Daily Archives: May 5, 2005

What was that message again?

Posted on by
2

boilerroom.jpgProfessor Podgor over at the White Collar Crime Prof Blog points us to this Securities and Exchange Commission press release that describes the SEC’s lawsuit against some Houston-area telemarketers who are taking a rather creative approach to soliciting purchases of six microcap stocks.
Turns out that the stock promoters left hundreds of thousands of fraudulent “wrong number” stock tip messages in which a woman by the name of “Debbie” would leave a hot stock tip message on the phone recipient’s voice mail and would leave it in such a way to make the recipient believe that “Debbie” had dialed the number by mistake and had really meant to call a friend to pass along the hot stock tip.
The SEC complaint alleges that the messages were part of a larger scheme enabling the Houston-based stock promoters (Peter S. Cahill of Houston and Cahill’s Clearlake Venture Group) to sell approximately $4.5 million of one of the touted stocks through a Tampa, Fla.-based broker-dealer. The SEC alleges that the scheme drove up the price of each of the touted stocks, temporarily inflating their combined market capitalization by approximately $180 million.
Gosh, what is the world coming to? You can’t even trust those hot stock tips mistakenly left on your voicemail anymore? ;^)

Nebraska upsets OU!

Posted on by
2

Nebraska v OU.jpgFollowing on these earlier posts on the current conflict between the Universities of Nebraska and Oklahoma, the ‘Huskers have scored an upset!
My sense is that the ‘Huskers will not do as well against the Sooners on the gridiron this fall.
Update: OU fan Jim Bob Baker, who had taken the “over” on the pre-verdict over/under betting line of a three year sentence for the defendant, observed the following about the jury:

“Not guilty? Gee, I didn’t know that there were that many Oklahoma State alumni in Cleveland County (Norman), Oklahoma.”

It’s a tough time to be an insurer

Posted on by
Reply

FBI.jpgFrustrated with the Lord of Regulation getting all the headlines recently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced yesterday a wide-ranging inquiry into the insurance industry that could extend into banking and other financial sectors.
FBI investigators and insurance regulators from multiple states are meeting in New York City today during which the regulators are apparently going to school the FBI agents on the structured finance transactions that insurers commonly use to manage earnings or — as described in the current climate of regulatory demagoguery — to manipulate financial statements. The FBI has assigned between 50 and 75 agents from its Financial Crimes Section to the probe and confirmed that its investigation is the result of the various criminal and regulatory probes that are already underway in regard to AIG and Berkshire Hathaway’s reinsurance unit, General Re.
One would hope that the FBI actually hires an expert or two in structured finance to explain the legitimacy of many such transactions before going on the Sunday talk shows and alleging widespread criminal activity within the industry. The misguided nature of the government and the bankruptcy examiner’s similar investigations into many of Enron’s structured finance transactions has already been well-chronicled, particularly by University of Chicago business professor and structured finance expert, Christopher Culp, in his recent books, Corporate Aftershock (Cato 2003) and Risk Transfer (Wiley 2004).
Meanwhile, checking in on the AIG saga, the Wall Street Journal ($) and others published a copy of a letter from former AIG CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg to the AIG board yesterday in which Mr. Greenberg laments AIG’s restatement of net worth earlier this week and points out that the restatement lacked critical input from Mr. Greenberg and former AIG CFO, Howard I. Smith. How the company could have reached its conclusions without Mr. Smith’s input “is beyond my comprehension,” observed Mr. Greenberg in the letter.
Of course, the Lord of Regulation made certain that the AIG board did not have such input by effectively forcing Messrs. Greenberg and Smith to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by publicly alleging that they had committed crimes before even hearing from either man. So it goes in the post-Enron business world of being guilty until proven innocent if one engages in structured finance transactions.