Is Geithner Plan Soft on Future Madoffs?
Earlier in the hearing (i.e. before the Bachus query), Geithner had an interesting exchange with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) about what regulatory requirements the Geithner plan would impose on Hedge funds.
Ellison: Could you discuss in greater detail how a capital adequacy regime would work for [hedge funds]?Geithner: We did not propose to establish capital requirements for hedge funds. What we are saying, though, is that the large institutions, principally the banks and the major large complex regulated financial institutions, are held to a set of requirements on capital, liquidity, reserves, risk management, that are commensurate with the risk they pose. And because their risks are greater and because the consequences of their failure is greater they need to be subject to a higher set of standards and greater constraints on leverage. But we're not proposing to establish cap requirements for the broad universe of hedge funds and private pools of capital that exist in our markets. We want them to register with the SEC if they reach a certain scale and in the future if some of them individually reach a size where they may be systemic, then at that point we believe they should be brought within a regulatory framework that's similar to that which exists for banks.
There were obviously a lot of reasons Bernie Madoff got away with his Ponzi scheme for as long as he did. But it's probably fair to say that if he'd been held to hard capital requirements he'd have had a harder time getting his scheme off the ground, or his jig would likely have been up much more quickly.
Video shortly.
















I appreciate the ability to condense relatively complex set of facts into a short, pithy headline that captures the essence.
I know I couldn't do that.
But this headline is worthy of Politico.
March 26, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on, as someone who actually works in the regulatory side of advisory industry, this post is just completely wrong.
Ponzi schemes won't be stopped by capital requirements. The issue was about custody of consumer assets (i.e., no one was actually checking to see if Madoff had the assets he said he had). Schapiro actually testified about this today and made several recommondations such as an annual surprise examination.
Capital requirements stop excesive leverages, they are not fraud control mechanisms. As far as I know, Madoff didn't even claim to be using any leverage.
March 26, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geithner is the enemy! Impeach President Obama! Obama hates average Americans and loves Wall Street! Get out the pitchforks! Burn It Down! Nihilism Forever!
March 26, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what would have stopped Madoff? Checking to see if he actually held the assets shown on his fake books during at least one of the two investigations the SEC conducted.
March 26, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. You can have all the regulations you want, but when the "fox" (Chris Cox) is in charge of the chicken coop, he doesn't want to follow the rules.
If Chris Cox and his crew went to prison for 10 years, you'd probably see real change at the SEC.
March 26, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Greg! You're right that it has nothing to do with either hedge funds or capital adequacy/leverage.
Madoff wasn't claiming to use leverage to achieve returns for his clients. He was telling them he had invested their funds in certain securities when he'd actually stolen them. It would be like your investing in a mutual fund and getting monthly statements and then finding out that the manager had run off with the assets. Capital requirements wouldn't protect you from that -- mutual funds aren't leveraged by the manager, so they the funds don't have capital requirements. It's a non sequitur.
Madoff was garden-variety fraud that would have been halted if any of the famous highly-paid asset managers who invested their clients with Madoff had insisted on an independent custodian and a reputable accountant who certified that the assets were held with the custodian. The lack of custodial arrangements was a huge red flag. And the SEC has already taken steps with the investment management industry (which they're squawking about) to be much more assertive about custody going forward.
Madoff has nothing to do with regulating hedge funds. So no, Geithner isn't going soft on future Madoffs.
Let's calm down a little about running with the new meme that Geithner is somehow in bed with the bad guys.
March 26, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink