Remember the Valukas Report?
That court-appointed bankruptcy examiner’sinvestigation into the collapse of Lehman Brothers found a number of colorable claims (prosecutable) against Lehman executives, including CEO Dick Fuld. The Repo 105 scam was designed to mislead investors about the state of Lehman’s balance sheet, making it look healthier than it really was.
But two years later, nothing has come of the Valukas evidence. The SEC hasn’t brought charges, and neither has the Department of Justice.
Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, who had an excellent report a few months ago on the lack of accountability for financial crisis fraud, does us another service by getting Anton Valukas on camera for the first time.
Valukas is clearly baffled that charges haven’t been filed:
Anton Valukas: It certainly, in our opinion, was against civil law if you will. There were colorable claims that this was a fraud, yes…
Anton Valukas: They’d fudged the numbers. They would move what turned out to be approximately $50 billion of assets from the United States to the United Kingdom just before they printed their financial statements. And a week or so after the financial statements had been distributed to the public, the $50 billion would reappear here in the United States, back on the books in the United States.
Steve Kroft: And then the next financial statement, they would move it overseas again, and file the report, and then move it back?
Anton Valukas: Right.
Steve Kroft: It sounds like a shell game.
Anton Valukas: It was a shell game. It was a gimmick.
Valukas knows more than just about anyone else, perhaps excepting Fuld, about Lehman Brothers.
But in another score, Kroft gets Lehman whistleblower Matthew Lee, a relatively senior Lehman executive last seen by The Audit getting unfairly dumped on in an Andrew Ross Sorkin column, to sit down for an interview. When Kroft asks him about a whistleblowing letter he wrote to senior executives in May 2008 and what activities were “unethical and unlawful,” Lee tells him he “could have written laundry lists.”
Journalists constitutionally inclined to focus on what’s happening today or tomorrow, not what happened way back when. This story—the financial crisis—unfortunately is growing long in the tooth. We’re six years into the housing crash and four years past the collapse of Bear Stearns. The Lehman, AIG, and Fannie/Freddie collapses will be four years old in September. But knowing what happened then—and what hasn’t happened since—is critically important for what happens in the future.
So it’s important when journalists, particularly ones with major platforms like Kroft’s, continue to cover this story.
Unfortunately, it looks like this is the last time Kroft himself will be covering it.
In a very interesting behind-the-scenes interview for a Web feature, Kroft talks about why he went after the Lehman and Countrywide stories:
I don’t think that there’s been any accountability. So many people who were totally irresponsible walked away with so much money, and some people were taken totally to the cleaners.
It was a disgrace. It was a disgrace.
By the end of the video, though, even Kroft is throwing up his hands.
I think this is the last story I’ll do about nobody being held accountable, because I’ve really sort of given up. i don’t think that the federal government—either the SEC or the Justice Department— are going to bring any cases against individuals. I just don’t think they’re going to.
Cue ticking stopwatch.
A teacher would be fired if her lectures were as unpredictable as the events the news media must investigate. But no one in the news media cares about communicating more effectively. Mr Kroft says he has "sort of given up," Why can't anyone in the journalism profession understand why they are failing?
#1 Posted by Stanley Krauter, CJR on Wed 25 Apr 2012 at 01:02 PM
The reason why they're failing is because the news media devotes more time and space to a president's diet as a child and the hookers his secret service had when he was abroad then to how he fails to hold entities like BP and BOA accountable for liable and criminal conduct.
And it's crazy because even with his record it's not like he can shake the label of socialist.
Unfortunately there's a real problem within the American media system in that it focuses on trivia over truth and profit over change.
One or two voices in the wilderness isn't going to affect a difference. If we had a media that devoted the same time and resources to financial, corporate, and political corruption as they did on Bill Clinton's blowjobs, perhaps we'd have some justice as a result of media pressure.
The media doesn't want that. The interests of the news and of the public are fundamentally misaligned. If you remember, the media is in the process of lobbying for increases in their powers to implement monopoly controls. They aren't going to dig deep and damage the potential allies they need to rely upon for future legislation and FCC regulators, not unless they can guarantee some good ratings to make it worth their while.
So, hookers and dogmeat it is.
Sincerely, thanks for trying Kroft. I hope you don't give up yet.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 25 Apr 2012 at 02:06 PM
In the 31 years I worked at 60 Minutes, the last 22 as Executive Editor, I was bothered greatly by TV critics and writers who gave total credit for a 60 Minutes segment to the broadcaster, never mentioning the producer or even indicating there was a producer. Mr Chittum provides a good example. By his language he implies that Kroft did all of the reporting, got the right people to talk (some for the first time) and was totally responsible for the two segments mentioned. Now, Kroft is a top-notch reporter and writer but in those two stories, as in most 60 Minutes stories, the producer does most of the reporting, finds the people that need to be interviewed and convinces them to appear, generally writes the first two or three drafts, supervises the video editors, and prepares the broadcaster for the interviews. The producer of both these stories was James Jacoby, and Michael Karzis the associate producer of the Lehman segment. It doesn't diminish Kroft's importance to say that. 60 Minutes stories are a partnership, like a double byline in a newspaper. On some stories one of the partners contributes more than the other. In others it is equal. I'm surprised a writer for CJR doesn't know this.
#3 Posted by Philip Scheffler, CJR on Wed 25 Apr 2012 at 03:43 PM
So who makes the decision not to do these types of stories anymore, the reporter or the producer?
Because it would be nice to have people doing more of these types of stories to both hold people accountable and to do prevent negligence and wrongdoing from creating a crisis to begin with.
I'd like to know where the reporting is on a problem before the problem results in a disaster. How can we get producers and reporters to do more of those stories?
Isn't prescient journalism as valuable, if not more so, than post-mortem?
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 25 Apr 2012 at 04:40 PM
In other news:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/jon-corzine-is-the-original-george-zimmerman-20120424
"It’s incredible that people are offering as a defense the idea that a financial company could be so overwhelmed by transactions that it could just lose track of $1.6 billion. If you’re so terrible at managing money that you can honestly lose a billion dollars – especially after swearing up and down to the whole world that you were the right choice to manage the cherished millions and billions of scads of farmers, ranchers, and other investors – you should go to jail just for that, just on general principle.
But most pundits aren’t saying that. Instead, it seems like like every financial reporter both in this city and in Washington is talking to the same five or six defense lawyers, buying their weak arguments, and offering the same lame excuses for the missing money, which should tell you a lot about how the Wall Street press corps managed to miss the warning signs for 2008 and other disasters.
Somebody from MF Global has to be arrested soon. The message otherwise to middle America is so galling that it boggles the mind.
It would be one thing if this was a country with a general, across-the-board tendency toward leniency for property crime. But we send tens of thousands of people to do real jail time in this country for non-violent offenses like theft. We routinely separate mothers from their children for relatively petty crimes like welfare fraud. For almost anyone who isn’t Jon Corzine, it’s no joke to get caught stealing in America.
But these people stole over a billion dollars, right out in the open, and nobody is doing anything about it. Instead, we get a lot of chin-scratching legislative hearings, and an almost academic-style public discussion about whether or not a crime even took place. If there aren’t arrests in this case soon, ordinary people will correctly deduce that it simply isn’t a crime to steal in America, if the thefts are executed with a computer by white people in suits.
Just as it was incredible when Florida authorities dragged their feet in the Zimmerman case, it’s incredible that people in Washington don’t see the implications of this continual non-decision on MF Global. Apparently they hope no one notices. The sad thing is, they might be right."
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 25 Apr 2012 at 06:23 PM
Anton Valukas: They’d fudged the numbers. They would move what turned out to be approximately $50 billion of assets from the United States to the United Kingdom just before they printed their financial statements. And a week or so after the financial statements had been distributed to the public, the $50 billion would reappear here in the United States, back on the books in the United States.
Steve Kroft: And then the next financial statement, they would move it overseas again, and file the report, and then move it back?...
But in another score, Kroft gets Lehman whistleblower Matthew Lee, a relatively senior Lehman executive last seen by The Audit getting unfairly dumped on in an Andrew Ross Sorkin column, to sit down for an interview. When Kroft asks him about a whistleblowing letter he wrote to senior executives in May 2008 and what activities were “unethical and unlawful,” Lee tells him he “could have written laundry lists.”...
I don’t think that there’s been any accountability. So many people who were totally irresponsible walked away with so much money, and some people were taken totally to the cleaners.
I think this is the last story I’ll do about nobody being held accountable, because I’ve really sort of given up. i don’t think that the federal government—either the SEC or the Justice Department— are going to bring any cases against individuals>/b>. I just don’t think they’re going to.
padikiller asks: Who is "they"? Which "senior executives"? Who are among the "many people" who were "totally irresponsible"? Who exactly needs to be "held accountable"? Against what particular "individuals" should "cases" be brought?
Once again, Kroft has the Chittum 5000 Black Helicopters in Full Whisper Mode!
No names, no details, no nothing.
Just kooky, conspiratorial nonsense cloaked as "professional journalism".
As I have always said... Fraudsters should be prosecuted. PERIOD.
But losing money in investments isn't a crime. Bad judgment is a crime. Simple negligence isn't a crime.
If Kroft (or Chittum) has evidence that any particular person committed some particular crime, let's see it. Otherwise, leave the silly conspiracy theories to the screenwriters.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 25 Apr 2012 at 08:13 PM
"But losing money in investments isn't a crime. Bad judgment is a crime. Simple negligence isn't a crime."
Faking reports to investors, like the Repo 105 transactions, are prosecutable offenses under Sarbanes Oxley.
Not that any of that will happen.
Law isn't law when you're too rich and your victims are not.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 25 Apr 2012 at 09:26 PM
Thimbles wrote: Faking reports to investors, like the Repo 105 transactions, are prosecutable offenses under Sarbanes Oxley.
padikiller responds: Of course they are.
But the opinion of a bankruptcy examiner does not a criminal prosecution make.
What particular code section was violated?
By whom? When? Where?
These are the crucial details that make the difference in any place but Chittumland.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 25 Apr 2012 at 11:07 PM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are indeed colorable claims of civil fraud here that should be prosecuted.
The way these claims get prosecuted is that some attorney at the SEC has to draft and file a complaint.
Say you're a GS-15 staff attorney at the SEC sucking down $150,000 a year in DC. You have a choice - you can either (a) draft and file a complaint, or (b) NOT draft and file a complaint. Now WHY would you choose option a?
HUH?
What's in it for you?
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 26 Apr 2012 at 07:12 AM
Mr Thimbles
-
Do you remember the Anthony Weiner imbroglio? That stupid scandal, and especially the picture of his clothed organ, was an unfortunate but necessary disruption of what reporters should have been doing. Yet these kinds of distractions happen all the time. Steve Kroft's investigation journalism has failed. The pre-crisis investigaitive journalism of the financial crisis was ignored by politicians and voters. I sent out e-mails to every daily newspaper about how they could force Congress to permanently reform our tax code if they published information about the tax code like a teacher would. But I only received two responses saying that they would consider it. Why can't reporters see that they are failing to communicate because of how they must communicate. Why don't they want to do a better job?
#10 Posted by Stanley Krauter, CJR on Thu 26 Apr 2012 at 12:26 PM
"Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are indeed colorable claims of civil fraud here that should be prosecuted."
Sarbanes Oxley criminalizes this kind of fraud.
"The way these claims get prosecuted is that some attorney at the SEC has to draft and file a complaint.
Say you're a GS-15 staff attorney at the SEC sucking down $150,000 a year in DC. You have a choice - you can either (a) draft and file a complaint, or (b) NOT draft and file a complaint. Now WHY would you choose option a?
HUH?"
Yeah, This is part of the problem.
cont
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 26 Apr 2012 at 01:01 PM
But the problem is not a question of means, it's a question of will.
If an administration wanted to see the bankers responsible in jail, they would be in jail.
If an administration wanted to see justice done, it would appoint a head regulator to see justice done.
The public and the media have put insufficient pressure on the Administration to do so.
The government sabotaged its own 'Pecora Commission' for this crisis. The media has failed to communicate to its audience the nature and gravity of the problem.
Few writers outside of Taibbi and here have tried to communicate to their marginal audiences the reality of what is happening in this age of criminal banking.
Fewwer are the ones who have continually banged the drum demanding criminal conduct be revealed and justice be done.
I know why Kroft is giving up, he sees the statute of limitations on these cases. Reporting crime isn't going to send anyone to jail at this point.
But that isn't why you report. People can only react to the information made available to them. This kind of reporting creates a environment, a popular will for change. Absent that, there is no hope nor change.
The press and the politicians have spent a generation cultivating a separation between the people and their institutions. In the sixties and seventies there was a "crisis of democracy" which made institutions less responsive to the interests of the rich and powerful. 'Unmanageable' might be the word a plutocrat might use.
That has to end. There is no excuse for the absence of senior bankers behind bars. That is a disgrace, and people should be livid in their efforts to correct it.
The incarceration rate in the United States of America is the highest in the world, it's not like we lack the will to expend resources on crime and punishment.
But when you let banker crime != crime, you break the social compact.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 26 Apr 2012 at 01:31 PM
And societies that give their elites a pass are on the path of collapse.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 26 Apr 2012 at 01:33 PM
Thimbles:
A federal government employee is more likely to die than to be fired. No kidding.
So a regulator who faces a choice between (a) sticking his neck out and doing work, or (b) NOT sticking his neck out and NOT doing work has what incentive to do anything?
HUH?
The Gubmint bureaucrat is inherently unaccountable. He is, therefore, also inherently ineffective and inefficient.
The Gubmint will thus NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be able to run anything better than the private sector, and regulation of voluntary transactions between private parties (when there is no threat to physical safety) will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER work because the Gubmint minions will NEVER do their jobs properly.
You reference to the incarceration rate takes us full circle.
What evidence is there that any particular crime occurred? HUH?
WHAT code section was violated? WHO violated it? WHEN was it violated? WHERE was it violated?
These simple questions are, of course, determinative in any criminal prosecution and all you and your leftie konspiracy kooks have to answer these questions is the rotor whine from your Chittum 5000 Black Helicopters.
As I have always said, criminals should be punished. If and when you or any of your fellow Thimbilistic Chittumites can provide answers to these fundamental questions, I will pick up the pitchfork and join the hunt.
Until then, a reasonable observer can only conclude that your conspiratorial rant is unfounded and ideologically driven.
By the way... Criminal prosecutions are a much more effective alternative to administrative regulation. Prosecutors (outside of the federal Gubmint) are elected and directly account to their constituency. The incentive to do their jobs distinguishes from federal bureaucrats.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 26 Apr 2012 at 02:40 PM
"Until then, a reasonable observer can only conclude that your conspiratorial rant is unfounded and ideologically driven."
And that is your standard answer when anything gets specific.
"Yes I believe that murderers should go to jail, but just because you have this pile of dead bodies and several trails of blood leading to the local country club and various blood stained weapons and servants claiming they had to burn the blood soaked clothes and fines paid to help the families of these dead people in exchange for immunity from prosecution for destruction of evidence , doesn't mean these good men here are murderers. A reasonable observer can only conclude that your conspiratorial rant is unfounded and ideologically driven."
You're a joke padi.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 26 Apr 2012 at 07:50 PM
PS.
"WHAT code section was violated? WHO violated it? WHEN was it violated? WHERE was it violated?"
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:6:./temp/~c10779MZhH:e197484:
"Sec. 1350. Failure of corporate officers to certify financial reports
(a) CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS- Each periodic report containing financial statements filed by an issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) shall be accompanied by a written statement by the chief executive officer and chief financial officer (or equivalent thereof) of the issuer.
`(b) CONTENT- The statement required under subsection (a) shall certify that the periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act pf 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.
`(c) CRIMINAL PENALTIES- Whoever--
`(1) certifies any statement as set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of this section knowing that the periodic report accompanying the statement does not comport with all the requirements set forth in this section shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; or
`(2) willfully certifies any statement as set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of this section knowing that the periodic report accompanying the statement does not comport with all the requirements set forth in this section shall be fined not more than $5,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.'."
You wanna tell us how REPO 105 doesn't fit under these catagories?
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 26 Apr 2012 at 08:10 PM
You appear to be 1 for 4, Thimbo.
Let's try this one more time.....
WHAT code section was violated? WHO violated it? WHEN was it violated? WHERE was it violated?
These simple questions are, of course, determinative in any criminal prosecution and all you and your leftie konspiracy kooks have to answer these questions is the rotor whine from your Chittum 5000 Black Helicopters.
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 26 Apr 2012 at 09:26 PM
Once more with feeling.
"You wanna tell us how REPO 105 doesn't fit under these categories?"
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 26 Apr 2012 at 10:23 PM
Thimbles dodges: "You wanna tell us how REPO 105 doesn't fit under these categories?"
padikiller responds: Because there is no evidence that it violates the statute.
That's why.
Shuffling money to dodge a regulation isn't illegal.
That's why.
Or at least, that's what the prosecutors have concluded.
#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 27 Apr 2012 at 12:13 PM
Lying to investors about a sale that isn't, corporate officers signing off on statements that are materially false, doing transactions and booking them under the requirements of US law when no US law firm would sign off on them is just shuffling money to avoid a regulation.
You, and the prosecutors, are a joke.
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 27 Apr 2012 at 02:03 PM
One thing the 60 minutes report could have benefited from was in the section where they talk about the SEC being in the offices of Lehman's and having acess to their books is why.
Because then we start talking about Christopher Cox and Consolidated Supervised Entities.
It's worth going through the cjr archives for Christopher Cox and the SEC to see what kind of resources were put into these regulators charged with supervising these billion and trillion dollar entities which had their leverage limits relaxed.
To many jokes ending with mainstreet as their punchline.
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 27 Apr 2012 at 02:33 PM
In the piece above, Steve Kroft talks about how he covered derivatives and their intensifying effect on losses (and freezes on credit) by the way they obscured risk.
"Isn't prescient journalism as valuable, if not more so, than post-mortem?"
On that subject, I offer Molly Ivins who wrote, in 2002:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-09-12/news/0209120230_1_stock-options-corporate-reform-corporate-reform
"Is anyone ready to admit yet that permitting banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies to merge was a rancid idea? We can thank Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (also the senator from Enron), for that one. Anyone ready to tackle derivatives yet? Because I guarantee you, if we don't regulate derivatives, we're going to see a mess that will make Enron look like patty-cake."
The reaction to her reporting being, "Ooo. She's shrill. Very."
On the subject of derivatives, how was the rest of the press?
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/derivatives_echo_chamber.php?page=all
"Where was the press in all of this? Generally abdicating its imperative to shape the story—to sift through disparate pieces of information and put them in their places—and employing instead a false evenhandedness...
The rough climate soon got even rougher for the GAO, thanks in no small part to criticism by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and an easily convinced press. By late May, the press was less interested in the report itself than in regulators’ ongoing criticisms of it...
Look, we are not saying this is easy. No one was going to serve the derivatives story to the press on a silver platter. The press itself needed to gauge the importance of the GAO report and the importance of industry and regulator criticism...
The fact is, everyone, including the press, was cowed by Greenspan’s opposition to the report, and opposition—which had an outsized voice from the beginning—was suddenly the default response. The press, choosing not to shape the story but to be shaped by it, let this happen...
[A]lthough some members of Congress are awake to the derivatives problem, it takes more than that to reach a critical mass.
That’s where the press comes in—or should. But except for a few pieces, the national press has been cowed by the complexity of the subject. Instead of inquisitive reporting, we get reports of assurances from Greenspan and others."
As I wrote not long ago:
"When I look at the press, I see a situation where the journalist is not often grounded in reality and therefore relies on consensus over understanding."
At the risk of sounding shrill, maybe being right should take precedence over being "mainstream".
Because man, mainstream has had a sucky run, public interest speaking.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 27 Apr 2012 at 06:42 PM