Category Archives: Business – 2008-10 Financial Crisis

Considering the whole man

Posted on by
Reply

Chris Milton Over the years, I’ve written quite a bit (for example, here, here and here) on the questionable nature of the prosecutions of the executives who were involved in the AIG/General Re finite risk transaction that prompted Eliot Spitzer to demonize Hank Greenberg.

However, I’ve never written as eloquently about the injustice of those prosecutions as Anthony O’Donnell does in this I&T post about the sentencing of former AIG vice-president of reinsurance, Christian Milton.

As noted previously here, the human toll of the criminalization-of-business lottery is incalculable. Careers destroyed while lives and families are shattered.

A truly civil society would find a better way.

The potential consequences of being tricky

Posted on by
2

Fuld It’s rarely pleasant for a businessman to have his personal affairs splashed across the front page of the New York Times business section.

But it has to be particularly unsettling for the businessman when he is already the target of numerous civil lawsuits and, quite possibly, a criminal prosecution.

Frankly, I’ve never understood the reasoning of lawyers who advise their clients at the center of such a litigation firestorm to transfer assets to their family members. Fuld and his wife are reportedly quite wealthy, so maybe they have legitimate estate planning reasons for Fuld to transfer his interest in a multi-million dollar home to his wife for nominal consideration.

But Fuld is also subject to numerous civil lawsuits in connection with the Lehman Brothers meltdown. Those lawsuits seek hundreds of millions in damages, and the company’s officers and directors’ insurance likely will not come close to covering those damages. Thus, the fact that Fuld is transferring a valuable interest in an asset to his wife for nominal consideration at this particular time will be of more than passing interest to the plaintiffs in those lawsuits.

Inasmuch as Fuld is the only person in his family who has any civil liability in those lawsuits, why subject other family members to possible fraudulent transfer liability?

Similarly, in the unlikely — but certainly possible — event that Fuld’s litigation problems force him into a personal bankruptcy case, why take the risk that his legal right to a discharge of personal liability for claims against him would be denied because of the transfer to his wife?

However, beyond the civil liability concerns, the main reason that Fuld should not have engaged in this type of transfer under his particular circumstances is simply that it looks bad. Real bad. Not only to potential creditors, but more importantly, to prosecutors who will make the decision on whether to indict Fuld. And, most importantly, to jurors who will decide Fuld’s fate.

For example, remember the criminal case against former Enron chairman, Ken Lay? The prosecutors conceded (bragged?) afterward that it was a very weak case. So, rather than focus on the supposed criminal conduct, the prosecutors hammered away on Lay’s indiscrete use of his personal line of credit with the company. As noted in my concluding post on the seventeen-week trial:

[I]f there was a defining moment in the trial that sealed the defendants’ fate, then it likely came in Week Fourteen during Task Force prosecutor John Hueston’s cross-examination of Lay over the use of his company line of credit.

Although Lay’s line of credit was legal and the company disclosed his use of it in accordance with applicable law, Lay’s repayment of the large draws on the line with Enron stock at a time when he was encouraging employees and the market to buy company stock was an apparent contradiction that the jurors could easily grasp.

Similarly, Lay’s decision to draw down $1 million on the line five days before Enron’s bankruptcy [to help pay off the mortgage on Lay’s condominium] was a disastrous decision for the defense. Although done on advice of counsel, Lay’s last-minute draw as the company was sinking into insolvency looked so bad that reference to that testimony by leaders of the jury during deliberations was probably enough to seal any wavering non-leader juror’s view on whether to convict.

If Fuld is indicted, then you can rest assured that prosecutors will bring his recent transfer to his wife to the attention of the judge during proceedings over the amount of his bond pending trial. And although the transfer has nothing to do with the probable criminal charges against Fuld (i.e., violating the obligation to throw in the towel), prosecutors will try to use it anyway to make him look tricky in the eyes of jurors.

You see, such a transfer plays right into the real presumption these days in business crime prosecutions — Fuld is wealthy and his company collapsed, so he must be guilty of some crime in connection with his company’s demise.

Sadly, being proven greedy is often enough to be convicted of a crime.

 

Making Bad Policy

Posted on by
Reply

It sure is getting hard to keep up with all the rules involved in determining whether an important person gets prosecuted for an alleged business crime.

First, there was the Apple Rule, which was quickly followed by the Dell Rule.

Next, there was the Buffett Rule.

And then we had the GM Rule.

Now, Larry Ribstein reports that we have the Geithner Rule.

None of which is likely to help Wachovia’s Bob Steel, who the SEC apparently believes violated the obligation to throw in the towel.

Does anyone really believe that all these rules and the criminalization-of-business lottery constitutes a coherent policy for regulating questionable business deals?

Reality Bites

Posted on by
Reply

CramerTNThis earlier post made the following point about folks who lost their entire nest egg by investing it with Bernard Madoff:

Although nothing is wrong with compassion for folks who lose money in an investment fraud, it’s important to remember that those investors who lost their nest egg in the Madoff implosion were imprudent in their investment strategy. They should have diversified their Madoff holdings or done some real due diligence into his operation if they were going to bet the farm on it. Even though every one of Madoff investors carry insurance on their homes and cars, one can only speculate why they didn’t attempt to understand the risk of their investment in Madoff’s company better than most did. Most likely, many of the investors simply did not care to truly understand how Madoff claimed to create wealth for them in the first place.  .  .  .

It’s easy to throw Madoff in prison for the rest of his life, simply attribute the investment loss to him and pledge to do a better job of policing the crooks next time. It’s a lot harder to understand how Madoff’s investors could have hedged their risk of Madoff’s fraud. As this WSJ editorial concludes, "expecting the SEC to prevent a determined and crafty con man from separating investors from their money is no more sensible than putting your life savings with a Bernard Madoff."

Professor Antony Davies of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh makes an analogous point in this W$J letter-to-the-editor (H/T Don Boudreaux) about folks who are calling for increased regulation because of losses incurred in their 401(k) retirement accounts:

In the article "Big Slide in 401(k)s Spurs Calls for Change" (page one, Jan. 8), 35-year-old project manager Kristine Gardner says in response to the 44% drop in her 401(k) last year: "There’s just no guarantee that when you’re ready to retire you’re going to have the money."

Newsflash: Higher returns are the compensation for incurring risk, and lower returns are the price of safety. Ms. Gardner’s 401(k) would have been completely safe had she shifted her investment allocations into money markets. As money markets yield a paltry 1%, Ms. Gardner’s real complaint isn’t that 401(k)s are unsafe, but rather that financial markets require her to incur risk in exchange for being compensated for incurring risk.

Retirement consultant Robyn Credico claims that "This is the biggest test that the 401(k) plan has seen . . . and it has failed." Au contraire, 401(k) plans have worked exactly as designed. It is the workers (and their retirement consultants) who have failed.

There is only one reason why the average person close to retirement should have lost 50% of his 401(k): incompetence. Most workers at that age should have long since shifted the bulk of their 401(k)s into bonds and money markets. The 401(k) is a powerful investment tool but can be dangerous when abused.

If you aren’t willing to put forth the effort to learn the principles of investing, that’s your choice. But don’t hobble the rest of us by asking for government regulation of a tool that works perfectly well just so that you can be spared the effort of figuring out how to use it.

As with the security theater in our nation’s airports, increased regulatory control over retirement investment is a fake safety net. It will not protect retirement savings (check out the solvency of the Social Security system if you don’t believe that), and the "protection" of increased regulation will lead many investors to believe that they still do not need to understand the best ways to create wealth and hedge risk in their retirement accounts.

Indulging ignorance is generally not a good reason for increasing governmental power.

The Criminalization-of-Business Lottery

Posted on by
3

The owners of Long Term Capital Management may have been the earliest winners in the most recent era of what Larry Ribstein has coined the criminalization-of-business lottery.

On the other hand, Jamie Olis may have been the biggest loser.

Martha Stewart lost, but at least never lost her business enterprise. Frank Quattrone also lost, but then he won, although I suspect that he believes that he lost overall.

Subsequently, Theodore Sihpol won while Bill Fuhs and his family lost a year of his life before he won, too. But he and his family will never get that year back.

Then, Ken Lay lost big even though he had a reasonable basis for believing that he should have won. Same with Jeff Skilling.

Meanwhile, mainstream media darlings Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett won, although several of Buffett’s associates did not fare as well. Neither did relative media unknown Greg Reyes.

But General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner appears to be a winner, even though those two Bear Stearns executives probably aren’t.

And who knows about those Lehman Brothers executives — they may be winners, after all? I mean, everyone was doing it, right?

Finally, for awhile, it looked as if David Stockman was going to be a big loser. But in a startling turnaround, Stockman is now a winner.

Just as with a gambling lottery, there is no rhyme or reason as to who wins or loses in the criminalization-of-business lottery.

But in this lottery — which does little or nothing to deter the true business criminals of the world — the losers and their families give up much more than merely money.

A truly civil society would find a better way.

Another Angry Mob

Posted on by
1

mob_ The Fifth Circuit’s decision yesterday reminded us of the angry mob that lynched Jeff Skilling.

Now, as this timely Roger Parloff/Fortune article notes, an even larger mob is gathering to lynch the businesspeople who were attempting to save their companies in the wake of last year’s financial meltdown on Wall Street:

The level of fury surrounding these inquiries is of a different order from what we saw with, say, the backdating scandals or the Enron and WorldCom failures. Today’s credit collapse has already vaporized about $9 trillion in investment capital, while ripping another trillion in assorted bailout money from the pockets of enraged taxpayers – also sometimes known as "jurors."

Based on the Fifth Circuit’s Skilling decision, those targeted businesspeople would be wise not to rely on the courts for protection from the mob.

Those pesky unexpected consequences

Posted on by
1

AA017907 On the heels of this post from a couple of days ago that addressed Tyler Cowen’s recent NY Times op-ed that speculated that expectations generated from the 1998 government bailout of Long Term Capital Management hedge fund were not such a good thing, this W$J article on the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy case bemoans the enormous cost attributable to lack of reorganization planning in connection with the Lehman Brothers case:

As much as $75 billion of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. value was destroyed by the unplanned and chaotic form of the firm’s bankruptcy filing in September, according to an internal analysis by the company’s restructuring advisers.

A less-hurried Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing likely would have preserved tens of billions of dollars of value, according to a three-month study by the advisory firm, Alvarez & Marsal. An orderly filing would have enabled Lehman to sell some assets outside of federal bankruptcy-court protection, and would have given it time to try to unwind its derivatives portfolio in a way that might have preserved value, the study says. [.  .  .]

"While I have no position on whether or not the federal government should have provided further assistance to Lehman, once the decision was made not to provide further assistance, an orderly wind-down plan should have been pursued. It was an unconscionable waste of value," said Bryan Marsal, co-chief executive of the advisory firm who now serves as Lehman’s chief restructuring officer.

Mr. Marsal estimates that the total value destruction at Lehman will reach between $50 billion and $75 billion, once losses from derivatives trades and asset impairment are combined.

Losses are a natural part of the risk allocation that occurs in big reorganization cases. But anyone who has been involved in such cases knows that it takes at least a couple of months to prepare a big reorganization case properly.

Friends who are closely involved in the Lehman Brothers case have confided to me that Lehman CEO Richard Fuld never in his wildest imagination thought, after the precedent of Bear Stearns, that the Fed and the U.S. Treasury would fail to bail out Lehman Brothers. When that proved wrong, Lehman Brothers had to file its chapter 11 case on a relatively unplanned, emergency basis. That miscalculation cost creditors even more than they would have lost had Lehman’s management taken the normal step of planning the case when they saw the writing on the wall. I’ve got my doubts that the additional losses are $50-75 billion as suggested by the consultant’s report (could the Lehman-related parties be using that report as a liability shield?), but there is little question that an emergency bankruptcy filing generally costs creditors more than a properly planned one.

As John Carney notes, maybe the conventional wisdom is wrong that the Fed made matters worse by failing to bailout Lehman Brothers.

It’s hard enough to evaluate the risk of insolvency in regard to a trust-based business under normal circumstances. It becomes a real crapshoot when there exists an expectation that the federal government will provide stop-gap financing for a big trust-based company’s losses. And crapshoots generate some pretty bad risk-taking.

It really isn’t rocket science.

Lessons of LTCM

Posted on by
Reply

Marginal Revolution’s Tyler Cowen makes a similar point in this NY Times op-ed about the 1998 federal bailout of the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund that this earlier post made about Enron and the current Treasury bailout:

At the time, it may have seemed that regulators did the right thing [in bailing out LTM]. The bailout did not require upfront money from the government, and the world avoided an even bigger financial crisis.

Today, however, that ad hoc intervention by the government no longer looks so wise.

With the Long-Term Capital bailout as a precedent, creditors came to believe that their loans to unsound financial institutions would be made good by the Fed — as long as the collapse of those institutions would threaten the global credit system. Bolstered by this sense of security, bad loans mushroomed. [ .  .  .]

The major creditors of the fund included Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, all of which went on to lend and invest recklessly and, to one degree or another, pay the consequences. But 1998 should have been the time to send a credible warning that bad loans to over-leveraged institutions would mean losses, and that neither the Fed nor the Treasury would make these losses good.

Absent allocation of risk consequences to the parties who entered into transactions with financially-troubled companies, markets have a difficult time accurately pricing risk in regard to future investment and transactions. Such indecision plays a big part in delaying recovery in financial markets.

Similarly, without cleaning up the balance sheets of troubled companies (and putting the hopelessly insolvent ones out of their misery), extending additional credit to financially-strapped companies only makes them an even poorer risk for investment. That doesn’t facilitate recovery in the financial markets, either.

Amidst many blunders, the Bush Administration’s failure to tap corporate reorganization experts in connection with its policy-making regarding the financial crisis was one of the worst. Hopefully, Obama’s advisors note the mistake and correct it in the next Administration.

Update: Barry Ritholtz agrees with Tyler and me.

Wallstrip does Cramer on Wall Street

Posted on by

Making sense of Madoff

Posted on by
2

Ponzi Scheme Loren Steffy, the Houston Chronicle’s business columnist, has been having a hard time lately.

You will recall that Steffy was one of the leaders of the mainstream media lynch mob that embraced the myth of the Greed Narrative in calling for harsh criminal prosecutions of former Enron executives, particularly the late Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling.

However, now that pretty much the same thing that happened to Enron has happened to Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG and any number of other trust-based businesses during the current financial crisis, Steffy has had difficulty making sense of it all. We can’t just throw all of those executives in prison, can we?

Now to make things even more confusing for Steffy, Bernard Madoff’s alleged Ponzi scheme has unraveled. Steffy’s column from yesterday bemoans that Madoff, as with Enron, was at least in large part the result of lax regulation:

And so the era of lax regulation that began with Enron ends with the Madoff madness looming as a monument to the SEC’s ineptitude. Already under fire for smelling the flowers while Bear Stearns — to cite one example — charged toward collapse, the SEC’s days may be numbered. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson introduced a sweeping reform plan earlier this year that would relieve it of much of its oversight role.

But wait a minute. The SEC had been continually warned about Madoff’s company (see Henry Markopolos’ 2005 notice to the SEC here). Moreover, the "lax regulation" that Steffy complains about came at a time of unparalleled growth in the SEC during the supposedly pro-business Bush Administration:

Since 2000 and especially after the fall of Enron, the SEC’s annual budget has ballooned to more than $900 million from $377 million.  .  .  . Its full-time examination and enforcement staff has increased by more than a third, or nearly 500 people. The percentage of full-time staff devoted to enforcement — 33.5% — appears to be a modern record, and it is certainly the SEC’s highest tooth-to-tail ratio since the 1980s. The press corps and Congress both were making stars of enforcers like Eliot Spitzer, so the SEC’s watchdogs had every incentive to ferret out fraud.

Yet, the regulators couldn’t put the pieces of the puzzle together (even Spitzer’s family was a victim of Madoff!). So, Steffy’s solution is the SEC "needs to be put out to pasture." In other words, rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Look, as J. Robert Brown and Larry Ribstein point out, there are understandable systemic reasons why Madoff was able to slip through the regulatory cracks for decades. Most of those flaws are not going to be fixed by simply creating a Super-SEC. Indeed, the suggestion that such regulatory remedies are the best protection against the next Madoff (and, rest assured, there will be many) actually is counter-productive to understanding the truly best protection from such schemes.

The primary justification for this regulatory retrofitting is the plight of the innocent investors (and it sure is an interesting bunch) who lost millions when Madoff’s company went bust. Although nothing is wrong with compassion for folks who lose money in an investment fraud, it’s important to remember that those investors who lost their nest egg in the Madoff implosion were imprudent in their investment strategy. They should have diversified their Madoff holdings or done some real due diligence into his operation if they were going to bet the farm on it. Even though every one of Madoff investors carry insurance on their homes and cars, one can only speculate why they didn’t attempt to understand the risk of their investment in Madoff’s company better than most did. Most likely, many of the investors simply did not care to truly understand how Madoff claimed to create wealth for them in the first place. Chidem Kurdas’ speaks to this dynamic in his timely study on the demise of the Manhattan Capital hedge fund:

As the failure of the hedge-fund firm Manhattan Capital demonstrates, both government regulators and market players can make mistakes resulting from cognitive biases. Responding to such mistakes by strengthening government watchdogs, although often recommended, reduces both the watchdogs’ and the public’s incentive to learn, thereby creating a vicious spiral of regulation, regulatory failure, and even more regulation.

Thus, as Larry Ribstein has been advocating for years, no amount of increased regulation is likely ever to do a better job than the market in mitigating fraud loss. It’s easy to throw Madoff in prison for the rest of his life, simply attribute the investment loss to him and pledge to do a better job of policing the crooks next time. It’s a lot harder to understand how Madoff’s investors could have hedged their risk of Madoff’s fraud. As this WSJ editorial concludes, "expecting the SEC to prevent a determined and crafty con man from separating investors from their money is no more sensible than putting your life savings with a Bernard Madoff."