Con of the century

There are no heroes in the Madoff story; only villains and suckers.

BERNARD MADOFF worked as a lifeguard to earn enough money to start his own securities firm. Almost half a century later, the colossal Ponzi scheme into which it mutated has proved impossible to keep afloat—unlike Mr Madoff’s 55-foot fishing boat, “Bull”.

The $17.1 billion that Mr Madoff claimed to have under management earlier this year is all but gone. His alleged confession that the fraud could top $50 billion looks increasingly plausible: clients have admitted to exposures amounting to more than half that. On December 16th the head of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, which is recovering what it can for investors, said the multiple sets of accounts kept by the 70-year-old were in “complete disarray” and could take six months to sort out. It is hard to imagine a more apt end to Wall Street’s worst year in decades.

The known list of victims grows longer and more star-studded by the day. Among them are prominent billionaires, including Steven Spielberg; the owner of the New York Mets baseball team; Carl Shapiro, a nonagenarian clothing magnate who may have lost $545m; thousands of wealthy retirees; and a cluster of mostly Jewish charities, some of which face closure. Dozens of supposedly sophisticated financial firms were caught out too, including banks such as Santander and HSBC, and Fairfield Greenwich, an alternative-investment specialist that had funnelled no less than $7.5 billion to Mr Madoff.

Though his operation resembled a hedge-fund shop, he was in fact managing client money in brokerage accounts within his firm, seemingly as Merrill Lynch or Smith Barney would. A lot of this came from funds of funds, which invest in pools of hedge funds, and was channelled to Mr Madoff via “feeder funds” with which he had special relationships. Some banks, such as the Dutch arm of Fortis, lent heavily to funds of funds that wanted to invest.

On the face of it, the attractions were clear. Mr Madoff’s pedigree was top-notch: a pioneering marketmaker, he had chaired NASDAQ, had advised the government on market issues and was a noted philanthropist. Turning away some investors and telling those he accepted not to talk to outsiders produced a sense of exclusivity. He generated returns to match: in the vicinity of 10% a year, through thick and thin.

Charming, but far too smooth

That last attraction should also have served as a warning; the results were suspiciously smooth. Mr Madoff barely ever suffered a down month, even in choppy markets (he was up in November, as the S&P index tumbled 7.5%). He allegedly has now confessed that this was achieved by creating a pyramid scheme in which existing clients’ returns were topped up, as needed, with money from new investors.

He claimed to be employing an investment strategy known as “split-strike conversion”. This is a fairly common approach that entails buying and selling different sorts of options to reduce volatility. But those who bothered to look closely had doubts. Aksia, an advisory firm, concluded that the S&P 100 options market that Mr Madoff claimed to trade was far too small to handle a portfolio of his size. It advised its clients not to invest. So did MPI, a quantitative-research firm, after an analysis in 2006 failed to find a legitimate strategy that matched his returns—though they were closely correlated with those of Bayou, a fraudulent hedge fund that had collapsed a year earlier.

This was not the only danger signal. Stock holdings were liquidated every quarter, presumably to avoid reporting big positions. For a godfather of electronic trading, Mr Madoff ran the business along antediluvian lines: clients and feeder-fund managers were denied online access to their accounts. Even more worryingly, he cleared his own trades, with no external custodian. They were audited, of course, but by a tiny firm with three employees, one of whom was a secretary and another an 80-year-old based in Florida.

Perhaps the biggest warning sign was the secrecy with which the investment business was conducted. It was a black box, run by a tiny team at a very long arm’s length from the group’s much bigger broker-dealer. Clients too were kept in the dark. They seemed not to mind as long as the returns remained strong, accepting that to ask Bernie to reveal his strategy would be as crass as demanding to see Coca-Cola’s magic formula. Mr Madoff reinforced the message by occasionally ejecting a client who asked awkward questions.

The trading business was hardly pristine either. It had been probed for front-running (trading for its own account before filling client orders) and separately found guilty of technical violations. Some clients reportedly suspected that Mr Madoff was engaged in wrongdoing, but not the sort that would endanger their money. They thought he might be trading illegally for their benefit on information gleaned by his marketmaking arm.

This failure of due diligence by so many funds of funds will deal the industry a blow. They are paid to screen managers, to pick the best and to diversify clients’ holdings—none of which they did properly in this case. Some investors are understandably irate that their funds—including one run by the chairman of GMAC, a troubled car-loan firm—charged above-average fees, only to plonk the bulk of their cash in Mr Madoff’s lap. This is the last thing hedge funds need, plagued as they are by a wave of redemption requests.

Financial firms that dealt with Mr Madoff are bracing themselves for a wave of litigation as individual victims go after those with deep pockets. Hedge funds will also face pressure to accept further oversight. But the affair shows the need for the government to enforce its rules better, rather than write new ones, argues Robert Van Grover of Seward & Kissel, a law firm.

Mr Madoff’s investment business was overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but it failed to carry out any examinations despite receiving complaints from investors and rivals since as long ago as the late 1990s. As a Wall Street fixture, Mr Madoff was close to several SEC officials. His niece, the firm’s compliance lawyer, even married a former member of the team that had inspected the marketmaking division’s books in 2003—though there is no evidence of impropriety.

In a rare mea culpa, Christopher Cox, the SEC’s chairman, has called its handling of the case “deeply troubling” and promised an investigation of its “multiple failures”. Having already been lambasted for fiddling while investment banks burned, the commission is now likelier than ever to be restructured, or perhaps even dismantled, in the regulatory overhaul expected under Barack Obama. As The Economist went to press Mr Obama was expected to name Mary Schapiro, an experienced brokerage regulator, to replace Mr Cox.

The rules themselves will need changing, too. All investment managers, not just mutual funds, could now be forced to use external clearing agents to ensure third-party scrutiny, says Larry Harris of the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business. Regulation of financial firms’ accountants may also need tightening. And more could be done to encourage whistle-blowing. Mr Madoff claims to have acted alone. But given the huge amount of paperwork required to keep his scam going, it seems unlikely that no one else knew about it.

Above all, however, investors need to help themselves. This pyramid scheme may have been unprecedented, but the lessons are old ones: spread your eggs around and, as Mr Harris puts it, “investigate your good stories as well as your bad ones.” This is particularly true of money managers who work deep in the shadows or seem beyond reproach—even more so during booms, when the temptation to swindle grows along with the propensity to speculate. There will always be “sheep to be shorn”, as Charles Kindleberger memorably wrote in “Manias, Panics and Crashes”. Let us hope they never again line up in such numbers.

www.economist.com

Brief encounter

Barack Obama’s bipartisan honeymoon has ended even sooner than anyone expected.

EVERY incoming American president promises that he will reach across the aisle. Senators and congressmen, Republican and Democrat alike, join in the hymn to the virtues of bipartisan effort. This time was no different: everyone applauded when Barack Obama said from the steps of the Capitol that “the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.” But, as usual, the stale political arguments have begun all over again.

Mr Obama set a cracking pace in his first days in office. He signed a lot of admirable orders, such as one closing Guantánamo within a year and others pushing for more fuel-efficient cars and ending the prohibition on sending aid to international organisations that provide abortion. He has buttered up the Republican minority in Congress, and they have gushed about how nice it is to work with him. Nonetheless, the first big partisan row of the new administration has already begun.

It concerns the new president’s plans for the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”, the largest economic stimulus package ever devised: no less than $819 billion over the next two years in a bid to buoy up the shrinking economy and prevent the loss of millions of jobs. Many Republicans are worried about the hole this will make in the nation’s accounts. They note that plenty of pork has crept into the bill, and that it will be impossible to spend that much that fast. It also contains some protectionist nasties in the shape of “Buy American” provisions. The bill, they say, is just a sneaky way of achieving standard Democratic big-government aims.

A bit rich, the Democrats retort, coming from the party that inherited a healthy surplus from Bill Clinton and turned it, thanks to tax cuts unmatched by savings, into a fair-sized deficit even before the recession began to bite. And besides, what else do the Republicans have to offer as a solution to the mess their president created? (Not very much, is the sad truth.)

Visible party lines

On January 28th the stimulus bill passed in the House of Representatives without a single Republican vote. In principle, that means that it could die in the Senate next week, since the Democrats are currently two votes short of a filibuster-proof majority there. That seems unlikely: the Republicans will not want to be blamed for the recession. But it signals an early end to bipartisanship and bodes ill for the future of more difficult legislation, which will require a lot more co-operation.

Whom to blame for the breakdown? The stimulus row apart, the Republicans can claim to have behaved reasonably well, confirming Mr Obama’s appointments without much fuss, though they did try, unsuccessfully, to vote down his new treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, for failing to pay his taxes on time. Mr Obama, for his part, has offered a lot of fine words about bipartisanship but has not produced very much of it, preferring instead to deliver on cherished Democratic aims. The same holds for the stimulus plan. True, the package contains a large dollop of tax cuts: some $275 billion of the $819 billion comes in this form. But most of that was proposed long ago by Mr Obama on the campaign trail, and so can hardly represent an attempt to forge post-election consensus. The Republicans have been given little say in drafting the plan, and the Democratic majority has taken advantage of the rules of procedure to frustrate their attempts to amend it.

On the other hand, Mr Obama has been careful to drop a few of the least stimulative and most contentious items. And no one doubts that some form of big stimulus is urgently needed. The Republicans could equally be accused of playing a cynical game, voting against a package they know will pass in order to appear thrifty yet not risk being accused of sabotage. In other words: it’s politics as usual.

www.economist.com

Crisis Fuels Backlash on Trade

A "Buy American" drive in the U.S., spreading protests against foreign workers in Britain and various countries' efforts to prop up their own beleaguered industries are fanning fears of a rise in economic nationalism that could deepen the global recession.

In Washington, President Barack Obama faces an early test as international concern mounts over moves in Congress to bar foreign suppliers from winning business on most projects funded by a new economic-stimulus package.

In the U.K., Prime Minister Gordon Brown confronted a different test, as hundreds of workers at oil refineries and power plants walked off the job as part of spreading protests in the industry against the use of foreign labor. That's a new phenomenon for the formerly booming country, known for being open to foreign businesses and workers. Meanwhile in Spain, the government is offering immigrants money to return home, while France has introduced stimulus measures that would route many government-sponsored projects to French companies.

The developments underscore the difficult balance world leaders must strike as they seek ways to ease the pain of a deepening global downturn. On one hand, they see maintaining free trade and international cooperation as essential to helping the world economy recover.

On the other, as they move to bail out banks and support struggling companies, many turn to subsidies or even protection for local firms. And as unemployment rises, governments are under increasing pressure at home to raise barriers.

"Hardship triggers anxiety for protection," said Pascal Lamy, head of the World Trade Organization, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "Scapegoating the foreigner is an old trick in politics."

The Obama administration appears divided over how to respond to the "Buy America" push within Congress. Some aides want to resist encouraging what they describe as a protectionist tilt in the very first days of the administration, while others argue that mandating that taxpayer money go to benefit U.S products is appropriate at a time of economic hardship.

Mr. Obama already has issued several pro-labor measures in his first days in office, but has yet to say publicly whether he supports this union-backed initiative. Vice President Joe Biden spoke in favor of it on Thursday, telling CNBC that "it's legitimate to have some portions of 'Buy American'" in the stimulus legislation.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Friday that the administration is reviewing the issue "and understands all of the concerns."

Charges and countercharges of economic nationalism increasingly are flying across national borders, as countries come under domestic pressure to match moves by other capitals to rescue key industries, in a race to provide greater state support that could clash with free market and trade policies.

"There is a certain schizophrenia," said French finance minister Christine Lagarde, in an interview on Friday. "On the one hand, we're saying we have to fight protectionism. On the other, we have to explain to taxpayers what this gives them. We have to manage that struggle."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel Friday bluntly criticized the U.S.'s efforts to prop up its beleaguered auto industry. In a speech to economic and business leaders gathered in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss the global economy, she said the U.S. measures "quite frankly, constitute protectionism" and should be temporary.

The U.S. has committed more than $15 billion to rescuing General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. But it's no longer alone: The U.K. is providing debt guarantees for its auto industry. The French government said earlier this month that it is prepared to inject as much as €6 billion to jump-start French auto makers. Ms. Merkel's own government, after initial resistance, has promised GM's German-based Opel unit conditional bailouts of €1.8 billion (about $2.3 billion).

In Britain, hundreds of workers at U.K. oil refineries and power plants walked off the job Friday as part of protests against the use of foreign labor, a sign of how deepening hardship is prompting a backlash against economic openness. Local contract workers at more than eight sites in Scotland, Wales and parts of England joined a wildcat strike that began earlier this week at the Lindsey oil refinery on the U.K.'s eastern coast.

The workers were protesting a decision by the refinery's owner, French oil company Total SA, to award a £200 million (about $290 million) construction contract to an Italian firm that planned to use foreign workers.

"They're saying, we come first, we live in the community," said Bernard McAulay, national officer for trade union Unite, as he stood outside the Lindsey refinery Friday. A spokesman for the prime minister said Mr. Brown's government would hold talks with representatives of the construction industry "to make sure that they are doing all they can to support the U.K. economy."

So far, most major nations have generally avoided turning to trade tariffs and other extreme forms of protectionism that are widely seen as having exacerbated the Great Depression of the 1930s. Overtly protectionist steps can deliver big blows to international commerce, raising unemployment and reducing demand for exports, key to the economy of many countries.

A World Trade Organization assessment, completed last week, found that most countries so far are keeping domestic protectionist pressures at bay. But the report warned that a slide toward protectionism "would only worsen the economic situation for all and diminish prospects for an early recovery in activity."

With unemployment in many countries forecast to keep rising sharply, policy makers are becoming increasingly concerned about a potential backlash against globalization and free trade. A number of countries already have moved to curb imports or protect embattled industries and economies, despite pledges by a group of 20 top industrialized countries last fall to avoid taking steps that would restrict trade flows as the economy worsened.

Since then, India has raised tariffs on some steel imports; Argentina has imposed new obstacles to imported shoes and auto parts; and Russia has raised duties on imported cars.

In Spain, which is facing its worst recession in decades as the effects of a property bust spread to other sectors, the government is paying immigrants to go home. During the boom years, Spain's construction industry sucked in millions of immigrants. Now it is offering to pay legal immigrants all the unemployment benefits they are entitled to in a lump sum if they agree not to return for at least three years. So far, only 1,400 have taken up the offer.

This week, the French parliament approved a €26 billion stimulus plan, the bulk aimed at infrastructure projects such as high-speed railroads, a business dominated in France by Alstom SA, and nuclear power plants, on which the country's Areva SA has a monopoly there.

Across Europe, many countries have sought to shore up their own lenders, despite an effort last October to present national bailout plans as part of an EU-wide master scheme. Now, many are pushing their bailed-out banks to focus lending on borrowers in their home countries. German's economic minister said he wants Commerzbank, which received €18 billion of fresh capital from the government, to support German companies in return. The U.K. government has required banks that receive its support to lend more to British businesses.

The U.S. and China have been at loggerheads recently over several trade issues. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao warned that protectionism would only deepen and extend the global crisis, and Beijing responded angrily to allegations by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that China was manipulating its currency by keeping it artificially low. That would make its exports cheaper and, therefore, more competitive in global markets.

On Friday, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone with Chinese President Hu Jintao, stressing "the need to correct global trade imbalances as well as to stimulate global growth and get credit markets flowing," according to a White House statement.

Some world leaders, as well as U.S. business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have begun to cry foul over the proposed "Buy America" provisions in the new U.S. stimulus legislation, saying they could violate international trade rules and trigger a protectionist backlash. Officials within the European Union, as well as in Canada and Australia, have warned Congress and the administration against approving the provisions.

The House passed an $819 billion version of the stimulus bill, which aims to jump start the country's ailing economy, on Wednesday. The Senate is expected to vote on its version, with a price tag of nearly $900 billion, next week.

The provisions, if enacted, would result in tens of billions of dollars to be spent on roads, power lines and other major projects going mainly to American producers. The House bill would require that iron or steel used in stimulus-backed projects be American-made. The Senate bill seeks to stretch the requirement to apply to all "manufactured goods."

Trade experts say the House provision is most likely compliant with World Trade Organization rules on government procurement, which allow some leeway for the use of domestic steel in government projects. But the Senate's broader restrictions could violate agreements meant to maintain international competitiveness within government contracting.

Still, support is building in Congress for the restrictions. Congressional Democrats who support them said they have received no clear signals on the issue from the White House. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "supports strong 'Buy America' provisions in general and particularly for the economic-recovery package," said his spokesman, Jim Manley. "We hope to have the strongest 'Buy America' provisions consistent with our international obligations."

Senate aides say that they intend to be mindful of international trade rules while crafting any final versions of the legislation.

Critics of the provisions also say they could raise the price of projects and create bureaucratic bottlenecks, as federal agencies and companies wrestle with establishing the origin of many things they buy.

Unions and steel manufacturers argue that taxpayer money should bolster hard-hit U.S. manufacturers, which, they say, would in turn help reinvigorate the world economy.

online.wsj.com