Fraud and Cover Up In the Banking Scandal

The fraud that has brought our economy to the brink of collapse occurred at every level, from the borrowers, to the mortgage lenders, to the investment bankers pooling the loans, to the ratings agencies, to the government regulators themselves.  It is time to ask yourself why after at least fifteen (15) months since the public became aware of the crisis (which started 2 years ago) have there been no fact finding investigations in Congress as to the roots of the crisis?  Sure, Congress called in some of the ratings agencies, but where is the fact finding investigation about the practices, who was involved, who knew what when?The Senate engages in endless debate about political appointees, but passes bailout legislation without even understanding why the money is needed.  Ask why have there been no prosecutions for the fraud yet?  The answer may very well be that our senior elected officials from both parties and the top regulators are involved in covering up the extent of how bad the crisis is.

On April 3, 2009, PBS's Bill Moyers interviewed William K. Black, a professor of law and economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, and author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One .  (Hat tip to Economic Populist and Market Ticker.) Black was a former prosecutor and chief regulator in for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board during the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980's.  Black understands bank fraud and how it occurs.  He was instrumental in setting up laws that would prevent such crises in the future - laws that are now being ignored.    The interview is about 20 minutes, but it is worth watching if you want to understand the extent of the fraud.  If you don't want to watch, read the transcript here.  

Black points out that the roots of the fraud extend back to the Clinton administration, and were exacerbated by the Bush administration diversion of regulatory attention from white collar crime to homeland security.  What is worse is that current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner was the chief regulator of the New York banks while he was President of the New York Federal Reserve District.  In recent testimony before Congress, Geitner denied that he had regulatory authority.  In September 2004 the FBI warned that this crisis was occurring and the fraud was building.  The FBI warning was ignored on every level.  

It is time that we insist that our Government Hold Those Responsible Accountable.  If the Department of Justice will not prosecute those involved, then Congress needs to pass a law allowing private rights of action to enable individuals to prosecute fraud actions on behalf of the government.  We have laws dating back to the Civil War, called Qui Tam actions, that permit private citizens to sue and recover on behalf of the Government when there is fraud against the government - typically a whistle blower actions involving misuse of government funds.  It is time that we expand those laws to allow private individuals to act on behalf of the government to pursue those who were involved in the fraud.

More Regulation?

The G-20 meetings that were held in London this past week resulted in President Obama agreeing to follow France's President, Nicolas Sarcozy, plan to regulate more tightly the once free markets.  Obama also pledged to repudiate U.S. policies towards freeing markets from excessive government interference.  The President's promises at the G-20 essentially reversed 25 years of free market policy spanning Presidents from both parties that ushered in  the largest growth in American wealth in history. 

The problem we are in today has little to do with lack of regulation and has everything to do with a) failing to enforce the regulations we have on the books; and b) sheltering risk takers from the consequences of their actions.  Many of the problems we have could have been prevented simply by enforcing the laws on our books.  If we don't enforce our laws, including punishing people for acts of fraud, we encourage people and entities to push the boundaries of what is acceptable.  Indeed, all laws, customs, mores, and social conventions are fluid concepts that derive from expansion of boundaries of what was once acceptable.  Laws and regulations are in place to put absolute limits on the extent to which these social conventions may be pushed.  Regulations as to capital ratios, executive compensation, and other minutiae on the day to day runnings of business have no place in our society.  The world is complex; businesses are complex.  One government solution does not fit all, nor should it.  No one wants a policy wonk sitting in a government building in Washington DC telling businesses in New York, San Francisco, Boston or elsewhere what ratios, salaries, employees they should have.  What is important is transparency and uniform standards of disclosure, not how the task is accomplished.  Essentially, we want transactions to be free from fraud and the best way to accomplish that is through transparency and mandatory disclosure.  In this day and age with modern communications and powerful computers, there is no reason that we can't have monthly reporting (or even weekly) rather than relying on quarterly disclosures.

The flip side of transparency, however, is another key area that we seemed to have forgotten.  That is, allowing the consequences of risk to fall upon the party assuming the risk.  Risk is a 4-letter word after all.  Not only is there an upside reward if the risk pays off, but there has to be a downside consequence when the risk doesn't pay off.  Spreading the risk among innocent parties (taxpayers in the case of the recent government bailouts) encourages riskier conduct than would normally be taken.  If risk is taken knowing that 100% of the upside is yours, but there is little  penalty on the downside, undisciplined risk will be assumed.  Bankruptcy has to be a viable option for every entity.  There can be no such thing as too big to fail.  The only role of government should be the orderly winding down of large institutions that have failed.    If we choose to insure bank deposits, the risk premiums paid by banks to the FDIC need to be set based on the risk undertaken by the bank, not a uniform premium across all banks.  Conservative banks that make solid loans in accordance with well established underwriting guidelines should be rewarded with lower premium and the ability to pass savings onto their constituencies.  Conversely, banks that take excessive risk need to pay a higher price because it will be more likely that taxpayer dollars will be needed to pay off depositors.  

Bankruptcy needs to be a viable option.  In many instances, it helps restructure loans.  It clears dead weight off the necks of individuals and businesses and allows them to once again become productive.  A few years ago we  changed our bankruptcy laws to make it more difficult for individuals to discharge credit card and other consumer debts in bankruptcy.   We need to revisit the wisdom of making it more difficult to restructure individual debt while at the same time allowing corporations to avoid bankruptcy.  While I have little sympathy for the individual that incurred debt beyond their means, the risk of that loss must be shared with the counter party lender that took the risk to allow the person to incur debt that couldn't be repaid. Without risk, the same practices that brought our economy to the brink of collapse will repeat and collapse will be inevitable.  

Choking the businesses with excessive regulation will not bring us out of this great depression 2.0, but enforcing laws to bring transparency to transactions and allow the consequences of risk to fall upon the risk taker will be a start to righting the ship.

Madoff's Accountant Charged

The SEC had finally decided to take action against Madoff's accountant, David G. Friehling, for enabling Madoff's fraud.  

The SEC's complaint alleges that Friehling enabled Madoff's Ponzi scheme by falsely stating, in annual audit reports, that F&H audited BMIS financial statements pursuant to Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS), including the requirements to maintain auditor independence and perform audit procedures regarding custody of securities.

The SEC's position is that Friehling enabled Madoff's fraud by conducting an audit but not following accounting standards.  In other words, Friehling sold his accounting license to Madoff. 

Instead, the SEC alleges that Friehling merely pretended to conduct minimal audit procedures of certain accounts to make it seem like he was conducting an audit, and then failed to document his purported findings and conclusions as required under GAAS. If properly stated, those financial statements, along with BMIS related disclosures regarding reserve requirements, would have shown that BMIS owed tens of billions of dollars in additional liabilities to its customers and was therefore insolvent.

In other words, Friehling sold his accounting license to Madoff. 

Fraud, Fraud, Fraud

Every boom market has fraudulent schemes that are only uncovered when the markets reverse.  Today the SEC was busy announcing 3 new fraud cases.  Certainly these are not of the magnitude of Madoff or Sandford, but they are significant.  First up was Westgate Capital Management LLC and its principal James Nicholson, who were charged with using an unregistered hedge fund to fraudulently take other people's money.  The SEC Press Release stated that Nicholson and Westgate defrauded current and prospective investors in 11 hedge funds they managed by misrepresenting the value of the hedge funds to investors, and soliciting new investors with sales materials that claimed a nearly impossible record of investment success.  Apparently, Nicholson created a fictitious accounting firm and produced bogus financial statements.

Action was also taken against Paul Greenwood and Stephen Walsh for defrauding investors out of $500 Million Dollars.  According to the SEC, these folks and their companies convinced institutional investors (public pensions, educational institutions,  retirement funds) to invest in a stock index arbitrage strategy.  Instead of making investments, Greenwood and Walsh purchased multi-million dollar homes, horse farms, exotic vehicles, etc.  The fraud was going on since 1996!

Rounding out the trio of fraud cases  is the one launched against Mark Bloom and his firm North Hills Management LLC.  This relatively small case - involving a mere $30 Million defrauded from about 40-50 investors since 2001 - seems like a common case of fraud.  Apparently, according to the SEC, Bloom obtained the funds to be invested in diverse hedge funds.  Instead, he used about $13 Million to buy homes, boats, cars and support a lavish lifestyle.  The balance of the money was put into a fund that was fraudulent itself.  

It seems that the amount of fraud going on this time was extreme.  But going after a few headline cases this time may not be enough.  In ordinary times ferreting out the fraud is necessary to maintain confidence in the system.  This time the level of fraud occurred at every stage.  The government needs to get serious about prosecuting the fraud to restore confidence in the markets.  The cases need to be filed not only against those involved in garden variety fraud, but cases need to be filed against the rating agencies that deliberately over-rated securities, from the banks that put mortgages in collateralized securities knowing the mortgages were no good, to the borrowers that lied on their applications.  Purging the system is what is needed.  Having the government fulfill its fundemental obligation of pursuing these crimes is needed on a large scale.  If the government cant do it, then consider authorizing private attorneys general to hold those responsible for the fraud accountable.