The 17th Floor, Where Wealth Went to Vanish

Bankers, Banking and Finance, Bernie Madoff, Derivitives, Fraud, Hedge Funds, New York, Ponzi Scheme, Proprietary System, Wall Street
International Herald Tribune
The 17th floor, where wealth went to vanish
Monday, December 15, 2008

madoff_448510a

The epicenter of what may be the largest Ponzi scheme in history was the 17th floor of the Lipstick Building, an oval red-granite building rising 34 floors above Third Avenue in Midtown Manhattan.

A busy stock-trading operation occupied the 19th floor, and the computers and paperwork filled the 18th floor of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.

But the 17th floor was Bernie Madoff’s sanctum, occupied by fewer than two dozen staff members and rarely visited by other employees. They called it the “hedge fund” floor, but U.S. prosecutors now say the work Madoff did there was actually a fraud scheme whose losses Madoff himself estimates at $50 billion.

The tally of reported losses climbed through the weekend to nearly $20 billion, with a giant Spanish bank, Banco Santander, reporting on Sunday that clients of one of its Swiss subsidiaries have lost $3 billion. Some of the biggest losers were members of the Palm Beach Country Club, where many of Madoff’s wealthy clients were recruited.

The list of prominent fraud victims grew as well. According to a person familiar with the business of the real estate and publishing magnate Mort Zuckerman, he is also on a list of victims that already included the owners of the New York Mets, a former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles and the chairman of GMAC.

And the 17th floor is now an occupied zone, as investigators and forensic auditors try to piece together what Madoff did with the billions entrusted to him by individuals, banks and hedge funds around the world.

So far, only Madoff, the firm’s 70-year-old founder, has been arrested in the scandal. He is free on a $10 million bond and cannot travel far outside the New York area.

But a question still dominates the investigation: How one person could have pulled off such a far-reaching, long-running fraud, carrying out all the simple practical chores the scheme required, like producing monthly statements, annual tax statements, trade confirmations and bank transfers.

Firms managing money on Madoff’s scale would typically have hundreds of people involved in these administrative tasks. Prosecutors say he claims to have acted entirely alone.

“Our task is to find the records and follow the money,” said Alexander Vasilescu, a lawyer in the New York office of the Securities and Exchange Commission. As of Sunday night, he said, investigators could not shed much light on the fraud or its scale. “We do not dispute his number — we just have not calculated how he made it,” he said.

Scrutiny is also falling on the many banks and money managers who helped steer clients to Madoff and now say they are among his victims.

While many investors were friends or met Madoff at country clubs or on charitable boards, even more had entrusted their money to professional advisory firms that, in turn, handed it on to Madoff — for a fee.

Investors are now questioning whether these paid advisers were diligent enough in investigating Madoff to ensure that their money was safe. Where those advisers work for big institutions like Banco Santander, investors will most likely look to them, rather than to the remnants of Madoff’s firm, for restitution.

Santander may face $3.1 billion in losses through its Optimal Investment Services, a Geneva-based fund of hedge funds that is owned by the bank. At the end of 2007, Optimal had 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, under management, according to the bank’s annual report — which would mean that its Madoff investments were a substantial part of Optimal’s portfolio.

A spokesman for Santander declined to comment on the case.

Other Swiss institutions, including Banque Bénédict Hentsch and Neue Privat Bank, acknowledged being at risk, with Hentsch confirming about $48 million in exposure.

BNP Paribas said it had not invested directly in the Madoff funds but had 350 million euros, or about $500 million, at risk through trades and loans to hedge funds. And the private Swiss bank Reichmuth said it had 385 million Swiss francs, or $327 million, in potential losses. HSBC, one of the world’s largest banks, also said it had made loans to institutions that invested in Madoff but did not disclose the size of its potential losses.

Losses of this scale simply do not seem to fit into the intimate business that Madoff operated in New York.

With just over 200 employees, it was tight-knit and friendly, according to current and former employees. Madoff was gregarious and empathetic, known for visiting sick employees in their hospitals and hosting warmly generous staff parties.

By the elevated standards of Wall Street, the Madoff firm did not pay exceptionally well, but it was loyal to employees even in bad times. Madoff’s family filled the senior positions, but his was not the only family at the firm — generations of employees had worked for Madoff.

Even before Madoff collapsed, some employees were mystified by the 17th floor. In recent regulatory filings, Madoff claimed to manage $17 billion for clients — a number that would normally occupy a staff of at least 200 employees, far more than the 20 or so who worked on 17.

One Madoff employee said he and other workers assumed that Madoff must have a separate office elsewhere to oversee his client accounts.

Nevertheless, Madoff attracted and held the trust of companies that prided themselves on their diligent investigation of investment managers.

One of them was Walter Noel Jr., who struck up a business relationship with Madoff 20 years ago that helped earn his investment firm, the Fairfield Greenwich Group, millions of dollars in fees.

Indeed, over time, one Fairfield’s strongest selling points for its largest fund was its access to Madoff.

But now, Noel and Fairfield are the biggest known losers in the scandal, facing potential losses of $7.5 billion, more than half its assets.

Jeffrey Tucker, a Fairfield co-founder and former U.S. regulator, said in a statement posted on the firm’s Web site: “We have worked with Madoff for nearly 20 years, investing alongside our clients. We had no indication that we and many other firms and private investors were the victims of such a highly sophisticated, massive fraudulent scheme.”

The huge loss comes at a time when the hedge fund industry has already been wounded by the volatile markets. Several weeks ago, Fairfield had halted investor redemptions at two of its other funds, citing the tough market conditions as dozens of hedge funds have done. The firm reported a drop of $2 billion in assets between September and November.

Fairfield was founded in 1983 by Noel, the former head of international private banking at Chemical Bank, and Tucker, a former Securities and Exchange Commission official. It grew dramatically over the years, attracting investors in Europe, Latin America and Asia.

Noel first met Madoff in the 1980s, and Fairfield’s fortunes grew along with the returns Madoff reported. The two men were very different: Madoff hailed from eastern Queens and was tied closely to the Jewish community, while Noel, a native of Tennessee, moved in the Greenwich social scene with his wife, Monica.

“Walter was always really confident in Bernie and the strategy he employed,” said one hedge fund manager who declined to be named because for fear of jeopardizing his relationship with Noel.

“He was a person of superb ethics, and this has to cut him to the quick,” said George Ball, a former executive at E. F. Hutton and Prudential-Bache Securities who knows Noel.

Fairfield touted its investigative skills. On its Web site, the firm claimed to investigate hedge fund managers for six to 12 months before investing. As part of the process, a team of examiners conducted personal background checks, audited brokerage records and trading reports and interviewed hedge fund executives and compliance officials.

In 2001, Madoff called Fairfield and invited the firm to inspect his books after two news reports questioned the validity of his returns, according to a person close to Fairfield. Outside auditors hired to inspect Madoff’s operations concluded that “everything checked out,” this person said.

“FGG performed comprehensive and conscientious due diligence and risk monitoring,” Marc Kasowitz, a lawyer for Fairfield, said in a statement. “FGG like so many other Madoff clients was a victim of a highly-sophisticated massive fraud that escaped the detection of top institutional and private investors, industry organizations, auditors, examiners, and regulatory authorities.”

Now, Fairfield is seeking to recover what it can from Madoff.

“It is our intention to aggressively pursue the recovery of all assets related to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities,” Tucker said in a statement.

Working alongside the U.S. investigators on Madoff’s 17th floor, staffers for Lee Richards 3d, the court-appointed receiver for the firm, are trying to determine what parts of the firm can keep operating to preserve assets for investors.

A hotline number had been posted on the company Web site, madoff.com, but on Sunday night, Richards said that there was little reason to call.

“We don’t have anything to report to investors at this time,” he said. “We are doing everything we can to protect the assets of the Madoff entities that are subject to the receivership, and to learn what we can about the operations of those entities.”

More Republicans For Obama's Cabinet

Barack Obama, Ken Salazar, Mary Schapiro, Repuublicans, Robert Gates, SEC, Vilsack

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN)

artmaryschapirosecgiPresident-elect Barack Obama has picked GOP Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois to be his nominee for transportation secretary, two sources told CNN on Wednesday.

Two Democratic sources also said Obama will tap Mary Schapiro to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Schapiro is CEO of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the largest nongovernment regulator for all securities firms doing business with the U.S. public. She is a former SEC commissioner and served as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 1994 during the Clinton Administration.

Obama will formally announce his choice of LaHood, a seven-term congressman from Peoria, at a press conference in Chicago on Thursday morning, the sources said.

LaHood is well-respected by Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

One of LaHood’s closest friends in Congress, fellow Illinois Republican Tim Johnson, said LaHood “has the ability to work both sides of the aisle well” and called him “an extraordinarily talented legislator.”

Obama has so far chosen one other Republican for his Cabinet. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will stay on in the Obama administration.

Earlier on Wednesday, Obama announced former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as his choice for agriculture secretary and Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar as his choice for secretary of the interior.

“Together they will serve as guardians of the American landscape on which the health of our economy and the well-being of our families so heavily depend,” Obama said at a news conference in Chicago.

Vilsack was a high-profile supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries after he briefly sought the Democratic presidential nomination.

Vilsack has championed the development of ethanol, an alternative energy, in Iowa — something that coincides with Obama’s vision for an energy-independent future, and something he can promote from the Department of Agriculture.

Vilsack, who dropped out of the presidential race in February 2007, is the fourth former presidential rival to join Obama’s team.

Vice president-elect Joe Biden; Hillary Clinton, Obama’s pick for secretary of state; and Bill Richardson, Obama’s pick for secretary of commerce, also sought the Democratic presidential nomination.

“With the appointments I announced earlier in the week, and with those I am announcing today, I am confident that we have the team we need to make the rural agenda America’s agenda, to create millions of new green jobs, to free our nation from its dependence on oil and to help preserve this planet for our children,” Obama said. VideoWatch Obama name Salazar and Vilsack to his team »

Salazar, Obama’s choice for secretary of the interior, has focused on public land and energy resource issues as a first-term senator from Colorado. He is the second Latino to be named to Obama’s Cabinet.

Obama said Wednesday he was confident that under Salazar, the Interior Department would become more proactive instead of “sitting back, waiting for whoever has most access in Washington to extract what they want.”

Salazar is a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and has developed a reputation as a strong advocate of reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil.

A fifth-generation Coloradan, Salazar was elected to the Senate in 2004 and quickly made a name for himself in immigration reform.

He was a key member of a bipartisan Senate group that put together the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which would have beefed up border security and increased the number of Border Patrol agents, but also would have created a guest worker program.

That program would have allowed migrants to work temporarily in the Untied States. The most controversial aspect of the bill was the creation of a pathway to legalization and eventual citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country, an idea that critics dismissed as “amnesty.” The bill failed to make it through Congress.

Salazar’s appointment would not jeopardize the balance of power in the Senate. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a fellow Democrat, would name his replacement. iReport.com: Chatting with Salazar

Also on Wednesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino announced that Obama will meet for a second time with President Bush. The meeting also will include the three living former presidents.

President Bush will be host at a lunch with Obama and former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton on January 7, Perino said.

Obama proposed the meeting with the former presidents to Bush when the two met in the Oval Office on November 10, two sources said.

The high-powered meeting is another sign of how closely the Obama and Bush teams have been working to try to make sure the first post-9/11 transfer of power goes smoothly.

“It’s been unbelievably cooperative,” said one Democratic official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the conversations between Bush and Obama.

McCain Tries To Blame Financial Crisis On Democratic Takeover Of Congress In 2007

Wall Street


T H I N K P R O G R E S S

In April, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that “you could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically” since President Bush took office. He then revised that argument in August, releasing an ad that declared “we’re worse off than we were four years ago.”

Now McCain is revising his timeline again. In an interview with right-wing radio host Michael Medved this past Friday, McCain agreed with Medved’s assertion that “the economy was really progressing pretty well under most of President Bush’s term” before Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007:

MEDVED: Let me ask you one other thing senator, which again, I think is on the minds of lots and lots of our listeners. The economy was really progressing pretty well under most of President Bush’s term. Then the Democrats took over in Congress in 2007 and now we’re in this horrible crisis. Coincidence?

MCCAIN: No, it isn’t.

McCain went on to place the blame for the financial crisis on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, claiming that Democrats “were willing co-conspirators with this game of three-card monty that went on and then it collapsed.” Listen to it here:

Medved and McCain’s claim that “the economy was progressing really well” before Democrats took control of Congress is laughable. As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Christian Weller’s economic snapshot from December 2006 shows, the economy was already in rough shape:

Famly Debt Was Rising: By September 2006, household debt rose to an unprecedented 130.9% of disposable income. From March 2001 to September 2006, personal debt relative to disposable income grew each quarter by 1.6 percentage points—almost five times faster than in the 1990s. In the second quarter of 2006, families had to spend 14.4% of their disposable income to service their debt—the largest share since 1980.

The Housing Market Had Slowed: The supply of homes for sale each month averaged 6.9 months of supply for the six months ending in October 2006—the largest supply since 1991.

Savings Had Plummeted: The personal saving rate of -1.3% in the third quarter of 2006 marked the sixth quarter in a row with a negative personal saving rate.

As for McCain’s claim that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the central cause of the current economic crisis, McClatchy thoroughly debunked it over the weekend, writing that “private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis.” McClatchy notes that the “weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages” began in late 2004 while Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

Transcript:

MEDVED: Let me ask you one other thing senator, which again, I think is on the minds of lots and lots of our listeners. The economy was really progressing pretty well under most of President Bush’s term. Then the Democrats took over in Congress in 2007 and now we’re in this horrible crisis. Coincidence?

MCCAIN: No, it isn’t. Although, as you know, and you and I have had this discussion in the past, the Bush administration let these spending bills be signed and him not doing what Ronald Reagan used to do and that is veto them, make them famous, and fight against it. But also, more interestingly, 2006, there was a group of us, as a result of an investigation, and I think it was the Inspector General, that said, look, this Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are completely out of control, if we don’t do something about it, we’re going to have an incredible financial crisis. And we sent a letter about it. We introduced legislation to rein them in and Senator Obama at the time said that these subprime loans were, quote, “a good idea.” And the Democrats in Congress were specifically talking about, the ones who got all the money, were defending, defending, and saying we can’t re-regulations on Fannie and Freddie and were actually encouraging, as you know, people to borrow money that they couldn’t pay back. A fundamental of economics, so they were willing co-conspirators with this game of three-card monty that went on and then it collapsed, you know.

It's an Eminence Front, Dress Yourself to Kill

Stories

People Forget….

New Rules For October 10, 2008 | Bill Maher

Comedy, Economy, Politics, Tullycast, Video, Wall Street, Youtube

Bill Maher | October 10, 2008 | Nixon Warned of U.S. Becoming Pitiful Helpless Giant

Comedy, Economy, Politics, Tullycast, Video, Wall Street, Youtube

The 56 Trillion Dollar Deficit | Bill Maher Interviews Fmr. Comptroller General David Walker

Comedy, Economy, Politics, Tullycast, Video, Wall Street, Youtube

DAVID WALKER in CNN online:

CNN) — The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act contains plenty to make lawmakers on the left and right shudder. On the right, it’s the apparent abandonment of free-market principles. On the left, it’s the absence of punishment for high-flying Wall Street CEO’s.

Looking down the middle, what I found downright unnerving was how hard Washington struggled to pass a bill that, in reality, represents less than 1 percent of our current federal financial hole.

Don’t get me wrong. Congress and the Bush Administration are to be commended for acting to relieve the credit crunch and trying to minimize any immediate, adverse effect on our economy and by consequence, on American jobs and access to credit.

The ultimate cost of the act should ring up at less than $500 billion, less than the advertised $700 billion because of anticipated proceeds from the government’s sale of the assets it will acquire with the appropriated funds.

The nation’s real tab, on the other hand, amounted to $53 trillion as of the end of the last fiscal year. That was the sum of our public debt; accrued civilian and military retirement benefits; unfunded, promised Social Security and Medicare benefits; and other financial obligations — all according to the government’s most recent financial statement of September 30, 2007.
Don’t Miss * Fed pumps billions more into banks * Dollar plummets against yen * In Depth: Commentaries

The rescue package and other bailout efforts for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and the auto industry, escalating operating deficits, compounding interest and other factors are likely to boost the tab to $56 trillion or more by the end of this calendar year.

With numbers and trends like this, you might ask, “Who will bail out America?” The answer is, no one but us!

Since we’re going to have to save ourselves, recent events could hardly be called encouraging. It took an additional $100 billion in incentives — some would call them “sweeteners;” others might call them bribes — to get lawmakers to pass the rescue package. Regardless of what you call these incentives, ultimately the taxpayers will have to pick up the tab, with interest.

The process that was employed to achieve enactment of this bill was hardly a model of efficiency or effectiveness. The original proposal represented an over-reach and under-communication by the administration.

Neither lawmakers nor ordinary citizens had enough information to properly assess the real risks, the need for action and what an appropriate course of action might be. Furthermore, the key players allowed the legislation to be characterized as a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, which was neither an accurate nor a fair reflection of the legislation.

Passage of the credit-crunch relief provisions in the act was understandable, not just because of what risks and needed actions the Treasury and the Federal Reserve were aware of, but more importantly, because of what policymakers didn’t know and eventually might have to address.

Let’s face it — the regular order in Washington is broken. We must move beyond crisis management approaches and start to address some of the key fiscal and other challenges facing this country if we want our future to be better than our past.

A good place to start would be for the presidential candidates to acknowledge our $53 trillion (and growing) federal financial hole and commit to begin to address it. Their endorsement of the need for a bipartisan fiscal future commission along the lines of the one sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tennessee, and Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Virginia, also would make sense.

Any such commission should, at a minimum, address the need for statutory budget controls, comprehensive Social Security reform, a first round of tax reform and a first round of comprehensive health care reform. It should hold hearings both inside and beyond the Beltway. And, its recommendations should be guaranteed to receive an up-or-down vote by Congress if a super-majority of the commission’s members can agree on a comprehensive proposal.

Editor’s Note: David M. Walker served as comptroller general of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) from 1998 to 2008. He is now president and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
Our fiscal time bomb is ticking, and the time for action is now!
DAVID WALKER


Now Can We Legalize Pot? | Bill Maher | Oct. 10, 2008

Comedy, Economy, Politics, Tullycast, Video, Wall Street, Youtube

Thank God We're Not Stuck in That Horrible Clinton Economy | Real Time With Bill Maher | October 10, 2008

Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Citi, Credit Default Swaps, Credit markets, Dana Bould, David Walker, Deregulation, Dow Jones, Election 2008, Federal Reserve, G.W. Bush, Hedge Funds, Henry Paulson, John McCain, Keating 5, Lehman, LIBOR, Maxine Waters, Mortgage Crisis, Oliver Stone, Politics, Realtime, Short Selling, Steven Moore, Treasury, Tullycast, Video, Wachovia, Wall Street bailout

Dead People Overwhelmingly Support John McCain | Bill Maher | October 3, 2008

Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Citi, Credit Default Swaps, Credit markets, Dana Bould, David Walker, Deregulation, Dow Jones, Election 2008, Federal Reserve, G.W. Bush, Hedge Funds, Henry Paulson, John McCain, Keating 5, Lehman, LIBOR, Maxine Waters, Mortgage Crisis, Oliver Stone, Politics, Realtime, Short Selling, Steven Moore, Treasury, Tullycast, Video, Wachovia, Wall Street bailout