
Paul R. Hollrah
Off with Their Heads
December 22, 2008
My
younger sister has often complained to me that, during their working
careers, she and her husband had difficulty making ends meet,
financially. In response, I’ve tried to convince her that those who have
a little money... or even a lot of money... have a far more difficult
problem: i.e., holding onto what they have.
No man has
done more to prove my point than Bernard Madoff, the head of Bernard L.
Madoff Investment Securities, LLC, a Wall Street investment advisor
admired and trusted by some of America’s wealthiest individuals and
foundations. No man has done more to destroy the faith of the American
people in those who are entrusted with the responsibility for growing
and managing the money they have set aside for their retirement years.
Because of
Madoff, millions of Americans are now laying awake at night questioning
whether their stock portfolios, their mutual funds, and their annuities
are safe and secure. In other words, have the bureaucrats in the
Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) done what they are charged with
doing: regulating and policing the financial markets. In the case of
Bernard Madoff they obviously did not, and it’s not because they weren’t
warned.
In 2005, a
Boston investment advisor and derivatives expert, Harry Markopolos
submitted a nineteen-page report, anonymously, to the SEC saying it was
"highly likely” that Madoff Securities was "the world's largest Ponzi
Scheme.” Markopolos reminded the SEC that he had first brought the
Madoff matter to the attention of their Boston field office in 1999,
during the Clinton Administration, but no action was taken. In his
report he recommended discretion, suggesting that he knew his research
could ruin people's careers. He asked the SEC to be discreet about
circulating the report, saying, "I am worried about the personal safety
of myself and my family. Under no circumstances is this report or its
contents to be shared with any other regulatory body without my express
permission.”
In his filing, Markopolos suggested two possible scenarios. Under
Scenario #1, which he described a "unlikely,” he said, "I am submitting
this case under Section 21A(e) of the 1934 Act in the event that the
broker-dealer and (electronic communication network) depicted is
actually providing the stated returns to investors, but is earning those
returns by front-running customer order flow. Front running qualifies as
insider trading since it relies upon material, non-public information,
that is acted upon for the benefit of one party to the detriment of
another party.”
Under
Scenario #2, which Markopolos described as "highly likely,” he said,
"Madoff Securities is the world’s largest Ponzi Scheme. In this case
there is no SEC reward payment due the whistle-blower so basically I’m
turning this case in because it’s the right thing to do.”
But, again,
no action was taken against Madoff. Why? Is it because Madoff has
friends in high places? We are already aware that the top recipient of
cash from top executives in the sub-prime mortgage industry is Senator
Chris Dodd (D-CT), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, that the
second highest recipient of cash is none other than our president-elect,
Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL), and that the largest recipient of cash in
the House of Representatives is Cong. Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of
the House Financial Services Committee.
The Center
for Responsive Politics has looked into the matter of the Madoff
family’s political contributions between June 1993 and October 2008.
Federal Election Commission records show that members of the Madoff
family made some 250 political contributions to 45 candidates and
committees totaling $391,350. The money went to thirty-three Democrats,
twelve Republicans, and nine political committees... seven liberal and
Democratic committees, one Republican committee, and one trade
association PAC.
The largest
individual recipients were Cong. Ed Markey (D-MA), $34,000; Senator
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), $31,000; Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), $25,000;
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, $23,500; Cong. Richard Gephardt (D-MO),
$12,000; Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), $6,600; and Senator John Kerry
(D-MA), $4,500. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which
Schumer currently chairs, received $104,050.
Among
Republicans, the lion’s share of Madoff family contributions went, oddly
enough, to Cong. Jack Fields (R-TX), $13,000. Senator John McCain
received $2,000.
The records
seem to suggest that Mrs. Ruth Madoff, the wife of Bernard Madoff,
exhibits a bit of an "independent” streak, politically. On June 28, 2006
she made a $5,000 contribution to the New Republican Majority Fund, but
by far her most interesting contribution was a $1,000 gift on June 27,
1996 to the Fund for a Responsible Future. Would it be too unkind to
suggest that the fund must have fallen short of its goal?
So how did
Madoff Investment Securities, "the world’s largest Ponzi Scheme,” escape
detection for over a decade in both Democrat and Republican
administrations? Did senior Democrats in Congress take steps to shield
Madoff from SEC oversight? The SEC must be made to appear before
Congress with all pertinent internal and external correspondence,
including letters and meeting notes relating to Madoff’s communications
with members of Congress. Those within the agency who had every
opportunity to intervene, but didn’t, must be publicly exposed.
As Harry Markopolos
suggested in his 2005 expose, hedge funds are often leveraged on
a 4:1 ratio. If that is the case, and Madoff has been responsible for a
$50 billion swindle, the impact across world financial markets could be
$200 billion, or more. We simply cannot allow regulatory agency
failures, whether through corruption or incompetence, to go unpunished.
Off with their heads!