton administration made a point of being "business friendly." The complete abrogation of responsibility for regulatory oversight is nonetheless a hallmark of the Bush administration. It is the inevitable product of Bush's belief that "a free economy is built on trust" rather than meaningful oversight.

On paper, the idea that regulators should help regulated industries understand and comply with regulations sounds reasonable. In practice, the coziness of a "helper" relationship too often interferes with the regulator's central mission: to assure that regulated industries obey the law, and to punish them when they don't. While businesses whine (sometimes legitimately) that regulators are too antagonistic, filling an agency with people who are allied with, or drawn from, the regulated industry risks shoddy enforcement of administrative laws.

Suppose police officers adopted the same attitude: we're here to help you, not to get you into trouble. The officer encountering a drug dealer would patiently explain that it's illegal to sell crack and would encourage the dealer to sell aspirin instead. Bank robbers would be told that you have to have an account at a bank before a withdrawal can be made. Perhaps we would live in a nicer world if the police helped criminals obey the law instead of enforcing the law, but the public would have little patience with that attitude.

Ideally, for both regulatory and law enforcement agencies, there is a middle ground between the role of "helper" and the role of "enforcer." In the Bush administration, regulatory agencies have been in bed with the industries they regulate. Sometimes literally:

One of the commission’s investigative teams that had examined the Madoff firm was headed by a lawyer named Eric Swanson, who served for 10 years as a lawyer at the commission and left in 2006 while he was an assistant director of the office of compliance inspections and examinations in Washington.

In 2007, Mr. Swanson married Shana Madoff, a niece of Bernard L. Madoff and daughter of his brother, Peter Madoff, the firm’s chief compliance officer. Ms. Madoff is the firm’s compliance attorney.

We're told by Swanson's spokesperson that Swanson’s “romantic relationship with his wife began years after the compliance team he helped supervise made an inquiry about Bernard Madoff’s securities operations.” Whether or not that's true, the SEC dropped the ball when it came to Madoff's operation.

Mr. Madoff kept several sets of books and false documents and lied to regulators when they questioned him in previous examinations of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, Mr. Cox said. Investigators never used subpoena powers to obtain information, but rather “relied on information voluntarily produced by Mr. Madoff and his firm,” Mr. Cox said.

In other words, they trusted Madoff to tell them the truth. This is what happens when an administration believes "a free economy is built on trust." Does the Reagan philosophy -- "trust but verify" -- apply only to arms control agreements?

Madoff appears to be cooperating with prosecutors.

The first indication that Mr. Madoff might be talking to authorities came at midmorning, when a federal judge delayed a bond hearing for Mr. Madoff that had originally been set for 2 p.m. Tuesday afternoon. At the request of federal prosecutors, the hearing was rescheduled for the same time on Wednesday.

If the evidence against Madoff is as strong as it appears to be, cooperation might be his only ticket to a shorter prison sentence.

< On Torture: The Will Of The People | Fox Gives Sheriff Joe Arpaio His Own Show >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    To be honest (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    I'm not even sure how much of this can be attributed to Bush's lax attitude towards regulation.  In my practice, I've dealt with many of the largest securities frauds and Ponzi schemes over the last decade plus, and I've never seen the SEC as a particularly impressive investigatory force - at least not on the big stuff.  Even Arthur Levitt, who was appropriately hailed as a great advocate for investors, didn't exactly preside over a crack investigatory team.

    It seems like all the really big frauds have been busted by plaintiffs' lawyers, by the auditors, by the press... or more often, simply because the money runs out.  I recall one major fraud involving a European company that was widely viewed as a celebrated success, until the Wall Street Journal sent a reporter to Thailand to meet with some of their customers and found out the "customers" were actually vacant apartments in the red-light district.  (Somehow a Big Five accounting firm failed to figure this out!)  You won't ever see the SEC conducting that kind of investigation, they simply don't have the resources.

    CNBC Is Running A Program Called ... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by santarita on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    American Greed.  The program featured a religious investment Ponzi scheme (Greater Ministries) that began to unravel when an IRS agent became suspicious about the huge amount of funds flowing through this religious group.  The AG's office for Alabama got involved as well because the group was selling investments without registering in the state.  (The investments were guaranteed by God.)  An attorney for an investor tipped off the AG.  So it seems that the IRS, states and the bar can somewhat fill the void.  

    I wouldn't, however, let  Bush's regulatory philosophy entirely off the hook.  It is very easy for me to believe that the warnings about Madoff fell on deaf ears because of that regulatory philosophy.  Maybe the SEC couldn't or wouldn't do anything but couldn't it alert other agencies to the complaints?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:24:42 PM EST
    there is little question that the SEC dropped the ball on this one.  They were getting complaints about Madoff as long ago as 1999, and the only action they took was that in 2005 they forced him to register the investment arm of his operation so they could, ostensibly, keep a closer eye on it.  But then they never even did an exam!

    So I'm certainly not making excuses for them.  I'm going to wait for the IG's report, though, before I form an opinion about how much of the problem is really attributable to a different philosophy at the top.

    Parent

    The IG Report Will Be... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by santarita on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    interesting, without a doubt.  Especially since the report will in all likelihood be forthcoming after the inauguration.  

    I almost feel sorry for Chris Cox.  This Ponzi scheme was going on for longer than his tenure.  It just happened to explode during his tenure.  And it is his misfortune that the explosion has affected a lot of people like Mort Zuckerman who can make a lot of trouble.  

    On the other hand Cox isn't too be pitied too much.  What affirmative steps did he take to avoid the meltdown?  Maybe the SEC didn't have all of the authorities it needed but I didn't see him up on Capitol Hill asking for more.

    Parent

    Didn't (none / 0) (#23)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:26:48 PM EST
    the Reagan administration make significant cuts in the SEC's staff? Further, hasn't restoring SEC staff levels been neglected or fought in all the years since?

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:16:34 PM EST
    Before my time.  But frankly, the markets were so primitive in those days compared to what we have now, it's like the SEC had an entirely different mission back then.  Or at least you'd like to think so.

    Parent
    This is the result of Reagonomics (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by BernieO on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    Reagan did all he could to do away with regulation. When that was not possible he made sure there was not enough money to staff the regulatory agencies properly. The result was the S&L meltdown but we did not learn the lesson and have kept going down the path to unregulated capitalism.

    I heard today on NPR that the SEC makes enough money through corporate fees to be self supporting with a more than adequate number of staff, but that Congress refuses to let them keep the money they generate and doles out a lot less than the agency needs. This started with free market fundamentalist Phil Gramm.

    Reagonomics posits that the market will take care of everything. I guess you could make a case that that is what is happening now, but the destabilization we are experiencing, while arguably good for capitalism, is very dangerous for democracy. It is time we go back to putting democracy first.

    The destabilization is not any (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:33:53 PM EST
    good for capitalism either actually.  We used to be the best place in the world to park money in investments largely because of the stability and security that our government regulations and oversight provided.  That is not an advantage that we want to be without in this current financial crisis.  Personally, I would not invest my money in the US until they clean up the government's act.

    Parent
    After the collapse of Communisim (none / 0) (#9)
    by hairspray on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:36:55 PM EST
    the free marketeer were giddy with joy.  To them the collapse proved that capitalism, especially un-fettered capitalism, had won the day.  With that the laissez-faire gang took over and ran over everything in their path. Regulations smacked of a controlled society and we had proven that theory wrong.  Of course no one wanted to talk about totalitarianism and authoritarianism as elements of the USSR brand of Communism and how that contributed to its demise.  It was too easy herald raw capitalism as the best system in the world. That was the climate of the 80's and much of the '90's. Even Clinton had a tough time trying to tame the beast.

    Parent
    Yes, and starve the beast (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    is part of the plan.  Minimal resources for enforcement.

    Parent
    My first reaction when I saw the (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:52:06 AM EST
    headline the other night (aside from WTF?!) was "and nobody noticed?!"

    How, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by bocajeff on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:02:28 PM EST
    How and who is going to notice? Everything was working fine. People were getting their money as promised, the investments were doing well...Who was complaining other than competitors? Up until this collapsed every investor was more than happy to be part of the fund (scheme).

    Again, no one noticed should be changed to 'what are they going to notice".

    Parent

    A better Ponzi scheme (none / 0) (#12)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:34:08 PM EST
    would have been actually investing the funds, but just padding the returns.  

    In the end, such things always must come to an end.  (It's the nature of the beast.)  My question is why don't perpetrators of Ponzi schemes ever do the truly smart thing and figure out how to cash in and leave before they are caught?  

    Parent

    They Try, I Think (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by santarita on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:01:16 PM EST
    On the tv program that I watched last night, the perps had developed an escape plan to buy an island off of Honduras and staff it with their own private army.

    But someone like Madoff may have thought that he could keep it going indefinitely - kind of like how the rest of Wall Street thought that housing prices would always increase.  It's shared delusion.

    Parent

    In the beginning (none / 0) (#16)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:24:17 PM EST
    it always seems to be possible for it to go on forever.  But the bigger a pyramid scheme gets, the more likely it will simply collapse from a lack of new "investors" or because it becomes big enough to attract attention.

    The rate victims report scams is ridiculously low.  Who knew that educated, savvy, professional older men (the most statistically likely victim) would rather eat a loss than admit they were swindled?  

    Parent

    Madoff is a New Yorker, right? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by bocajeff on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM EST
    In New York since before Bush came to the Presidency, right? Eliot Spitzer was Attorney General as well as Governor. Chuck Shumer, Hillary Clinton, the Cuomo family, etc....

    If you paint the fraud as a result of Bush or Reagan then you miss the biggest picture. Also, to blame Cox who has been in office for 3 years for something that has been going on for much longer is incredibly naive.

    You have to look at WHY they missed it. There were investigations. The issue is that, if you want to game the system, you can do it for a while. Madoff was caught by his own kids!

    I did work for a company that I know (ok, deeply suspect) is doing something terribly wrong. I warned all the appropriate agencies and they have done their audits and such and have the company has got a clean bill of health. I'm still waiting to see because I just know (ok, deeply suspect) that something is amiss.

    Police Chief Bratton is known for (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by hairspray on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 12:27:26 PM EST
    his systemic approach to lowering the crime rate in New York, first in the transit system and then on the police force.  His theory (something like tipping point) was that if the neighborhood is trashy, some people will move in and take advantage of that, committing crime.  Or as former Chief of San Jose police McNerney has said, crime is most often one of opportunity. So if the enforcements are lax  I consider that a big opportunity.

    Parent
    You're on to something, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by santarita on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    I think.  I don't think all of the people that you named bear much responsibility for this because it wasn't in their specific jurisdiction.   The SEC's role needs to be looked at because complaints were made and red flags were raised.  

    It may be that frauds like this are not preventable by the government.  It may be that the only best way to prevent such fraud is by pounding into investors the notion that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't.  A consistent return of 10% a year regardless of the economy should have caused people to be very wary.  And some firms and people were.  

    Parent

    What! (none / 0) (#24)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST
    It's not within the purview of Schumer, Clinton, etc., to conduct day to day monitoring of financial activities. So why on earth would you include their names in your comment? What purpose does that serve?

    Parent
    Well let's see... (none / 0) (#27)
    by bocajeff on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 07:21:34 PM EST
    If I believe there is wrongdoing going on I will take it to everyone and anyone necessary to see that it can get stopped. If that means the local cop or the Attorney General or anyone in between then so be it.

    Eliot Spitzer was a big, tough on big business kind of guy. The Attorney General has, I believe, some jurisdiction regarding criminality in his/her state.

    That's all.

    It's easy to point fingers and blame the other guy, but the point is that won't help in seeing that this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

    Parent

    mr. madoff (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 04:46:02 PM EST
    had been running this scheme for almost 30 years, per the reports i've read. a risk analysis company's letter to its clients was recently printed in the nyt's, listing many of the red flags they found, when investigating the company, for potential investors.

    while no one of the items listed was a decisive smoking gun, in the aggregate they should have caused any financial professional to question the business' legitimacy. as a cpa and auditor, they all jumped right out at me as classic badges of fraud. the almost total absence of internal controls should have sent anyone's antenna quivering, much less the SEC's.

    the other one that stuck out was the external acct. firm, that did the annual audit: essentially one man auditing a 50 billion dollar entity, by himself. there's no way he could have physically met the requirements of GAAS, all by his lonesome.

    CLient List (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    Bloomberg has complied a list of Madoff's clients. Still about $16 billion short.

    Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Clients of Bernard Madoff, the money manager charged with fraud, are still trying to calculate their losses, and Bloomberg's latest tally of disclosures and news reports shows investors had about $34 billion with his firm.

    Maddof client list


    a Ponzi scheme ab initio.  If it did not, then it is a true Ponzi.  Ponzi started out with the best of intentions.  His plan was lawful and seemed like a great idea; hence, many people lined up to invest.  Even after it fell apart, and he could see it coming, he never tried to abscond and he could easily have done so.  

    Let me see if I can find the real Ponzi info.  If Madoff started out with the best intentions, then it is a true Ponzi. What is crucial to note is that Ponzi was pre-SEC, so no oversight at all.

    http://tinyurl.com/63xtk3
     

    I can easily see (none / 0) (#18)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    where Pratchett's "Going Postal" character came from.  The main character, Moist Von Lipwig, a shrewd and cautious con man, was impressed into public service as postmaster general.  Ponzi's original business idea was buying and redeeming postal reply coupons.

    Parent
    days.  Wish I knew more.  To be sure, he is not a stupid or uneducated man.  He could have absconded at some point and gone off to some country without an extradition. I just cannot get a handle on this for some reason and I certainly am used to dealing with all sorts of "criminals."  I cannot believe that this happened with such "oversight,"  unless, of course, there was collusion in very high places.  

    This trust that seems to go to the heart of the SEC/Madoff relationship puzzles me. When there are billions at stake, "trust" and "reputation" should mean squat.      

    Parent

    "Follow the money" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 05:00:46 PM EST
    You'd think it was that simple.  Someone who was "investing" money for others should be have some kind of paper trail to follow, if you were so inclined.

    The year 2008 is chock full of examples of why bad policies and lousy oversight are not just problems for some nameless Other People.  Even those of us who have never invested a dime of their own money are getting slammed and paying the price.  There's something bitterly ironic about people who weren't wealthy enough to play the stock market paying the price for those who were.

    Parent

    Soooo true!! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:57:45 PM EST
    There's something bitterly ironic about people who weren't wealthy enough to play the stock market paying the price for those who were.

    I know exactly what you mean.  I never had an extra dime to play the stock market; you bet I will be paying for the screw ups.  Appointed counsel rate of compensation in my state is on the chopping block.  Already the state has cut the travel time and CLE reimbursements;  next will be the actual hourly rate.    

    Parent

    According to CNBC's Charlie Gasparino*... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by santarita on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 06:51:27 PM EST
    part of the problem might have been a variety of conflicts of interest.  For example, an SEC examiner married the daughter of Madoff's brother, although apparently he was not on the exam team examining Madoff.  But it looks bad because she was the Compliance counsel for Madoff.  Gasparino's larger point is that Wall Street and the SEC are way too closely intertwined.  Lawyers for the SEC frequently leave the SEC for jobs on Wall Street.  I'd bet that the same thing happens with accountants and examiners.  

    The other related problem is that Madoff was a very well trusted person in the investment community.  He was appointed to oversight boards and was generally well-connected.  I would not be surprised if his firm was given a pass by friends in high places.  This scandal could make a bunch of people look bad.

    *I quote Gasparino reluctantly because I think he is an arrogant jerk but even he may have an occasional good insight.

    Parent

    He's right but he's also wrong (none / 0) (#28)
    by steviez314 on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 07:47:23 PM EST
    While conflict of interests are a problem, there's also another one.

    I hope the owners of this site don't take this too personally, but the SEC staff are lawyers.  While that's good for determining if a crime has been committed given the facts, and then deciding on a course of action, you really need to have a practical, hand-on expertise in order to ferret out the facts.

    I have been a trader for 25 years, and I could have told you that Madoff was full of crap 10 minutes after hearing about his "strategy".

    The SEC staff is very poorly equipped to deal with the complex trading issues on Wall Street these days.  It's too bad they don't use retired traders and professionals (the clean ones of course) to provide expertise.  If I could sell my house, I might even volunteer!

    The FDA has drugs approved by panels that include doctors.  I wish the SEC had more traders to explain to the commissioners how the trading world really works.

    Parent

    In fairness... (none / 0) (#33)
    by santarita on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:36:16 PM EST
    I don't think the staffers are all lawyers.  I think there are some accountants thrown in there.  But I understand your point.

    I'd be interested to hear what the former Chief Operating Officer of the SEC has to say.  His name is Hall, I think.  He wasn't very complimentary when he was talking about the SEC and the rating agencies.

    Parent

    That's funny! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:13:07 PM EST
    People wanted to believe that there really was a secret that only the most well connected were privy to.  

    What's More Amusing... (none / 0) (#32)
    by santarita on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:32:14 PM EST
    is that some of them thought that they were getting the benefit of material non-publicly disclosed info, which would not be legal.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 09:44:33 PM EST
    I was reading some news article in which people were quoted as saying they thought Madoff was doing so well because he was engaging in insider trading.  Now, his clients for the most part were a sophisticated group who damn well knew that was illegal.  Mind you, not all his clients were incredibly wealthy.  However, most were.  Insider trading hurts us all as it allows some people to play the stock market with little risk and maximization of profit, to the detriment of "common folk."  

    Parent
    I was just thinking (none / 0) (#34)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM EST
    that the whole "super secret exclusive" thing is exactly what Scientology sells.

    Parent