Diana Henriques has a huge get for The New York Times this morning: The first interview of Bernie Madoff since his 2008 arrest.
The headline: Madoff says banks and hedge funds “had to know” about his gargantuan Ponzi scheme. That jibes with what Irving Picard, the trustee who’s trying to recover money for Madoff’s victims, is saying about JPMorgan Chase.
Henriques scored the Madoff interview for an upcoming book and reports that:
He spoke with great intensity and fluency about his dealings with various banks and hedge funds, pointing to their “willful blindness” and their failure to examine discrepancies between his regulatory filings and other information available to them.
“They had to know,” Mr. Madoff said. “But the attitude was sort of, ‘If you’re doing something wrong, we don’t want to know.’ ”
Unfortunately, there’s less here than meets the eye. First, there’s the minor detail of Madoff’s credibility. More specifically, he refuses to say who he thinks knew about his fraud.
So while Madoff says things like this:
“I am saying that the banks and funds were complicit in one form or another and my information to Picard when he was here established this.”
There’s a big “but”:
Despite his many references to the complicity of others, he acknowledged in the Dec. 19 e-mail that he had not shared his information with the federal prosecutors working on criminal cases related to his fraud — although the trustee most likely would have done so, if Mr. Madoff’s information was relevant to the investigation.
Mr. Madoff wrote in an e-mail that while he was willing “from the beginning” to give prosecutors information “to help recover assets only, I refused to help provide them with criminal evidence.” In the interview he declined to discuss any of the criminal cases under investigation.
Why won’t Madoff discuss criminal evidence? We’re not given any possible reasons.
And this paragraph is interesting but ultimately confusing:
In a related e-mail on Jan. 12, Mr. Madoff cited out-of-court settlements that some banks and funds had negotiated with private Madoff investors over the last two years and claimed some settlements were made “to keep me quiet” about the role the institutions played in “creating my situation” and about the identity of the beneficial owners of some of their private accounts.
It’s unclear how or why bank and hedge fund settlements with investors would keep Madoff quiet in his jail cell.
But again, this is a huge scoop for Henriques and the Times.
Just how big is it? So big that the New York Post wouldn’t even mention its competitor’s name in its story rewriting the jailhouse interview. Boo. (h/t Pat Kiernan)
"They had to know." This is self-serving baloney. Which, by the way, got cut to "knew" in a number of net headlines.
#1 Posted by Bartney Kirchhoff, CJR on Wed 16 Feb 2011 at 12:34 PM
Hell, forget the banks... The SCC knew Madoff was a crook!
One of Madoff's competitors blew the whistle at least 5 times, giving detailed reports that the SCC ignored- ultimately closing the complaint file without even initiating an investigation.
The responsibility for this Ponzi scheme falls on the heads of three categories of people - the thieving Madoff clan, the gullible morons who invested with them, and the government regulators who ignored clear evidence of criminal activity.
Criminal behavior, gross negligence and typical governmental malfeasance.
Anyone who looks at this scandal as justification for more stringent regulation is ignoring the reality - the government IS the problem. The regulations were there. Notice of violation was given to regulators - more than 5 years before the scandal broke. The government just didn't do anything about it. Except get bigger, of course. None of the SCC employees who mishandled the Madoff mess were even reprimanded, much less fired.
Government regulation does nothing but facilitate and exacerbate this kind of thievery by fostering a culture of dependence and unaccountability. The SCC is a joke. The EPA is a joke. The FDA is a joke. Medicare loses more money to fraud and abuse than the combined profits of all the health insurance companies in America.
The issue here is uncomplicated - a guy with charisma promises 12 percent returns with no visible means of producing these returns - and manages to squeeze 50 billion dollars out investors... how?... By ducking behind regulation, that's how.
Madoff was many things... But not stupid. Every time he got in front of a camera, he made sure to talk up the SCC and to mention how it was "impossible" to run the kind of Ponzi scheme he was running under SCC supervision. The people who were duped believed Madoff because their faith in government was sorely misplaced.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 16 Feb 2011 at 04:19 PM
The math in the piece looks dodgy too. Madoff says that once the banks and feeder funds pay up what Picard demands, there'll be no need to ask his investors to disgorge the winnings they withdrew before the scheme unraveled.
How could that be? It was a Ponzi scheme--there were no investment gains.
#3 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Wed 16 Feb 2011 at 07:50 PM
The Matt Taibbi story on "why no one who 'had to know' is going to jail" is up:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 17 Feb 2011 at 01:17 AM
According to padkiller, "the government IS the problem".
Is government the problem, or, is the problem when we elect people who don't believe in government regulation to do the regulation.
"The EPA is a joke. The FDA is a joke."
You know this because . . .?
"Medicare loses more money to fraud and abuse than the combined profits of all the health insurance companies in America."
Please cite.
#5 Posted by Ron Rosenthal, CJR on Thu 17 Feb 2011 at 04:41 PM
Why can't you people just accept the damned truth?
Your demand spoonfed data is just a silly dodge. You guys aren't interested in facts- you are interested in a screwy anti-capitalist agenda.
Nonetheless -- the facts are the facts...
Medicare's "improper payments" cost taxpayers more than $50 billion.
http://paymentaccuracy.gov/high-priority-programs
Meanwhile.... "The nation's five largest for-profit insurers closed 2009 with a combined profit of $12.2 billion, according to a report by the advocacy group Health Care for American Now (HCAN)."
And to make matters worse, Medicare denies claims at three times the rate of private insurance companies!
Crappy coverage and a waste and fraud rate of more than 9 percent (using the administration's own numbers).
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 17 Feb 2011 at 09:07 PM
@Ron Rosenthal: asking Republicans to run the SEC effectively is like hiring a vegan to run your butcher's shop.
#7 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 18 Feb 2011 at 02:31 AM
The Left and the Right start with the same reality - that the bulk of the societal problems we face result from the ignorance of the masses.
The Left believes that the masses are too stupid to care for themselves - i.e., too stupid to be held responsible for signing a mortgage contract on a house that costs too much and far too stupid to be charged with making the decision whether or not to buy private health insurance for their families.
The Left's solution is to invoke the collective stupidity of society, through the force of representative government, to impose governmental intervention as some sort of a solution. The same government that gave us the Madoff scandal, the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle, that blew up two space shuttles and a litany of spacecraft through malfeasance and inefficiency, that let an enlisted man with a thumb drive walk into a tent and download private cables from the Secretary of State, etc, etc, etc,
Fifty plus years of welfare, and nothing to show for it except a dependent underclass.
Yet somehow, in the Leftist Crack Dream, expanding the role of government will fix things. This time.
The Right believes that the only cure to our societal stupidity is hard work and accountability. The School of Hard Knocks. Someone who has to feel the consequences of making a stupid home purchase is likely to get himself a little more educated before he does it again. Ergo, a better citizen. Someone who has to suffer bankruptcy because she elected to have her hair done every two weeks instead of buying health insurance will probably make sure she has health insurance in the future. Ergo, a better citizen. Someone who chose to sit on her rear, suck up section 8 housing and procreate to get welfare, and who now has to live on the street when her section 8 money gets cut, will likely get a job and pay rent . Ergo, a better citizen.
The government isn't the solution to anything. It is the biggest problem in any free society - an institution to be distrusted, feared and kept of a very short leash. A necessary evil that should be limited in power to carefully chosen governmental functions. Like the ones in the Constitution.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 18 Feb 2011 at 09:16 AM
It's nice when you can run private insurance companies that don't have to take on the poor and the elderly, because they can dump them on the government, and all you have to manage are revenues of the majority, who are healthy and pay regular premiums, versus the costs of the minority, for whom you can kick off coverage, deny treatment, and cap lifetime treatment costs in case those other two options don't work.
It's nice that as an insurance company, you get to pick your clients. If you can't make money doing that, then you're an imbecile. The top 5 only made 12 billion? I guess all those advertisements, lobbying fees, and executive compensation packages eat into the receipts of the money press. I guess that's why they have to raise premiums 40% at a time.
PS. You should be comparing improper payment amounts of the industry vs the program and cost of administration for the industry vs the program, not the improper costs of the program vs the profits of the industry. Your posts are nonsense.
PPS> Your claim about medicare claim denial is bunk:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/6/05110/6076
And even if it wasn't, which do you want? Do you want billions of dollars of improper payment amounts or more denied claims? Because scammers, such as elected criminal Rick Scott, try to pass off false claims regularly knowing that medicare has more claims than the industry to process and they can usually get away with it.
Make up your mind and get back to us Paddy.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 18 Feb 2011 at 07:55 PM
LOL.
One the one side (mine) you have government and AMA data.
On the other side (Thimbles') you have an anonymous essay posted at Dailykos.
Hmmm... Whom to believe here?.
Tough one.
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 18 Feb 2011 at 08:16 PM
The choice is simple - put the government into people's lives or keep the government out of people's lives.
History has shown that government intervention is required to keep markets free and competitive - and I agree that the federal government should be empowered to dissolve monopolies or to or regulate them if there is a legitimate national security interest in doing so.
There is also no doubt that the government should criminalize and punish anti-competitive behavior.
Aside from this intervention, however, the government should be excluded from all but the core functions it is given in the Constitution.
The government can't do anything well or efficiently. Ever.
Sure, NASA put men on the moon, but try telling that to the Apollo 1 astronauts who died because the door was installed the wrong way - the Challenger crew who died because the leadership ignored the operation manual - or the Columbia crew who died because an inherent design flaw was covered up.
The Department of Education does nothing but hinder education. Same for the Department of Labor. And Commerce. The Department of State can't keep Hillary's private cables secure. The VA can't keep veterans healthy or even keep their personal records safe. The DOE "weatherization" program is a boondoggle. The CIA, the DIA, the NSA, the NRO and all the other intelligence agencies are useless, more than ever since Bush created the ridiculous Homeland Security Department. And DoD?
Why you screwy liberals believe that the government can do a better job of running anything than the private sector can is a question that defies any logical answer.
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 18 Feb 2011 at 08:40 PM
"One the one side (mine) you have government and AMA data."
Used improperly to make a nonsense point.
"On the other side (Thimbles') you have an anonymous essay posted at Dailykos."
Yeah, that's all I had. Nothing else but that. You're such a good sport for putting up with me.
Tell me more about weather in Fantasyland.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 18 Feb 2011 at 09:21 PM
padikiller & Thimbles - debate a little and then move on. You're just ranting at each other. It's Youtube comment-like stuff.
#13 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Sun 20 Feb 2011 at 04:22 PM
I know, I know. I have a tendency to seek the last word and paddy has the tendency to make up stuff requiring a lot of words, which leads to bickering.
But at least he's spending his time bickering with me instead of bullying other posters like he usually does.
Anyways, sorry for clogging the intertubes. I'll try harder to ignore the flies instead of spending my time swatting them.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 20 Feb 2011 at 05:44 PM