Tag: Ponzi schemes

Bits and Pieces on Compliance

Here are a few stories and items that caught my eye this week, but I have not had time to build-out to a full post:

SEC Speaks on Compliance Issues to Investment Advisers by Joel Beck of BD Law Blog

Lori Richards, the Director of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) spoke on issues that the examiner staff will be reviewing. Here is a summary of Ms. Richards’ four key areas, but compliance officers for RIAs ought to take 4 minutes and read her speech:

1. Disclosure. The SEC is reverting to the main focus of securities regulation: disclosure. Here, RIAs should be careful that all disclosures are made to their clients, including any conflicts of interests.
2. Custody. Are your advisory clients’ assets safe? How do you know? With recent headline-grabbing articles on ponzi schemes and other fraudulent conduct, Ms. Richards indicated that SEC examiners will be focusing on controls over custody of assets.
3. Performance claims. Are yours accurate? They better be.
4. Resources. Does your compliance program have adequate resources devoted to it to ensure that the RIA carries out an effective compliance program?

Spotting a Ponzi scheme or investment scam by Tracy Coenen of The Fraud Files Blog

Have you invested with a potential Ponzi?.. . How would you spot a Ponzi scheme?

  • Does the business of the company make sense in light of market conditions and your general business knowledge?
  • Does the company exist because of some secret, revolutionary new process or product? If so, what proof is there that the technology or process is legitimate?
  • Does the company rely on some rare gem, piece of real estate, antique, or other hard-to-find item? If so, is the investment scheme really scalable to the extent that the promoters suggest?
  • Is the company guaranteeing rates of return on investments with them?
  • Can their promises be verified in any way?Does the company have a board of directors, auditors, lawyers, and other advisors typical of a company of its size?

SEC’s OCIE Unit Ramps Up Training on Detecting Ponzi Schemes by Bruce Carton of Securities Docket

Burned by its high-profile failure in the Madoff case, the SEC is ramping up its training of staff on how to detect certain types of securities fraud. Reuters reports that the SEC’s inspection unit (the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations) is now offering 90-minute classes for employees on topics such as “Basics of Ponzi schemes, affinity fraud and related schemes” and “Exam issues and techniques for detecting Ponzi schemes, affinity fraud and related schemes.” “We’re doing it because of Bernie Madoff,” one SEC official told Reuters.

The New York Times Blogophobia by Felix Salmon for Portfolio.com

What’s with the sudden blogophobia at the NYT? Between Craig Whitney’s astonishingly tone-deaf memo on how to write a blog, and the legal department’s heavy-handed nastygram trying to shut down Apartment Therapy, it seems that one of the most web-savvy media companies in the world has finally reached the point at which it reckons that the web-savvy types can’t be entrusted with the website any more, and the grownups need to step in and screw everything up.

Ponzimonium, Ponzipalooza, Ponzimania

Charles Ponzi
Charles Ponzi

There is “rampant Ponzimonium.” Or is there a “virtual Ponzipalooza”?

Bart Chilton, a commissioner at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission coined these terms in his speech on March 20 before American Bar Association’s Committee on Derivatives and Futures Law Students.

Personally, I prefer Ponzimania.

The CFTC has filed charges against 15 alleged Ponzi schemes so far this year, compared with 13 during the whole of 2008. (If you do the math that would mean more than 60 cases for 2009, assuming the rate continues. )  In a search of the SEC litigation website I had 57 hits for Ponzi in 2009, compared to 92 for all of 2008.   (I admit that it is less scientific than the CFTC research.) Clearly there are more enforcement actions against Ponzi schemes. We are hearing more about Ponzi schemes in the news.

Is this increase because there are more Ponzi schemes out there?

Or are we just uncovering a greater percentage of Ponzi schemes?

I think the investment tide has gone out, uncovering more Ponzi schemes and fraud in the market. The newscycle has switched from celebrating big gains to wallowing in the muck from the financial implosion.

It is easier to run a fraud when values are increasing. Even a terrible investor can make some money when most of the possible investment choices are rising in value. Plummeting markets decrease the value of the poor investment choices and increase the amount of redemptions by the investors/victims. It was the redemption activity that finally did in Madoff. He could not raise new money fast enough to pay out the redemptions.

Jim Cramer has gone from being a rock star of the investing world to being the punching bag of Jon Stewart. The media is now turning on investment industry looking for targets to aim the public’s ire over the financial implosion. Fraudsters make good news and good targets.

I don’t think there are any more fraudulent schemes currently out there than average. The downturn in the markets is bringing fraud schemes crashing down. The media is feasting on carnage.

I expect that we will be experiencing Ponzimonium, Ponzipalooza, and Ponzimania for awhile.

See:

SEC Settlements in Ponzi Scheme Cases: Putting Madoff and Stanford in Context

Charles Ponzi
Charles Ponzi

In the last six and half years the Securities and Exchange Commission has reached settlements with over 300 defendants in cases related to alleged Ponzi schemes. NERA Consulting has been tracking these SEC settlements since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted in July 2002.

In that time frame there have been 12 Ponzi scheme settlements that involved alleged fraud in excess of $50 million. Jan Larsen and Paul Hinton of NERA Consulting put together an overview of those 12 cases and their SEC Settlements: SEC Settlements in Ponzi Scheme Cases: Putting Madoff and Stanford in Context (.pdf).

Based on the settlement amounts shown in this report, things don’t look good for the Madoff investors. The settlement amounts are small, averaging less than 10% of the fraud size. Most of the total settlement amount is tied to the Private Capital Management, Inc. case where $112 million of the $145 was recovered.

nera_table

Thanks to Bruce Carton of Securities Docket for pointing out this report (via Twitter).

You’re a Victim of a Ponzi Scheme, But What About Your Taxes?

IRS_Logo

You missed the warning signs and got suckered into a Ponzi scheme. Can the IRS help by giving you some tax relief? This is a critical issue for long-term Ponzi scheme investors (like some of the Madoff victims) who have paid taxes on gains from the investment. After all, they have been paying real taxes on fictional gains.

The IRS has stepped up with guidance on what to do. They clarified the federal tax law governing the treatment of losses in Ponzi schemes. They also set out a safe harbor method for computing and reporting the losses.

The revenue ruling (2009-9) addresses the difficulty in determining the amount and timing of losses from Ponzi schemes and the prospect of recovering the lost money.  Some of the older guidance from the IRS on these losses is somewhat obsolete.

The revenue procedure (2009-20) simplifies compliance for taxpayers by providing a safe-harbor for determining the year in which the loss is deemed to occur and a simplified means of calculating the amount of the loss.

The first question is whether a loss from a Ponzi scheme is a “theft loss” or a “capital loss” under IRC §165? With the criminal intent of a Ponzi scheme, it is a theft loss. That also results in it being an itemized deduction that is not subject to the deduction limits in IRC §67 or IRC §68. You can read further in Revenue Ruling 2009-9 for more information.

Even with the clarification in the revenue ruling there many factual issues that have to be addressed to properly take the deduction. Given the ongoing investigations, it is hard to know the facts. So the safe-harbor in the revenue procedure draws some bright lines around what you need to take the deduction.

The first thing you need to determine is whether the Ponzi scheme was a theft. The revenue procedure provides that the IRS will deem the loss to be the result of theft if:

    • the promoter was charged under state or federal law with the commission of fraud, embezzlement or a similar crime that would meet the definition of theft; or
    • the promoter was the subject of a state or federal criminal complaint alleging the commission of such a crime, and
    • either there was some evidence of an admission of guilt by the promoter or a trustee was appointed to freeze the assets of the scheme.

      That seems to work very nicely with the facts for the Madoff scheme.

      Now that you can claim the theft loss, you need to calculate the amount of the loss. It may take years to find any assets and distribute them to the victims. Therefore, you have a problem figuring out the actual amount of the loss and the prospect of recovery. The revenue procedure generally permits taxpayers to take a deduction in the tax year they discover the loss and to deduct 95% of their net investment (less the amount of any actual recovery in the year of discovery and the amount of any recovery expected). If you are an investor suing persons other than the promoter (like the Madoff feeder funds), then your deduction is reduced by substituting “75%” for “95%”.

      This new guidance seems to address the phantom income concerns, but are predicated on the victims not filing amended returns for prior tax years. Are there other concerns that the IRS did not address?

      See:

      Can You Prevent Ponzi Schemes?

      Charles Ponzi
      Charles Ponzi

      With Madoff, Nadel and Stanford in the news, people are wondering why the government does not prevent Ponzi schemes. The government should protect us from these frauds.

      How can they?

      Ponzi scheme sponsors are thieves. Common criminals. They just wear suits instead of black masks.

      The government has not been able to prevent bank robberies, car-jackings or pick-pockets. (I lump Ponzi schemes in with these.) What government can do is deter and punish. An effective detection and prosecution program may deter some bad guys. If you feel certain you will get caught and punished then you are less likely to commit the bad act. On the other side, if you feel certain that you will not get caught or punished, then you are more likely to commit the bad act.

      The inspiration of this post is an article from Tresa Baldas summarizing some of the current steps being taken: Wave of anti-Ponzi laws coming — but will they work? The US Congress has already introduced two bills in the last few weeks trying to increase transparency and registration of private investment funds: The Hedge Fund Transparency Act and the Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009.

      Don’t forget that Madoff and Stanford were both registered with the SEC and subject to some form of SEC oversight. Clearly registration and transparency were not effective at stopping them. They will increase the paperwork. They will make it harder for private investment funds to execute their business plans.

      I guess as a compliance professional more regulation would be good for me. More regulatory oversight means more work for compliance. But I would rather focus my efforts on helping my company execute its business plan and making sure that nobody is cutting any corners to achieve that execution.

      But with a new administration and issues in the financial marketplace, I expect to see some form of new regulatory requirements. Will they prevent Ponzi schemes? No, the government cannot prevent Ponzi schemes.

      Investors prevent Ponzi schemes. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. Guaranteed returns with no risk? It better be a bank with FDIC insurance (or the equivalent).

      Thanks to Bruce Carton of Securities Docket for pointing out the Baldas article in his post: Wave of “Anti-Ponzi” Legislation May be Coming.

      See :

      Irrational Exuberance

      In an essay in the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Greenspan explains some of the psychology behind the success of Ponzi schemes: Why We Keep Falling For Financial Scams.

      The basic mechanism explaining the success of Ponzi schemes is the tendency of humans to model their actions — especially when dealing with matters they don’t fully understand — on the behavior of other humans. This mechanism has been termed “irrational exuberance,” a phrase often attributed to former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan (no relation), but actually coined by another economist, Robert J. Shiller, who later wrote a book with that title. Mr. Shiller employs a social psychological explanation that he terms the “feedback loop theory of investor bubbles.” Simply stated, the fact that so many people seem to be making big profits on the investment, and telling others about their good fortune, makes the investment seem safe and too good to pass up.

      In Mr. Shiller’s view, all investment crazes, even ones that are not fraudulent, can be explained by this theory. Two modern examples of that phenomenon are the Japanese real-estate bubble of the 1980s and the American dot-com bubble of the 1990s. Two 18th-century predecessors were the Mississippi Mania in France and the South Sea Bubble in England (so much for the idea of human progress).

      Mr. Greenspan has model of four explanatory factors for “foolish action.”

      • situation – a social challenge you need to solve
      • cognition – a deficiency in knowledge and/or clear thinking
      • personality – trust and niceness
      • emotion – greed or the desire to not lose

      See also:

      ponzi

      Gullibility

      NPR’s Science Friday has an interesting broadcast on Gullibility. Ira Flatow interview Stephen Greenspan, author of Annals of Gullibility: Why We Get Duped and How to Avoid It.

      Can science explain why some swindles are so successful? Why are some people more likely to try to buy the Brooklyn Bridge or send money to the heir of a deposed Nigerian prince online? In this segment of Science Friday, we’ll talk about gullibility and the psychological principles at work in scams, from the $15 ‘genuine Rolex’ watch to the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

      Mr. Greenspan was also the author of an essay in the Wall Street Journal: Why We Keep Falling for Financial Scams.

      One memorable quote was his take on the Madoff scheme.  Mr. Greenspan point out that the scheme was not focused on greed. Madoff was not offering the high returns of typical Ponzi schemes. Instead, Madoff was offering a steady return. Madoff was offering safety. Mr. Greenspan points out that gullibility can be driven by the fear of losing money as much as it can be driven by the greed for money.

      Professor Frankel Testifies In Congress

      Boston University School of Law professor Tamar Frankel testified before the Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives discussing Ponzi schemes, the importance of trust in the securities markets and the need for regulatory reform in light of the Madoff scandal.

      See also: