Showing posts with label PonziScheme. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PonziScheme. Show all posts

Thursday, January 1, 2009

From Ponzi in 2008 to Pozzo in 2009



The closing weeks of 2008 resulted in the public exposure of a spectacular Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. Losses, still not exactly known, are estimated, by the schemer himself, to be around $50 billion. The size of the scam has caught the attention of the world, and yet, it pales in comparison to the Pozzo scam headed directly our way.

International diplomat and manipulator Carlo Andrea Pozzo di Borgo of Corsica was a childhood friend of Napoleon who eventually turned against Napoleon. He also turned against his political sponsor, Paoli, to more quickly advance his own career. It is with this background, that while studying at Cambridge University, John Maynard Keynes was tagged by fellow students with the nickname, Pozzo. The nickname lasted for the remainder of his life.

It is the economic beliefs of John "Pozzo" Keynes, centering on spending money as a method to boost an economy, that will impact modern day America. The incoming Obama Administration has already announced a $700 billion spending program. There is even more likely to come. This, we hasten to add, is on top of the "rescue" programs of the Bush Administration.

The economic justification for such spending programs exists in the writings of Pozzo Keynes. But the tremendous spending results in few considering the "take away" that accompanies every Pozzo penny spent. The take away is the source from where Pozzo money must come from. If $700 billion is spent, $700 billion must be taken from somewhere to fuel the spending. Like the crazy aunt in the attic, the "take away" is rarely spoken about. But it is most important to understand it.

The take away can only occur in three ways from taxation, borrowing or money printing. Each has a vicious negative impact on the economy. It's as though the crazy aunt has been put in charge of driving the family to church in the family car.

Taxation, of course, cuts into the saving and spending ability of those taxed. The Obama insiders have leaked to the press that the "take away" will not come via taxation. This leaves borrowing and money printing. Borrowing crowds out the borrowing of the business man, so less is produced. During a downturn, the last thing you want is less production. The money printing option fuels the inflation machine.

Thus, the Pozzo Plan is one of less production or more inflation. It succeeds in capturing the imagination of the shallow thinking public in much the way the razzle dazzle that accompanies a Ponzi scheme catches their eye. They see what is going on directly in front of them, but nothing is said about the source of the money. This is the 2009 we face.

If the choice is between a Ponzi scheme and a Pozzo scam, a Ponzi scheme is always preferable, since it is voluntary and thus can be avoided and, secondly, it never grows to the size of a Pozzo, and is thus much less damaging to the overall economy. But, the big Ponzi scheme of 2008 is yesterday's news. The news for 2009 is all about John "Pozzo" Keynes and the wonders of Pozzo spending. It is going to choke, hurt and do nothing but mess up the economy, and you are going to have to be very quick, sharp and lucky to keep away from its clutches. Happy New Year.

Friday, December 12, 2008

How Bad Did the SEC Blow the Madoff Ponzi Scheme?

As startling as a $50 billion Ponzi scheme is, more staggering has to be the SEC's failure to catch the scheme years ago.

The latest from WSJ is that Harry Markopolos, who years ago worked for a rival firm, is a money manger and a fraud investigator, wrote to the SEC in 1999 about Madoff after researching Madoff's supposed stock-options strategy and was convinced the results likely weren't real.

"Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi Scheme," Markopolos, wrote in his 1999 letter to the SEC, according to WSJ.

Markopolos didn't stop there. He pursued his accusations over the past nine years, dealing with both the New York and Boston bureaus of the SEC, according to documents he sent to the SEC and reviewed by WSJ.

A series of media stories also raised questions about Madoff's operations, including a piece entitled "Madoff Tops Charts: Sceptics Ask How" in the industry publication MAR/Hedge in May, 2001, and a subsequent story in Barron's.

How could the SEC have missed this with the media covering the story and a money manager/fraud investigator trying to get them to investigate for almost 10 years? As I wrote earlier, the SEC was clearly doing something else besides looking for bad guys. They were doing what they always do, respond to political pressures, re-announcing absurd rules to fight the financial crisis and launching absurd show trials against the likes of Mark Cuban.

Red Flags the SEC Missed in the Madoff $50 Billion Ponzi Scheme

As I pointed out earlier, the SEC completely missed Bernie Madoff's $50 billion Ponzi scheme, despite the fact that money manager Harry Markopolos, who also is a financial fraud investigator and associate member of the Greater Boston Chapter of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, had been begging the SEC for 10 years to investigate Madoff.

But, Madoff wasn't the only private sector operator who smelled a rat. Without SEC privileges to look at books, subpoena records and the like, Aksia, LLC, a hedge fund research firm, advised clients not to invest with Madoff.

Here's Aksia CEO Jim Vos explaining some of the red flags that Aksia spotted, but apparently did not raise curiosity at the SEC:

It's Time To Abolish the SEC

This is all you need to know about the Securities and Exchange Commission. Bernard Madoff put out a shingle as an investment advisor, instead of investing the money that was placed with him, he ran a huge Ponzi scheme. How big? $50 billion in losses.

As the multi-decade scam went on, WSJ is reporting that a complete outsider, a Boston money manager with no audit power, no subpoena power, nothing, Harry Markopolos, smelled a rat. For the last 10 years, he has been writing and otherwise contacting the SEC asking them to investigate Madoff. He told the SEC that Madoff couldn't possibly be making the profits he was reporting. Let me repeat, he has been contacting the SEC for 10 years begging them to investigate Madoff. Nothing happened.

Further, CNBC's Charles Gasparino reports that some hedge fund advisers were advising clients to stay away from investing with Madoff. The signs were there.

The SEC was clueless.

How did the SEC finally break the case,and bring charges yesterday? Madoff's sons walked into the offices of the SEC and said, "Our father just told us he has been running a Ponzi scheme and that he ripped off $50 billion."

Bottom line, the SEC is a political institution, it doesn't react to a Boston money manager who might be on to something, it reacts to politics.

It will run a show trial involving Mark Cuban.

It will pose as a battler of the financial crisis.

A complaint from a Harry Markopolos? Who the hell is Harry Markopolos? Put that at the bottom of the inbox. Hey, who knows, they might have gotten to it in year 11.

The only way you would have been protected from Madoff, was not from looking at SEC filings Madoff made (Oh yeah, he filed with the SEC and just made stuff up.), but by turning to wizened traders like Markopolos, who know what kind of profits can and can't be made, and what the explanation for those "profits" could really be.

The SEC won't even bust Social Security for the Ponzi scheme that it is.

You just need to go to the internet to find out the truth about SS.

Chris Cox and the SEC are jokes. The SEC should be closed down today.