LILA RAJIVA: The Mind-Body Politic
Individuals Not Ideologies
-
Financiers Used 9-11 Diversion of FBI to Loot American Middle-Class
Great interview at Forbes, between Steve Forbes and Senator Ted Kaufman on the capital markets, naked short selling, the uptick rule, sponsored access, HFT (high frequency trading) and digitalization, dark pools, and fraud…
“Forbes: Finally, Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act.
Kaufman: Yeah, yeah.
Forbes: You’re proud of it.Kaufman: Yeah, I am.
Forbes: What it does, and what will it do?
Kaufman: OK, here’s what it did. After 9/11, we moved a lot of FBI agents over to cover terrorism, which we should have done. But we left only like 250 FBI agents in the country to cover financial fraud. We did more financial fraud cases in 2001 than we did in 2007, can you believe that? So, what we did with this financial and regulatory forum, with Pat Leahy, who is chairman of judiciary committee and Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican. It’s a bipartisan bill and we got a bill passed to give us more FBI agents, give us more prosecutors and to go after these folks. And so that’s basic what we passed, and we’re getting organized. Had a really good hearing of the judiciary committee. Rob Khuzami at the Securities Exchange Commission, Lanny Breuer’s head of the criminal division, Kevin [Perkins] from the FBI financial thing.
And we’re really, we’re going after this thing. And I know you agree with me. You know, if you, the folks that committed crimes while this thing was going on, we can all argue about what caused it or not, anybody who took advantage of this situation and lined their own pocket for it should go jail.”
Kingsford Capital And The Captured Media
Mark Mitchell at Deep Capture has some interesting details about the extensive influence of hedge-funds, specifically Kingsford Capital, on the reporting of stories in the financial press:
“Another focus of my investigation at CJR was the appalling bear raid on a collectibles company called Escala. Not only was Escala the victim of massive amounts of illegal naked short selling, but a hedge fund convinced the Spanish government that Escala’s parent company, based in Madrid, was fleecing investors in philatelic collectibles.
More Apparent Wiki Whacking On Naked Short Selling
Deep Capture has more on wiki manipulation in its latest post:
“In the past (as you can read about here), we know Weiss spread misinformation relating to stock fraud via Wikipedia on behalf of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC), the Wall Street firm considered a key enabler of illegal short selling. Exactly who’s sponsoring Weiss these days is unclear; however, as the evidence that follows will demonstrate, his concerted effort to whitewash DTCC’s Wikipedia article makes that company the prime suspect.
Now that his ruse has been uncovered – yet again – the focus becomes one of identifying and repairing the damage done. A brief review of some of the thousands of changes made by Weiss will give you a sense of both the scope of the problem and the nature of his motives. I’m organizing the following tiny sampling of Weiss’s Wikipedia edits by topic, with the content as it originally appeared on the left, with Weiss’s changes on the right. Words added or removed appear in red.”
My Comment
For now, I am just posting this as an interesting development that I haven´t personally verified. Also, I think any notion that the tide has turned on wiki manipulation is overly optimistic. I doubt, for example, that Weiss´ media bosses don´t know what´s happening. That to me is an incredibly naive position to take.
Secretive Steve Cohen On Talk Show Discussing Relationship With Ex—
I’d been avoiding mentioning the by-now famous clip of Steve Cohen on a talk show back in 1992, because it seems like a low blow. I mean, hit the guy over the head on insider trading, but don’t worm around in the trash can for dirt on him. Of course, he did put himself on the show…
But, either way, there’s one angle that is relevant.
If you’re billed as the most secretive guy in the hedge world, presumably because you’re a reclusive, crowd-shy financial genius, what does it say that you once got onto a TV show called Cristina of none-too-distinguished caliber to discuss intimate details of your personal life?
Hmm. That’d hardly what I call shrinking violet material.
Here, sans video (because we don’t drag people’s families in the mud on this blog) is the lowdown at New York Magazine:
“Shortly after they were married in 1992, Steve Cohen, the notoriously secretive hedge-fund manager at SAC Capital, and his second wife, Alex, went on the short-lived English-language version of the popular talk show Christina. The episode? “He Acts Like Her Husband!” The subject discussed? Steve’s too-close relationship with his ex-wife, Patricia Cohen, who recently filed a $300 million lawsuit against him.”
Think about that for a moment.
Psychologically, that doesn’t make any sense for a reclusive genius…
But, just suppose, what you have here is not a shy geeky genius (or maybe, I should qualify that - not solely a shy geeky genius) but a guy who was quite at home at a shady broker called Gruntal & Co. in the 1980s - a broker that had ties to the Russian mob and to a whole set of players to whom ‘reclusive’ and ’shy’ are the last words you’d apply. Just suppose what you have here is a guy who was a player in that crowd….making his way any way he could. And just suppose, that past is why he keeps a low profile…
Just suppose.
It’s at least a distinct possibility.
But what’s more like a high probability is that anyone who puts out an article on Steve Cohen like this one or this one by John Carney has lost quite a bit of his credibility on Steven Cohen and on a few things closely related like, say, insider trading…or naked shorting….
Carney’s explanation why Steven Cohen can have done no wrong? A SAC trader told him so. That’s why.
“The trader described the enormous, football field sized trading floor at SAC as “the cleanest in the biz.”
A SAC trader says SAC is 100 percent clean. Because?
Well, that part of it isn’t mentioned in the article, although a lot of other stuff which sure as heck sounds super close to insider trading is.
“When I was there, we put tons of pressure on our brokers to make sure they gave us any information they had fast and first,“
And what was that John Carney was calling Matt Taibbi only a couple of months ago?
Naive?
Mark to “Markit” Manipulation
From Deep Capture:
“Another line of inquiry has not been pursued, however, though it is of equal, and perhaps greater, significance. That line of inquiry concerns the way in which the prices of credit default swaps effect [sic] the perceived value of all forms of debt — corporate bonds, commercial mortgages, home mortgages, and collateralized debt obligations — and as a result, the ability of hedge funds manipulators to use credit default swaps to enhance their bear raids on public companies.
If short sellers can manipulate the price of credit default swaps, they can disrupt those companies whose debt is insured by the credit default swaps whose prices are manipulated. The game plan runs as follows: find a company that relies on a layer of debt that is both permanent, and which rolls over frequently (most financial firms fit this description). Short sell that company’s stock. Then manipulate the price of the CDS upwards, preferably into a spike, as you spread the news of the skyrocketing CDS price (perhaps with the cooperation of compliant journalists at, say, CNBC).
Because the CDS is, in essence, an insurance policy on the debt of the company, the spiking CDS pricing will cause the company’s lenders to panic and cut off access to credit. As this happens, the company’s stock will nosedive, thereby cutting off access to equity capital. Thus suddenly deprived of credit and equity, the firm collapses, and the hedge fund collects on its short bets.
Moreover, credit default swap prices are the primary inputs for important indices (such as the CMBX and the ABX) measuring the movement of the overall market for commercial and home mortgages. In the months leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, short sellers pointed to these indices in order to argue that investment banks – most notably Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers – had overvalued the mortgage debt and property on their books. Meanwhile, several hedge funds made billions in profits betting that those indexes would drop.
It should therefore be a matter of some concern that credit default swap “prices” and the indexes derived from them are determined almost entirely by a little company with zero transparency and, it appears probable, a high exposure to influence from market manipulators. The company is called Markit Group, and there is every reason to believe that its CDS-driven indices (the CMBX, the ABX, and several others) are inaccurate, while the credit default swap “prices” that they publish and which rock the market are in fact nowhere close to the prices at which credit default swaps actually trade.
Last year, the media reported that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo had sent subpoenas to Markit Group as part of an investigation into possible manipulation of credit default swap prices by short sellers. This investigation, like Mr. Cuomo’s other investigations into market manipulation, have yielded no prosecutions.
The Department of Justice is reportedly investigating Markit Group for anti-trust violations. This investigation (which is reportedly focused on how Markit Group packages and sells its information) seems to acknowledge that Market Group has near-monopolistic control of information about credit default swap prices. However, if the press reports are correct, the DOJ has not considered the possible appeal of this monopolistic control to market manipulation.
“
My Comment
This isn’t the first time that Markit has been fingered. Pam Martens wrote a detailed piece last year at Counterpunch called “How Wall Street Blew Itself Up” that blew Markit´s cover.
Now I´ve always suspected the indices (including Libor) are manipulated. The fundamental problem in our markets is corruption..and that´s directly related to size and monopoly. That´s why you do need certain kinds of “level playing field” or procedural types of regulation (not substantive regulation) to take care of the problem. I think this should also take care of Olagues’ caveat. The Deep Capture team isn’t confining its investigation to simply naked shortselling in the technical sense, but is expanding its work to the entire range of strategies involved in rigging the markets - insider trading, short-selling of all kinds, and the manipulation of indices. (Correction: I am referring to uncovered short sales, where there is no intent to deliver)
John Olagues on Naked Short Selling
John Olagues, the options market-maker who first analyzed the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman as the result of a concerted attack, has a new piece at Investopedia criticizing the ¨naked short selling¨critics:
Naked short selling is often in the news today, and is criticized by journalists and other pundits who claim that naked short sellers allied with “rumor mongers” caused the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. They cite the large “failure to deliver” for a stock as evidence of naked short sales days after the stock had dropped. Although the naked short sales happened after the collapse event, they still hold onto the idea that those after-the-event naked short sales caused the collapses. (To learn more, see Case Study: The Collapse Of Lehman Brothers.)
In my opinion, those who believe that naked short sales caused the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers are misdirecting the attention from the illegal inside traders and their allied manipulators.
The large volumes of “fail to deliver” stock and the naked short sales after the collapses of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers leads me to believe there is an explanation for those large volumes. However, that strategy did not cause the collapse of those companies. (For more, check out our Short Selling Tutorial.)
The Bottom Line
Selling short can be done in a myriad of ways. And, although naked short selling is often given a bad reputation in the media because it is frequently abused, it is not as nefarious as its critics suggest.
My Comment:
I´ve gone back and forth about this with Olagues, as well as with the most prominent figure in the naked short-selling campaign, Patrick Byrne…and it occurs to me that a lot of the problem lies in language - as is the case in other areas of political debate too.
Distinguishing between naked shortselling and other forms of shortselling where the shares fail to deliver seems to the source of the problem. NSS should include within it all forms of shortselling that do not cost the seller.
When the seller does not pay the actual price for his transaction, his activity is no longer adding information to the market. There is no price discovery, because the cost of the shortselling has been arbitrarily shifted elsewhere and in fact miscues the market. So what market-makers do in the course of their legitimate activities and also when they´re trying to exploit their position for their own benefit would come under the NSS rubric..
Aside:
I would go on..but I have had computer problems for the past two weeks…the keys type whatever they want to …I cant use the apostrophe, the parentheses have vanished, and when I type a dash, out comes an equals sign….which is why I keep using dots..and there are no contractions.Taibbi’s Penson Video..(Correction)
Correction:
(10/12/09, Monday)I should have said “allegedly faked” video. I stand corrected. No weasel words, Mr. Byrne (see Byrne’s comment below).
I often post stories on which I have no comment or opinion one way or other, because I haven’t followed them, but think readers might like to. In my last several posts, in fact, I defended Deepcapture’s, Taibbi’s, and Zerohedge’s work, in spite of occasional alleged or real errors.
But the reason I linked to Wenzel’s blog is because Wenzel’s post is pretty funnily written, and I don’t follow Taibbi, except occasionally. I didn’t like his attacks on David Griffin, where he exposed himself as somewhat ignorant. Taibbi also doesn’t attribute people (apparently others have that complaint too). But arrogance and ignorance in one area don’t equate to being incorrect in another.
I’ll add a separate post with the rather long back and forth between Taibbi and his various critics and defenders. I went by Penson’s dismissal of the video, but I’ve since noted that Penson has some history that is troubling and tends to makes its dismissal less credible.
So what else might be construed as “weasel-worded” in my recent blogging?
Perhaps my rather neutral approach to the Byrne vs. Weiss feud, still going strong. Well, I’m neutral about it - who stalked whom, etc. etc. - because I don’t know the ins and outs of it. I had my own experience of being harassed, and can barely keep up with the details of that, let alone someone else’s stalking experience.
I also don’t know which of the two abuses of the market - “stock pumping and money laundering” (criticized by the Wall Street “captured” media) or “naked-shorting” (criticized by Byrne, Davidson “ “Bob O’Brien,” and many others, including Taibbi) - is the more momentous.
As a libertarian, I think naked-shorting is, but that’s only my opinion. Which is why I’ve been neutral. My sense is both abuses are real and extensive.
Likewise, I really don’t know enough about what the SEC’s investigation of Overstock is about. Could it be punitive?
Quite likely, given all we know about the SEC. But does that mean everything else the SEC does is incorrect? Unlikely.
Does that mean what Byrne wrote about “naked short selling” is incorrect? No.
Final point. I tend not to like shrill personal attacks.
That’s a deferral to civility and complexity, not weasel-wordedness.
ORIGINAL POST:
On Matt Taibbi getting suckered by a “faked” (quotes added for now) naked shorting video:
“Carney is a sharp guy, and he has Taibbi nailed on this one, but, I repeat, naked short selling, like a lot of Wall Street, is a very complex game. Carney in some of his other posts suggests there is nothing wrong with naked short-selling, he is off on that one. Some of it can be justified as simple market maker operations, but some of it is major league abuse by very clever insiders, which is the point Taibbi is taking, but doesn’t have the knowledge to back up properly.
Anyway, once you sit down an analyze the entire naked short selling thing, you realize that the bad naked short selling would go away if the SEC would stop issuing regulations that protect the bad guys. Basic common sense and commercial law would put an end to the bad naked short selling, real fast.
Bad naked short selling exists because there is a power source to manipulate, in this case the SEC, and the bad guys are running circles around the SEC.
What you want to understand naked short sales for yourself? Well pull up a chair, give yourself five hours and read this. It’s a great first step.
But, I tell you, it will be much more fun watching Taibbi attempt to pull the bayonet out of his brain.”
More by Robert Wenzel, at Economic Policy Journal.
Recent Comments