The case addressing this question, Standard Chartered v FINRA, has been appealed to the highest court in our land. As such, one might think that most Americans would care to learn if our nation’s top financial regulator did, in fact, engage in a fraud which had a monetary value of between $175-$350 MILLION plus. Not exactly chicken feed.

Why hasn’t this case received more attention? 

For the very simple reason that our major financial media have spent little to no time focused on it. If you don’t think our media is controlled in this country, then you may want to ask why this case has not received more meaningful coverage.

I first addressed this case in the fall of 2009. I personally believe it belongs on the front page of every business section in our country. Why? This case addresses the core of what I have long defined as the Wall Street-Washington incest. The $175-350 million which FINRA retained — rather than having appropriately distributed to its member firms — allowed the major firms on Wall Street and selected FINRA executives to benefit at the expense of smaller broker-dealers. Sound a little incestuous perhaps? You think?

More importantly, this case addresses the fact that Ms. Schapiro and her fellow FINRA colleagues signed a proxy statement used for the merger of the NASD with the regulatory arm of the NYSE to form FINRA that included misinformation. If utilizing a proxy statement which includes misinformation is not an abuse of capitalism and a fraud, I do not know what is.

My link above references several angles in this case and other FINRA and assorted partners’ ‘incestuous’ follies. I strongly recommend you review this wealth of material. You will be busy, but you certainly will not be bored.

Are you sufficiently intrigued to learn a little more about this situation? Let’s navigate and review a recent commentary written by Dan Jamieson of Investment News. Dan writes, B-D Wants Supreme Court to Rule on FINRA Suit:

The high court this month is expected to decide whether to take up a lawsuit brought against NASD by Standard Investment Chartered Inc. over the self-regulator’s 2007 merger with the regulatory unit of the New York Stock Exchange.

Standard, an investment banking boutique, insists that the proxy used by the NASD in soliciting member approval for the merger was fraudulent.

NASD since has been renamed the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc.

Government entities, including private organizations with government-delegated authority, generally enjoy absolute legal immunity in performing official duties. Court cases have granted protection specifically to securities self-regulatory organizations.

Absolute immunity covering a financial transaction? Sniff, sniff. Do you smell something? Me, too.

Standard argues that the merger was not a legally protected regulatory function of Finra.

The brokerage firm wants the Supreme Court justices to hear that case because it claims that lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on immunity for SROs and other state actors.

The Standard suit has already been thrown out twice by courts — in 2010 by a New York U.S. District Court judge and then again last year by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But the Supreme Court could take a different view. In June 2010, it ruled that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a private oversight body set up under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, was unconstitutional because its members were not sufficiently overseen by the executive branch.

The Standard appeal has attracted an unlikely assortment of allies among business and consumer groups.

“The case presents a situation where a quasi-governmental entity is abusing its power,” said Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional lawyer at the libertarian Cato Institute, which joined with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in filing an amicus brief on behalf of Standard.

“Our legal interest is really to make government accountable,” he said.

There’s a larger principle at stake: to what extent state actors can be held accountable, said William Anderson, one of Standard’s lawyers at Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP. “That’s why the various groups have weighed in” with amicus briefs, he said.

“We’re concerned about the court’s overextension of immunity” to private organizations, said Scott Michelman, a staff attorney at the Public Citizen Litigation Group, which, together with Consumer Action, The Project On Government Oversight and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, also is urging the Supreme Court to take the case.

“In this case, immunity has been extended to private corporate actors … in a way that could prevent corporate accountability,” he said.

Standard and its supporters dispute the earlier court findings that NASD’s proxy and merger were “incident to” its regulatory activities and thus protected.

The Cato Institute argues that such a standard “would be the equivalent of shielding a judge who ran down a pedestrian on his way to the courthouse simply because his travel there eventually will lead to his exercising judicial power.”

Courts first gave SROs legal protection in 1985, and the breadth of that immunity has expanded ever since, according to Standard’s supporters.

“It seems to me that what [Finra was] doing was acting as a business entity rather than as a regulator,” Mr. Shapiro said.

Jack Norberg, chairman of Standard, did not return a call seeking comment.

For its part, Finra insists that there is no issue with immunity for SROs.

“Every court of appeals to consider the issue has agreed that SROs are absolutely immune from private lawsuits for money damages attacking conduct that falls within the scope of their regulatory functions,” Finra said in a filing with the Supreme Court.

While FINRA’s lawyers have continually embraced their position on immunity, NOT ONCE have I ever heard or seen these lawyers or Ms. Schapiro address and categorically deny the premise of a fraudulent proxy. What say you, Mary? Did you and your colleagues willingly and intentionally misrepresent, that is LIE, in regard to the facts presented in that proxy?

Finra spokeswoman Michelle Ong declined to comment.

No surprise there. No transparency there, either.

The 2007 merger required NASD members to approve bylaw changes that significantly reduced their voting power in the new organization.

NASD was able to get the changes approved with the help of a one-time $35,000 payment. Standard claims that NASD lied in its proxy and other communications when it claimed that $35,000 was the most it could pay under IRS rules.

An IRS opinion letter laying out permissible amounts that could be paid to broker-dealers to approve the merger has been subject to a court-ordered seal, but in a 2009 hearing, one of Standard’s attorneys said the letter indicated that member firms could have received an additional $35,000 to $76,000.

An additional $35-76k multiplied by 5100 member firms equates to a cool additional $175-350 MILLION plus!!

If the Supreme Court takes the case and rules for Standard, the dispute could go back to lower courts for rehearing, and member firms could possibly get a larger payout, Mr. Anderson said.

One would think a ruling for Standard would also expose Ms. Schapiro and the other defendants in this case for having perpetrated a fraud. What are the ramifications of that? Or is that potential too explosive and unseemly for our nation in its current state? Are we that weak and pathetic?

Where are America’s collective balls? Come on. How about we create some public pressure? Share this commentary as wide and far as possible. Our founding fathers would thank you.

But some doubt that the Supreme Court will let that happen.

“SROs are immune — that’s the law,” said Jonathan Kord Lagemann, a veteran industry defense attorney and founder of the Lagemann Law Offices.

“Whether it should be that way is another story.”

Of course it SHOULD NOT be that way. Providing the cover of absolute immunity for misrepresentations within proxy statements by senior financial regulators is no way to run a country.

Remember, absolute immunity without total transparency is a license to steal . . . perhaps even as much as $175 million.

Larry Doyle

The Wall Street-Washington incest MUST end.

This coming Tuesday, America has a chance to ring that bell, expose that incest, cleanse the system, and deliver the message loud and clear. The peal of that bell must emanate from the 4th District in the state of Massachusetts.

You do not need to read Sense on Cents to appreciate that many politicians from both sides of the aisle have badly forsaken our nation’s future with misguided and ill-advised policies over the last few decades. Many of these politicians now look to save their skins– if not their souls– by professing a newly found religion with an anti-Wall Street mantel. America, and the residents of the 4th District in Massachusetts, should not be so easily hoodwinked. These politicians, especially Barney Frank, must be held accountable and sent home.

I implore the voters of the 4th District to think long and hard and appreciate that their longstanding elected representative Barney Frank embraced the people and the policies which continue to crush our nation. Which people? What policies? Those which were centered in America’s great financial sinkhole known as Fannie Mae then led by its former CEO Franklin Raines. During my own career on Wall Street, I witnessed Barney’s bear hug of Fannie and Franklin from up close. Do not forget Barney’s desire to ‘roll the dice’ with sub-prime mortgage financing.

Many media outlets will look the other way in holding Barney accountable; I have no interest in that.

In my strong opinion, Fannie Mae was nothing more than a Washington sponsored “Enron on steroids.” Who led the charge on Capitol Hill for the ‘private profit, social loss’ housing monster? Many Democrat and Republican politicos gladly stuck their hands in the Fannie Mae gift bag, but no politician more stridently promoted the programs of Fannie Mae than Barney Frank. Recalling Barney’s work on behalf of Fannie over the years, it was readily apparent to me that he had no understanding of the risks of mispricing capital. For those involved in the private sector and focused on properly pricing risk, the reality of a career politician not appreciating the proper price of capital is not difficult to understand. Regrettably, all of America now pays the price for Barney’s shortcoming and that of so many of his colleagues. While we pay that price, we do not need to and must not suffer from that shortcoming any longer.

I am not endorsing Sean Bielat simply because Barney ran interference for Fannie Mae and its failed socialized housing program for the last few decades. No, my interest in seeing the voters of the 4th District in Massachusetts “retire Barney” is also predicated on events of the last twelve months as well. How so? Where else did Barney fail us? Let’s continue to navigate.

Barney Frank is the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. In that role, he led the charge to supposedly re-regulate Wall Street via the Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform legislation. Say what you want about that legislation, but let me remind all of America that our pal Barney did not venture close to ‘ground zero’ during this process. Really? How so? As I wrote last March 22nd in my commentary, The BIG Hole in Financial Regulatory Reform:

Why am I so skeptical that Senator Chris Dodd’s proposed Financial Regulatory Reform (for overachievers in the audience, the link connects to the 89-page proposal) will truly change behaviors on Wall Street? For the very simple reason that I have seen no highlighting of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority within the proposed Financial Regulatory Reform. Strike you as a little odd? It strikes me that the Wall Street lobby is hard at work keeping its self-regulator, that being FINRA, right where they want it.

The fact that FINRA is not singled out by name in Dodd’s report is a HUGE red flag. Over and above that, Dodd’s proposal is nothing more than a review of the SEC’s oversight of FINRA. Why only once every three years? A review of the reviewer? That’s accountability? That’s transparency? Not in my book. In my opinion, that’s both a joke and a confirmation that the Wall Street lobby was hard at work to keep the wolves at bay!!

While my commentary last March focused specifically on Chris Dodd, the simple fact is Barney Frank walked very much in lock step with Dodd on this reform. The ultimate 2000-plus page Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform legislation barely makes mention of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Strike you as a little odd? Yes, me too. Very odd!!

Regrettably, America has come to understand that most political and financial reform is ultimately that in name only.

Neither Dodd nor Frank can say that they were not FULLY apprised of ALL the issues within FINRA. I shared all of my concerns regarding FINRA with the Project on Government Oversight early this year. POGO itself was also looking hard at the structural and practical failings of FINRA. Regular readers of Sense on Cents are well aware of my calls for increased transparency for FINRA. Those calls were echoed by POGO but they fell upon deaf ears in Washington. I wrote in my March commentary:

Perhaps Senator Dodd and his colleagues may want to review the Project on Government Oversight’s thoughts on FINRA in which they call the very concept of self-regulation for Wall Street into question. POGO’s letter to four separate Congressional sub-committees can be found here.

Neither Dodd, Frank, nor anybody else on Capitol Hill ever addressed POGO’s letter and grave concerns. That fact should be the final nail in Barney Frank’s political coffin.

Chris Dodd’s political career is over.

I implore the citizens of the 4th District in Massachusetts to do our nation an enormous service and end Barney Frank’s political career this coming Tuesday.

Sense on Cents strongly endorses Sean Bielat!!

Larry Doyle

P.S. I typically shun from this type of commentary. That said,  given the historic nature of this election and this specific race, I believe it is my civic responsibility to share my feelings and a link to my March commentary. Comments, questions, and constructive criticisms are encouraged and appreciated.

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no affiliation or business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. As President of Greenwich Investment Management, an SEC regulated privately held registered investment adviser, I am merely a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

Harry Markopolos

Markopolos’ biggest bombshell this morning is his warning to America, “Don’t trust your government.” No surprise that Today host Matt Lauer did not probe deeper. I am not confident that other outlets will delve deeper into Harry’s statement, either. I wonder why Harry himself is reticent to specifically point out the individuals and the instances which lead him to make that statement.

Recall that a year ago Harry defined the SEC as merely incompetent while simultaneously defining FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) as ‘in bed with the industry’ that is Wall Street. Well, it does not take an advanced degree to connect Harry’s grenade toss into FINRA’s backyard a year ago with his volley this morning.

Who is the central figure coarsing across the landscape of the NASD (FINRA’s predecessor), FINRA, and now the SEC?

Mary Schapiro.

Why doesn’t Harry get very specific in making these statements?

Why doesn’t the media probe deeper?

When will Mary Schapiro be compelled to answer questions not only about her relationship with Bernie Madoff, but about her tenure at the NASD and FINRA?

At that point, would Harry think we might be able to trust our government?

I certainly would like to get answers to a whole host of questions surrounding Ms. Schapiro. What questions? As I wrote last December and repeat today, “Mary Schapiro Owes America Some Answers”:

Mary Schapiro, the current SEC Chair and formerly the head of FINRA, possesses a wealth of information on a number of topics for which America would like greater detail. What are some of these topics?

1. Did FINRA possess material, non-public information and act upon it in the liquidation of its $671 million auction-rate securities position in mid-2007 as the ARS market was failing?

2. Did FINRA invest its own funds in Bernard Madoff, as alleged in the complaint Amerivet Securities vs. FINRA.

3. What was the nature and full depth of Mary Schapiro’s relationship with Bernie Madoff? Bernie himself characterized Mary as a ‘dear friend.’

4. Did Mary Schapiro and her fellow FINRA execs lie verbally and in a proxy statement regarding the merger of the NASD with NYSE Regulation to form FINRA?

Are these some of the questions leading Harry to make his statement this morning about not trusting our government? In my opinion, they are a good start. America deserves these answers.

(UPDATE: Late Monday afternoon, Judge Jed Rakoff issued a ruling on Question #4 above. He has dismissed a complaint regarding this allegation, believing that Schapiro and FINRA are entitled to absolute immunity. For the full story, please read here).

Now let’s listen to Harry’s 7-minute clip.

LD

Evidence of this dynamic on Wall Street is overwhelming. Yet, don’t think Wall Street has a monopoly on this incest. Bloomberg highlights incestuous activity has also played out in the disaster encompassing Toyota. Bloomberg reports, Regulators Hired by Toyota Helped Halt Investigations:

Former regulators hired by Toyota Motor Corp. helped end at least four U.S. investigations of unintended acceleration by company vehicles in the last decade, warding off possible recalls, court and government records show.

Christopher Tinto, vice president of regulatory affairs in Toyota’s Washington office, and Christopher Santucci, who works for Tinto, helped persuade the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to end probes including those of 2002-2003 Toyota Camrys and Solaras, court documents show. Both men joined Toyota directly from NHTSA, Tinto in 1994 and Santucci in 2003.

While all automakers have employees who handle NHTSA issues, Toyota may be alone among the major companies in employing former agency staffers to do so. Spokesmen for General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Group LLC and Honda Motor Co. all say their companies have no ex-NHTSA people who deal with the agency on defects.

Possible links between Toyota and NHTSA may fuel mounting criticism of their handling of defects in Toyota and Lexus models tied to 19 deaths between 2004 and 2009. Three congressional committees have scheduled hearings on the recalls.

While executives from Toyota will look to deflect blame and minimize their own overall culpability, think back to the bobbing and weaving and massive amount of bulls*%! we heard from Wall Street executives.

The fact is, Wall Street bought its own regulation. The allure of working in the industry had an enormous impact on regulatory efforts, or dare I say the lack thereof. That allure also served to destroy the lives of thousands. You think I embellish? Ask those who remain unable to access their cash still frozen in auction-rate securities. Ask those who lost their savings in the Madoff scam. Those situations are only the high profile cases.

Now we learn that Toyota played the same game. In this case, lives were literally lost.

How would I describe the money Toyota saved and the money these former regulators earned in the process?

Blood money!!

Are you pissed yet?

How much does America have to take before heads roll and people are truly held accountable?

LD

High five to JD for tipping me off to a segment about Bernie Madoff that just aired on CNBC. While little is truly new in this segment, Bernie’s assessment of his relationship with former FINRA head and current SEC chief Mary Schapiro is startling. While Ms. Schapiro and her colleagues at FINRA have downplayed any sort of relationship with Madoff, Bernie has a different take.

There’s something about Mary as Bernie calls her “a dear friend.”

Will the government powers have the cojones to more fully explore this relationship? Or, are they already aware of it? As I wrote in my commentary of October 22nd, “Nasdaq Sale: Why Would Schapiro and FINRA Execs Lie?”:

Did Ms. Schapiro receive the “E-Z Pass” to the SEC from FINRA with the support of the powers that be on Wall Street? Was the chair of the SEC the ultimate payoff to Ms. Schapiro for the successful completion of the merger between NASD and NYSE Regulation to form FINRA?

What does Bernie have to say? Let’s review the CNBC segment, Madoff: It’s ‘Amazing’ I Didn’t Get Caught Sooner. . . (video clip after the fold).

Jailed swindler Bernie Madoff said it was “amazing” that he didn’t get caught sooner in his multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme, and that everything the SEC did to investigate him prior to 2006 was a waste of time, according to a jailhouse interview he gave to SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz.

Madoff also told Kotz that SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro was a “dear friend,” although she “probably thinks, ‘I wish I never knew this guy.’”

• For a Full Text of the Interview, Click Here

Madoff gave the interview to Kotz in June while awaiting sentencing for one of the largest financial frauds in history. At the time, Madoff was being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York. He agreed to speak to Kotz, who was investigating the SEC’s decades-long failure to uncover the scheme. The SEC released notes of the interview along with hundreds of other exhibits in the investigation following a request by CNBC under the Freedom of Information Act.

US Department of Justice Bernie Madoff mugshot

Madoff tells Kotz he feels “misunderstood” by prosecutors in his case, and that there is ” a lot of misinformation” circulating about the scandal as a result. However, he adds, “I’m not saying I’m not guilty.”

Madoff says that in multiple encounters with SEC investigators over the years, he never had to tell them about his role in the industry because “they already knew.”

The Inspector General’s report, released in early September, found multiple lapses at the SEC, but said there was no evidence of improper influence by Madoff.

Kotz told CNBC in a statement Friday that he found no evidence to support Madoff’s claim of a close relationship with Mary Schapiro.

Perhaps Mr. Kotz might be interested in the allegation embedded in the lawsuit brought by Amerivet Securities. Yes, that suit alleges that FINRA, the organization headed by Ms. Schapiro, had an investment in Madoff. For more info on that claim, I submit “Attorney Claims Wall Street’s Cop, FINRA, Invested in Madoff.”

Did Mary protect Bernie unwittingly or unknowingly? “A dear friend.”

Who in Washington has the guts to dig deeper into this story and reveal the full extent of the relationship between Ms. Schapiro and Mr. Madoff?

The American public and especially those who invested in Madoff deserve nothing less.

LD

Fully appreciating that merely asking these questions is aggressive by its very nature, I do not ask them in a derisive fashion. The fact is, the answer to those questions in the eyes of Richard Greenfield is an unequivocal, “Yes!”

Who is Richard Greenfield? I had the distinct pleasure of chatting with Richard last evening on my weekly Sunday evening radio program. Richard Greenfield of Greenfield & Goodman is an attorney with over 40 years of experience in banking, securities, and consumer litigation. Amongst other legal venues, Attorney Greenfield has been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Our conversation last evening was riveting. If you have an interest in the markets, our economy, developments on Wall Street and in Washington, I strongly encourage you to listen to the interview in its entirety. I will share with you some of the highlights which Richard provided. (The timing I provide for these highlights can be used in the audio player provided here.)

> 16:40: FINRA’s mindset has never been on major league enforcement, but rather relatively picayune broker-dealer violations and even then the violations are more technical than they are real. Greenfield said, “the big boys always seem to get away with murder.”

> 18:30: The NASD coming out of the 1930s initially did a good job, but over time it became less and less concerned with enforcement and more concerned with the appearance of enforcement.

> 20:00: Most state attorneys general don’t have resources to devote to securities regulations. It’s the rare state, California and New York for example, which undertakes real enforcement activities. (LD’s comment: I would add that Massachusetts has also aggressively undertaken serious enforcement of securities regulation.)

> 22:00: Too Much Wall Street money finds its way into campaign warchests with the result that its special interests rival those of the insurance and defense industries and as a result Congress and many state government initiatives have been subverted.

> 25:00: Every major financial institution has ‘cooked their books’ for the last five years.

At the 29 minute mark or thereabouts, our conversation truly elevates from the general nature of financial regulation to the very specific details of the cases Richard Greenfield and colleagues from the Washington D.C. based firm of Cuneo, Gilbert, and LaDuca are bringing against FINRA. I STRONGLY encourage you to listen to the next twenty minutes.

> 29:30: Greenfield provides background information on the complaint filed on behalf of the California based FINRA member firm, Standard Investment Chartered against FINRA.

> 32:00-44:00:
- Greenfield comments on some interesting connections between Bernie Madoff and Mary Schapiro, former head of FINRA and current head of the SEC.

- Documents provided by the NASD (now known as FINRA) to Greenfield and his colleagues show unequivocally that the NASD defendants lied to the NASD member firms regarding distribution of funds from the sale of the Nasdaq. Greenfield reiterates that these individuals lied blatantly and unequivocally. They intentionally lied. The lies are repeated over and over in a proxy statement provided to the member firms. The lies were repeated at roadshows which took place all around the country.

Who is they? Who lied? Who repeated the lies?

Mary Schapiro and senior officers in the NASD (FINRA)!!!

> The primary lie is the misrepresentation of the maximum proceeds that could have been paid to the NASD member firms. That figure was represented as being $35k when in fact it could have been much, much higher.

> Greenfield also highlights the fact that FINRA failed to perform in protecting investors from the Auction-Rate Securities scandal while liquidating its own ARS investment position in 2007.

> Greenfield sheds some light that he believes New York AG Andrew Cuomo is investigating FINRA’s liquidation of its Auction-Rate Securities investment.

>47:00

- Greenfield repeats his assertion initially made on September 3rd while appearing on America’s Nightly Scoreboard on Fox Business News (video clips can be seen here) that, based upon information and belief obtained from a source which Greenfield and colleagues believe to be reliable, FINRA had made investments with Bernie Madoff!!

- Greenfield believes that FINRA may have to be disbanded and the self-regulation of Wall Street may have to be scrapped because the self-regulatory model for this industry has failed.

- Greenfield concludes that Mary Schapiro talks a tough game, but is truly a non-regulator.

While Greenfield makes some serious allegations and charges in the course of this interview, he has unquestioned credibility and experience which comes from 40 years of fighting these battles.

Will the truth and transparency being sought in these complaints and which the American public so badly needs at this time come out? Do not discount the power of information. Please share this information which Richard Greenfield so descriptively and professionally detailed last evening with your friends and colleagues.

I thank you.

Questions, comments, constructive criticisms always appreciated.

LD

What did we learn from yesterday’s report? Plenty. For that, I commend all those involved in this effort. With all due respect to FINRA employees who have legitimately tried to fulfill their obligations to the best of their abilities, yesterday’s report is nothing short of a massive indictment of FINRA’s management, FINRA’s board, and the SEC which is charged to oversee FINRA. Why? Having read this report twice and studied critical components of it, FINRA is exposed as nothing more than a collection of crossing guards . . . said with all due respect to crossing guards. Have the supervisors of the crossing guards been so heavily influenced by Wall Street so as to render large parts of the FINRA mission ineffective? Many believe this to be true, including me.

Why so harsh? Let’s navigate and be a little more aggressive than the mainstream financial media in analyzing this report. In the process, I think you will appreciate my assessment and also realize there are many more questions which need to be answered.

The FINRA report is largely divided into the organization’s dealings with the financial frauds encompassing Allen Stanford and Bernard Madoff. Referencing the massive regulatory failings on FINRA’s behalf in these two cases, the authors provide recommendations which FINRA’s management will present for approval or ratification at the December 2009 Board meeting.

For purposes here, I will not regurgitate the numerous individual failings of FINRA examiners and management in each of these cases. Rather, I will highlight those failings which I find most egregious. In turn, I want to focus on highlighting the recommendations so the American public can truly understand how woefully inept, incompetent, and ill-prepared this financial self-regulatory organization has been and currently is to uphold its mission to protect investors. Against that backdrop, I will then lay out questions which I deem to be critically important for FINRA to answer if the American public can ever regain a degree of confidence in the oversight of Wall Street.

>> Stanford Case

1. In 2003, the Stanford broker-dealer generated 68% of its revenues from the sale of Stanford International Bank CD’s. Are you kidding me? Red Flag!! That finding did not prompt the examiner to dig deeper?!

2. A 2003 Anonymous Tip Letter laid out the Stanford scheme in detail.

3. In 2005, a FINRA examiner learned that the Stanford broker-dealer is paid an annual fee of 3% of the deposit sum for every CD. Another red flag! Standard practice would have bankers or securities salespeople earning a one-time fee of maximum .25%.

At this point, Stanford International Bank had raised approximately $1.5 billion in what would grow to a $7.2 billion scam.

With all due respect to FINRA employees who may have continued to look into Stanford over the 2005-2008 time period, truth be told FINRA did not further aggressively pursue this case until the Madoff situation broke in December 2008.

>> Madoff Case

1. FINRA largely limits its review of the Madoff scam to the 2003-present time period. Why not go back further? FINRA had oversight of Madoff from the time of his launching his firm in 1960.

2. FINRA largely reduces the extensive relationships between Bernie Madoff and family members with FINRA to nothing more than a footnote. That footnote on page 46 provides a cursory approval of FINRA’s relationship with the Madoff firm and family. Why aren’t these relationships more deeply explored?

3. The report acknowledges what we always knew about FINRA having oversight of Madoff’s operation. FINRA representatives, including Mary Schapiro, have willingly and intentionally misrepresented the fact that FINRA had oversight of Madoff’s enterprise. Did Mary Schapiro perjure herself on this topic during her confirmation hearings to be Head of the SEC? Well, she may not have perjured herself, but she and others have willingly misrepresented FINRA’s required oversight of Madoff.

4. FINRA failed to detect the full breadth of the relationship between Cohmad Securities and Madoff. Bernie Madoff and his brother Peter owned 24% of Cohmad, and the Cohmad broker-dealer operated within the same office space as Bernard Madoff Investment Securities. Cohmad was largely a front for feeding customers into Madoff’s scam. The report provides:

Cohmad was registered as a broker-dealer and reported having approximately 750 to 850 customer accounts, which were held by and cleared through Bear Stearns Securities Corporation. These accounts usually generated roughly 300 transactions per month, mostly in equities and, to a lesser extent, municipal bonds.

I would very much like to know more details about these municipal bonds. Were they municipal auction rate securities?

5. How did FINRA miss the Madoff scam? This report acknowledges the fact that FINRA examiners merely took Madoff and his representatives at their word that Madoff was running nothing more than a broker-dealer. Are you kidding me? It was common knowledge that Madoff had a money management business. FINRA maintains that the FINRA ‘crossing guards’ checked the little boxes on their Madoff review sheets and went on their way.

>> Request and Recommendations

FINRA is currently lobbying to gain regulatory oversight of the investment advisory industry. Representatives of the Investment Advisors Assocation are working diligently to remain under the purview of the SEC. FINRA makes the case in this report that if it had oversight of investment advisors it may have detected the Madoff scam. That argument runs very shallow. FINRA has not displayed the capabilities of managing its current jurisdiction. Why should it be charged with greater oversight responsibilities?

FINRA has clearly been incompetent. We know that not only from reviewing the analysis provided in the Madoff and Stanford cases, but moreso in the recommendations proposed by the authors of this report. I highlight these recommendations not to embarass, but to further publicize just how poorly managed this organization is currently and has been for a LONG time. These recommendations include:

1. Establish a Fraud Detection Unit . . . are you kidding me? How is it that a financial self-regulatory organization charged with protecting investors does not have a unit like this to this point? The lack of a fraud unit is clearly a ‘failure of management.’

2. Prioritize Examinations and Resources According to the Seriousness of Misconduct? I repeat my question and assertion from above: another gross ‘failure of management.’

3. Strengthen the Cause Examination Program; Revise the Cycle Examination Program . . . this initiative entails shifting resources from lower risk ‘cycle’ (perfunctory) exams to higher risk ’cause’ exams. A tremendous grasp of the obvious here is another gross ‘failure of management.’

4. Assess Structure and Management of District Offices . . . focus on quality of exams rather than the quantity. Another gross ‘failure of management.’

5. Improve Documentation and Tracking of Enforcement Referrals to and from the SEC and Other Authorities . . . the lack of communication and ability to record and track referrals between FINRA, the SEC and other regulatory authorities is another gross ‘failure of management.’

6. Improve Procedures to Assure Legal and Regulatory Issues Are Properly Escalated, Addressed and Documented . . . yes, the fact that FINRA has fallen woefully short on this front is another gross ‘failure of management.’

7. Increase Use of Examination Staff with Specialized Qualifications . . . crossing guards are not typically qualified to undertake and pursue simple frauds such as Stanford’s and Madoff’s let alone the complicated frauds on Wall Street.

8. Enhance FINRA’s Information Technology and Systems . . . FINRA has not had the technical wherewithal to collect and process member firms information in a timely and effective fashion. Yes, the lack of this capability is another gross ‘failure of management.’

9. Confirm Member-Provided Information with Independent Third Parties; Cross Check Data Provided by Member Firms . . .the fact that FINRA has utilized the ‘trust’ method rather than the ‘trust but verify’ method in its collection and processing of member firm information is . . . another gross ‘failure of management.’

>> LD’s Questions:
While I can appreciate that readers may be exhausted, exasperated and bewildered at this point, I would ask you to stick with me because the questions I raise for FINRA remain critically important. I ask the following:

1. Nowhere in this report is there a reference to Mary Schapiro. How can a report of this magnitude be put forth without referencing the head of FINRA?

2. When will the authors of this report call for and work to produce a report of similar depth in the study of FINRA’s interactions with its major member firms which brought our financial industry and economy to its knees? I speak of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley et al.

3. Will the authors of this report support that FINRA provide full and total transparency across all of its investment activities in its internal investment portfolio? FINRA should provide all details on its investments across EVERY hedge fund, fund of fund, and private equity position. Additionally, FINRA should provide EVERY detail involved in its liquidation of its $647 million auction rate securities position in mid-2007.

4. How do FINRA and the authors of this report in good conscience promote the messages embedded in FINRA’s Annual Reports along with the messages promoted in its massive national advertising campaign? This report provides an expose of the enormous holes in this organization, not only from a structural standpoint but clearly from a cultural standpoint as well.

While this report focuses on the Stanford and Madoff frauds, against the backdrop provided I am now more convinced that there have been and likely still are other massive frauds perpetrated on the American public.

I write this commentary strictly in an attempt to get to the total truth so real market confidence can be restored. Perhaps more of this truth will be revealed in the adjudication of the three lawsuits (Amerivet, Benchmark, Standard Investment Chartered) currently facing FINRA.

Comments, questions, constructive criticisms always appreciated.

LD

Please join me this evening for NQR’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle as we dig deeper and work harder in navigating the economic landscape. My special guest will be Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot.

Ms. Walker-Lightfoot was previously employed as an attorney in the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. for almost five years, where she worked on policy matters and conducted field examinations and inspections of transfer agents, brokerage firms, hedge funds, trading exchanges, ATSs, SROs, credit rating agencies, mutual fund companies and investment advisers.

Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot

Genevievette was the lead attorney on the 2003-2004 Madoff examination conducted by OCIE and identified the substantial elements of his fraud in 2004, as detailed in a July 2, 2009, Washington Post article. However, despite her attempts to pursue her findings, her supervisors directed her efforts elsewhere, missing an opportunity to have caught Madoff’s Ponzi scheme four years prior to him turning himself in to authorities.

Ms. Walker-Lightfoot received the SEC’s Chairman’s Award for Excellence for her work on the Mutual Fund Reform Team, as well as the SEC’s Capital Markets Award for her work on the Research Analyst/Investment Banking Conflicts of Interest Team. Prior to the SEC, Genevievette was employed with the American Stock Exchange’s Member Firm Regulation Division in New York and the Dispute Resolution Department of the NASDR, now known as FINRA, in Washington, D.C.

She is a graduate of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. where she received a Bachelor of Arts in government, with a concentration in international relations and a minor in French. She also holds a J.D. and International Law Certificate from the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. and an M.B.A. from the R.H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland at College Park, Maryland. She has been a member of the State Bar of Maryland for almost ten years.

Since January of 2006, Genevievette has been employed with the Federal Reserve Board in the Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation’s Large Institutions Group in Washington, D.C., where she has responsibility for the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, the Depository Trust Corporation and ICE Trust. She was previously a member of the Market and Liquidity Risk Group where she was the SEC, brokerage firm and private equity and merchant banking activities risk specialist for banking organizations.

Share your questions and thoughts by calling in to (347) 677-0792, and also join our live chat room, which I’ll start up about 10 minutes before the show begins. Please join me tonight for this riveting discussion. **Note: the views expressed by Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot during this broadcast are her own personal views and do not in any way reflect her position as an employee of the Federal Reserve Board.

As a reminder, past episodes of No Quarter Radio shows are archived and can be played back at the BlogTalkRadio site. In addition, No Quarter Radio programming is available as a free podcast on iTunes. From the iTunes Store, type “NQR podcasts” in the search window.

Many thanks to Larry Johnson and the rest of the team at No Quarter for providing such a vibrant media vehicle as No Quarter Radio. I look forward to having you join me Sunday evening as we collectively navigate the economic landscape!!

LD

While President Obama and Congress may believe financial regulatory reform needs to focus on the SEC, the Federal Reserve and assorted other governmental agencies, I would remind the President and his Congressional colleagues that Wall Street is regulated not only by the SEC but to a great extent by the self-regulatory organization known as FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority).

This discussion on “America’s Nightly Scoreboard” is separated into two parts.

Highlights from the videos include:

1. Richard Greenfield, an attorney representing Amerivet Securities, makes the claim that FINRA under the leadership of Mary Schapiro failed to protect investors.

2. former SEC chair Harvey Pitt defends Shapiro and FINRA

3. Greenfield indicates that a FINRA insider claims FINRA invested in Madoff!!

4. I join the panel and provide details as to why FINRA, via its parent the NASD, did have responsibility to oversee Madoff. I also comment on the nature of the relationship between Wall Street and Washington, FINRA’s investment and timely liquidation of its Auction-Rate Securities position, and the need for total transparency at FINRA.

4. the head of the Madoff Victims Coalition for Investor Protection, Ronnie Sue Ambrosino, weighs in that the entire regulatory structure from the SEC to FINRA to SIPC (Securities Investor Protection Corporation) have failed to protect investors.

In my humble opinion, the conclusion of this show highlights the screaming need for FINRA to open its books and records for a full and thorough independent analysis and review. In so doing, hopefully investors specifically and the American public at large can regain a degree of confidence in the badly shattered Wall Street regulatory process.

If you care about the markets and our country, I beseech you to watch this 18 minute video in its entirety.

Thoughts, comments, questions always welcome and appreciated.

LD

PART I

PART II

Two weeks ago, Amerivet Securities filed a complaint against FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), the Wall Street self-regulatory organization. This morning, Donna Mitchell of Financial Planning provides further insight on this complaint. Ms. Mitchell writes FINRA Rebuffs Amerivet’s Demand to Inspect Records. She reports:

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) says it will not open its books and records to inspection by Amerivet Securities, the California brokerage firm which recently sued the regulator.

“We disclose a great deal of public information in our annual reports, far more than we are required to do,” says Herb Perone, a spokesman for FINRA. “Our records are not open for public examination.”

Sense on Cents questions why any financial self-regulatory organization mandated to protect investors would not be required to fully open all of its books and records for public review. Additionally, having extensively studied all of FINRA’s annual reports as well as those of its predecessor, the NASD, I echo the questions being raised by Amerivet. Does FINRA have any appreciation for the need for total truth and transparency in our markets and economy? The questions beg: why won’t FINRA fully open its books? are they trying to hide something? do they have reason to be concerned?

OPEN THE BOOKS!!!

Financial Planning continues:

The request for records is part of a civil suit filed Aug. 10 in the Superior Court of Washington, D.C., by Inglewood, Calif.-based Amerivet Securities. It stems from a July 23 letter sent to FINRA from Amerivet, in which the company initially asked to review FINRA’s documents.

In the lawsuit, Amerivet accuses FINRA of a litany of wrongdoings, from mismanaging the organization’s investment assets to placing substantial funds with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, the former broker-dealer and investment advisory firm that was brought down amid a $65 billion Ponzi scheme.

WOW! The allegation of an investment by FINRA in Madoff is a BLOCKBUSTER. What information did Amerivet and its legal representation unearth to make this allegation? This information must be revealed and FINRA must open its books and records to address this charge. (Click on image to access copy of Amerivet complaint)

Financial Planning further reports:

Amerivet also alleges that FINRA failed to regulate and oversee the operations of large securities firms such as the former Bear Stearns & Co., the former Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch & Co., and Stanford Financial Group.

Amerivet also claims that FINRA overpaid its executives, sustained investment-related losses of $568 million and separately incurred substantial losses in the auction-rate securities market. “FINRA has failed in what it represents in its advertising to be its core function, i.e. the protection of investors,” Amerivet says in the lawsuit.

Is there any doubt that FINRA has failed to protect investors? Is there any doubt that senior executives at FINRA were paid handsomely?

In regard to the auction-rate securities allegation, is Amerivet maintaining that FINRA lost money on the ARS which it owned or is Amerivet referring to money lost by investors? Details of FINRA’s liquidation of ARS in 2007 must be released. Did FINRA front-run the market in the course of selling its own ARS?

OPEN THE BOOKS!!

Financial Planning gains a degree of insight from FINRA and reports:

FINRA would not comment about the lawsuit directly, but Perone said the organization had steered clear of investing with Madoff.

“As for any claim or question as to whether we had money invested with Madoff, we had no investments of any kind in Madoff or in any of its feeder funds,” Perone said.

The allegations and implications of the Amerivet complaint strike right at the core of our financial regulatory framework. Any credible media outlet should be running the Amerivet complaint as a lead story.

The American public deserves answers.

OPEN THE BOOKS!!

LD

Related Sense on Cents Commentary:

Amerivet Securities Files Complaint vs. FINRA for Release of Investment Information and More (August 17, 2009)
FINRA Must Play by Its Own Rules (August 19, 2009)

Ms. Schapiro has always been viewed as being far too cozy with the financial industry. Sense on Cents first crossed paths with current SEC chair Mary Schapiro this past January at the time of her exceptionally easy confirmation hearing.

At that point and since, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and others have weighed in that Ms. Schapiro is “no regulatory heavyweight.”

Let’s check back and see if Ms. Schapiro is breaking off the Wall Street shackles. The Washington Post does us the favor of reporting this morning, SEC Chief Strives to Rebuild Regulator:

Schapiro is working to step up enforcement efforts, pushing cases linked to the financial crisis and freeing investigators to more vigorously pursue financial wrongdoing. She is also pursuing regulations to govern hedge funds, derivatives, short-selling, money managers, corporate disclosures and governance.

I am heartened by Ms. Schapiro’s aggressive posture. That said, I am not about to accept purely on face value that Ms. Schapiro is “changing her game.”

On the heels of the financial fiasco on Wall Street, there is doubtless lots to clean up. However, Ms. Schapiro has to appreciate that many question her courage in taking on this task. Why? Very simply, her track record as head of Finra saw an unprecedented drop in sanctions and fines. As the WSJ highlighted this past January:

Fines collected and sanctions assessed by Finra under Ms. Schapiro’s leadership dropped by 73% (in 2005, prior to Ms. Schapiro assuming leadership, Finra collected $150 million in fines. In 2006, Schapiro assumed the leadership reins and that number moved to $75mm. It dropped further to $50mm in 2007, and $35-40mm in 2008).

Against that backdrop, Ms. Schapiro has a lot of work to do to change her own image along with that of the SEC. The WaPo reports that Schapiro is aware of this fact. Schapiro states as much:

“I wanted to be very clear almost from my first day — not just with words, which are pretty easy to string together, but with actions — that this is a new SEC that is moving in a decidedly different direction and at a decidedly different pace,”

Additionally, Schapiro comments,

“Our markets are vulnerable if we’re not able to restore confidence,” Schapiro said. What investors “need to see is that the rules that are in place and will be in the future are enforced and aggressively enforced. If they don’t see that, their reluctance to engage the capital markets will be pretty significant.”

The media continues to rail on Schapiro, the SEC, and Finra for having missed the Madoff scam. Those protests are totally justified. It has been almost 7 months since Bernie turned himself in to authorities and little progress is provided to the public on the investigation.

In my opinion, though, Ms. Schapiro has other dirty laundry that needs a full and public airing.

The U.S. attorney in Brooklyn along with the SEC are currently investigating former executives from Lehman for potentially front running the Auction Rate Securities market in 2007. I call upon Ms. Schapiro to release information regarding Finra’s liquidation of its own Auction Rate Securities holdings in the same time period. Full details on this story are included in U.S. Attorney and SEC Investigate Lehman’s Auction Rate Securities Sales; They Should Also Investigate FINRA’s.

Ms. Schapiro may have to recuse herself in the process of a full and thorough investigation of Finra and its ARS sale. As with any real leader, if she has absolutely nothing to hide, then she should have no problem recusing herself. As she herself said, “our markets are vulnerable if we’re not able to restore confidence.”

Does Ms. Schapiro have the courage to investigate Finra and her own tenure in an attempt to restore that confidence?

LD

Humpty’s most severe injury is the breakdown of the securitization process in which Wall Street promoted a pure “originate to distribute” model. Obama himself offered in the May 3rd Sunday New York Times Magazine:

. . . we’re going to have to figure out what we do with the nonbanking sector that was providing almost half of our credit out there. And we’re going to have to determine whether or not as a consequence of some of the steps that the Fed has been taking, the Treasury has been taking, that we see the market for securitized products restored.

I’m optimistic that ultimately we’re going to be able to get that part of the financial sector going again, but it could take some time to regain confidence and trust.

Time for the cement to harden and for Humpty to get back on his feet. Why will it take so much time? Very simply, Humpty was not an honest broker in the process of originating, securitizing, and distributing poorly written – if not fraudulently written – loans over the last 5 to 7 years. The Financial Times highlights this fact this morning in “Securitization Is Crucial for Revitalizing Lending.” The FT reports:

Securitisation is a way to raise money by repackaging securities based upon underlying assets such as mortgages.

The US government is seeking to restart this market with up to $1,000bn of funding for purchases of securitised debt. But the complexity and risks involved mean it remains difficult to replicate the scale of the market that collapsed under the weight of losses and the departure of leveraged investors.

Meredith Whitney, of Meredith Whitney Advisory Group, says about $2,200bn less in funds has been raised by means of the US capital markets since the start of the credit crunch in July 2007, with $2,700bn less money raised globally.

She said: “With debt issuance to date seeing year-on-year gains, it is suggestive to say that things aren’t getting much worse. They just aren’t getting any better.”

The US government’s programme to revive securitisation – the Term asset-backed securities loan facility (Talf) – has made some funds available and it has also led spreads on some asset classes to narrow, reducing the potential funding costs. The programme works by lending money to hedge funds, which can increase the returns on triple A rated securities by means of the cheap loans.

In a sign of a big pick-up in demand, the Federal Reserve said late yesterday that investors requested $10.6bn worth of loans in its most recent round of the programme. This included $2.2bn worth of requests for auto loan bonds and $5.5bn for bonds backed by credit card loans.

If we review those statistics, the government’s TALF (Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility) has facilitated $18.5 billion in sales since its launch in March. While the Fed views the demand as picking up, be mindful that the $18.5 billion figure represents approximately .008 of the total credit that has evaporated from the economy via the shadow banking system. In layman’s terms, we just gave Humpty a swab with a warm cloth while his limb is holding on by a thread.

My concern with the TALF is that the buyers will cherry pick bank assets and simply purchase those which have the most rigorous underwriting. The dregs will be left for the banks and taxpayers to absorb.

If Uncle Sam does get Humpty somewhat propped back up against the wall (note that I’m not even hinting at Humpty getting “on the wall”), how do we make sure Humpty does not once again fall down and take us all with him?

We need to make sure Humpty plays by strict rules and regulations, both in terms of underwriting and business engagement. The FT addresses proposed underwriting rules in “Watchdog Proposes Strict Rules.” The FT reports,

Yesterday’s Iosco (International Organization of Securities Commissions) report called for minimum levels of due diligence by the originators and suggested mandating far greater disclosure to investors of what checks had been carried out. It also called for ongoing disclosure to investors of the performance of the underlying assets and for originators to be forced to hold on to some tranches of each deal.

Other proposals included imposing standards forcing originators to check that products were suitable for each investor and looking into developing alternative measures of assessing risk other than the credit ratings agencies that were relied on by investors previously.

Wow, you mean Humpty actually has to display a measure of integrity in his operations? What a novel idea! Who may be keeping an eye on Humpty to make sure he plays by the rules going forward? The SEC and FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority).

Hey, wait a second. When Humpty fell off the wall, we have very credible evidence that FINRA was actually one of his playmates. None other than Harry Markopolos said that FINRA was on the wall (“in bed”) with Humpty. I have highlighted issues within FINRA that still need to be addressed: FINRA Is Supposed To Police The Market.

President Obama, what do you prescribe for Humpty given his relationship with FINRA? Obama told the Times,

. . . the fact that we had such poor regulation means — in some of these markets, particularly around the securitized mortgages — means that the pain has been democratized as well. And that’s a problem. But I think that overall there are ways in which people have been able to participate in our stock markets and our financial markets that are potentially healthy. Again, what you have to have, though, is an updating of the regulatory regimes comparable to what we did in the 1930s, when there were rules that were put in place that gave investors a little more assurance that they knew what they were buying.

Putting Humpty back together is going to be very challenging. Sense on Cents will be monitoring the operation very closely.

LD

For newer readers who may want to more fully understand how Humpty “had a great fall,” I strongly recommend The Wall Street Model Is Broken….and Won’t Soon Be Fixed.

Kudos, Larry!!!!

********************************

I have written extensively about FINRA’s ownership of Auction Rate Securities over the last few months. This morning Bloomberg reports, FINRA Oversees Auction-Rate Arbitrations After Exiting Market.

This Bloomberg article (I am humbled by Bloomberg quoting me in the story) answers a number of questions I have raised, while also opening the door to other issues needing to be addressed:

1. Was FINRA blinded – if not totally conflicted – in addressing the trading, selling, and marketing of Auction Rate Securities? Try 862 million times.

2. Was FINRA lucky, prescient, or well informed in the timing of the sale of their own Auction Rate Securities? We may never know but given that their first “guidance for investors” was not published until after the market had totally frozen, they certainly did not provide much investor protection as is their mandate.

3. I have also written, and Bloomberg highlights, that FINRA had money invested in hedge funds. In light of market developments, I think the public has a right to know which hedge funds. Will FINRA release that information?

4. I unearthed all the information of FINRA’s investment activities from its 2007 Annual Report published in April 2008. I am still waiting for FINRA to release its 2008 Annual Report and wonder why it seems to be delayed.

5. As we move forward with likely regulatory changes for Wall Street, I believe the very nature of a self-regulatory organization funded by the banks it is charged to oversee presents massive conflicts of interest. This specific situation of FINRA’s investment in ARS is indicative of those conflicts. Will Congress have the courage to address these conflicts and serve the public interest in the process?

“To me it smacks of incompetence and negligence,” said Larry Doyle, who worked 23 years on Wall Street and runs a Web site called Sense on Cents. “Finra is supposed to police the market.”

I view FINRA as akin to the palace guard. The question remains, Does The Palace Guard Have No Clothes?

LD

Hedge funds are currently unregulated. How could the SEC have found potentially another 150 “rats” in the space of a mere three months since Ms. Schapiro has been on the job? My instincts lead me to believe the following:

1. Ms. Schapiro is trying to convey a sense of leadership and progress on fraud investigations after the abysmal performance on the Madoff scheme. The SEC needs to burnish its image and Ms. Schapiro is trying to address that with this news release.

2. I have no doubt that many other hedge funds did operate as Ponzi schemes and likely had money invested in Madoff knowing he was the largest rat. As investigators from the SEC have reviewed the list of Madoff investors, the info there has likely led to other hedge fund frauds.

Additionally, do not forget that many hedge funds suspended redemptions in the latter half of 2008. Ponzi schemes, like rats, only thrive given a steady source of food and water in the form new investments. Suspending redemptions is akin to a rat rationing its food supply. While plenty of those suspensions could be legitimate, it would be naive to think that all of them are.

3. We know that FINRA, the self-regulatory organization overseeing Wall Street, had investments in hedge funds, fund of funds, and private equity. That info was provided in the FINRA 2007 Annual Report. We are STILL waiting for the release of the FINRA 2008 Annual Report. Could FINRA have invested in Madoff? Could FINRA have invested in other hedge fund Ponzi schemes? Why by April 28th has FINRA still not released their Annual Report?

In addition to releasing hints of hedge fund Ponzi schemes, Schapiro also provides hints of ongoing investigations into criminal activity in the municipal finance and credit derivatives sectors. “Low tide” in the markets will certainly reveal more rats scurrying amdist the garbage. Where’s FINRA? Actually, none other than Ms. Schapiro herself would know of FINRA’s investment activities as she headed FINRA prior to her move to SEC. Call me suspicious, but I view FINRA’s delayed release of its 2008 Annual Report as more than a casual event.

The investing public deserves so much better.

LD

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), is the largest non-governmental regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States. All told, FINRA oversees nearly 5,000 brokerage firms, about 173,000 branch offices and approximately 656,000 registered securities representatives.

Created in July 2007 through the consolidation of NASD and the member regulation, enforcement and arbitration functions of the New York Stock Exchange, FINRA is dedicated to investor protection and market integrity through effective and efficient regulation and complementary compliance and technology-based services.

While FINRA promotes investor protection and market integrity, the simple fact is there are still thousands of investors with an estimated hundred BILLION dollars locked up in Auction Rate Securities. The ARS market has been designated as a fraud. FINRA not only did not protect the ARS investors, but participated in the ARS market as an investor themselves. At year end 2006, FINRA had a $647 million position in ARS. Did they sell them? When? To whom? What price? If they did sell their ARS position, did they possess material non-public information and act upon it? Will the 2008 FINRA Annual Report provide answers? I can only hope. Aside from a few state attorneys general, who is truly looking to help these investors?

FINRA touches virtually every aspect of the securities business—from registering and educating industry participants to examining securities firms; writing rules; enforcing those rules and the federal securities laws; informing and educating the investing public; providing trade reporting and other industry utilities; and administering the largest dispute resolution forum for investors and registered firms. It also performs market regulation under contract for The NASDAQ Stock Market, the American Stock Exchange, the International Securities Exchange and the Chicago Climate Exchange.

A consistent claim by ARS investors is the mismarketing of this product as a cash surrogate. Where was FINRA to educate investors and to monitor the broker-dealers? Additionally, investors have reported that FINRA has provided them little to no support in reclaiming their funds.

FINRA has approximately 3,000 employees and operates from Washington, DC, and New York, NY, with 15 District Offices around the country.

FINRA believes investor protection begins with education. Using the internet, the media and public forums, we help investors build their financial knowledge and provide them with essential tools to better understand the markets and basic principles of saving and investing. In addition, the FINRA Investor Education Foundation is the largest foundation in the United States dedicated to investor education. As of June 2007, the Foundation had approved $10.4 million in grants and an additional $10.2 million in direct investor education programming.

In today’s fast-paced and complex global economy, FINRA is a trusted advocate for investors, dedicated to keeping the markets fair, ensuring investor choice and proactively addressing emerging regulatory issues before they harm investors or the markets.

Thousands of investors and billions of dollars remain frozen in ARS. For these individuals, FINRA’s assertions ring hollow.

Over and above FINRA’s investment in ARS, the 2007 Annual Report also indicated FINRA had hundreds of millions of dollars invested in hedge funds, fund of funds, and private equity. Perhaps in light of the desire for increased transparency in investment management along with stricter enforcement from regulatory authorities, FINRA could wear both hats and share with the public details on these investments.

I commend the consistent Bloomberg coverage of the ARS travesty. The FINRA angle in this scandal remains a puzzle with many unanswered questions. The former head of FINRA, Mary Schapiro, now heads the SEC. Could she be compelled to shed some light on her former employer and its overall investment activities in light of the ARS scandal?

For those interested in reviewing Sense on Cents‘ coverage on the FINRA connection specifically and the ARS scandal in general, I am happy to provide the following synopsis:

1. Let’s Really Question Ms. Schapiro…
January 16,2009

This piece reviews the kid glove treatment Ms. Schapiro received during her confirmation hearing to head the SEC. I also reveal the fact that FINRA, formerly headed by Ms. Schapiro, owned $647 million in ARS, along with investments in private equity, fund of funds, and hedge funds. Those facts are in FINRA’s 2007 Annual Report (pgs 47-51), a link to which is provided in the piece.

2. Riveting Testimony From a Great American, Harry Markopolos
February 4, 2009

This piece focuses on Mr. Markopolos’ scathing indictment of the SEC in the handling of the Madoff scam. Mr. Markopolos, however, also strongly indicts FINRA as being “corrupt.”

3. Warden Grows Veggies With Prisoners
March 4, 2009

This piece again highlights the fact regarding FINRA’s ownership of ARS. It also highlights a piece written by Cody Willard of Market Watch impugning Ms. Schapiro.

4. Turn That Screw A Little Tighter
March 10, 2009

This piece highlights the fact that issuers of ARS continue to pay underwriting fees to Wall Street firms for underwriting ARS, even though the market has totally dried up. Those fees in 2008 totaled $211 million. Make no mistake, those fees are ultimately borne by taxpayers.

5. Will TARP Screw ARPS Even Tighter?
March 25, 2009

This piece reviews the possibility that Oppenheimer Holdings, based in Toronto, may look to incorporate in the United States in order to access TARP funds to reimburse ARPS investors. Under that scenario, all American taxpayers will be reimbursing ARS investors for a fraud perpetrated by this Canadian money manager.

6. Oppy’s Pain In The ARS!
March 30, 2009

This piece further addresses the ridiculous potential of a company moving to the United States in order to milk the American taxpayer to provide bailout assistance!!

7. Bigger Than Madoff?
March 30, 2009

In this piece, I draw the striking similarities in the scams perpetrated by Bernie Madoff and those involved in the underwriting, marketing, and distribution of ARS.

8. Before Any Fraud Ensued
March 31, 2009

This piece addresses an ARS case found for the defense, that being UBS. The critical point in this piece is the quote by Judge McKenna in which he states that investors have been returned to their initial position “before any fraud ensued.” By that quote, the judge is confirming the fact that the underwriting, marketing, and sales of ARS constituted a fraud.

9. No Quarter Radio’s “Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle”
April 5, 2009

This is a replay of my Sunday evening radio program from April 5, 2009 in which I interviewed Phil Trupp, a journalist, author, and an ARS investor. Mr. Trupp is writing Money On Ice: How Ordinary Investors Beat the Biggest Fraud in Wall Street History, an exposure of the Auction Rate Securities scandal.

For all those who have been, and still are, impacted by this scandal, I hope my writing here at Sense on Cents is helpful in returning your investment dollars in a very timely fashion.

I welcome any comments, questions, concerns, or criticisms.

LD