It’s only Monday, but I’m pretty confident this piece in The New York Times yesterday will be the must-read of the week.
Journalist Michael Lewis and hedge fund manager/author David Einhorn teamed up to crank out, with the gift of nearly a page of space in the Week in Review section, a cogent and easy-to-read synopsis of what’s wrong with the financial system and what needs to be done to fix it.
In discussing Harry Markopolos, who blew the whistle on Madoff loudly, repeatedly, and convincingly, Lewis and Einhorn write:
What’s interesting about the Madoff scandal, in retrospect, is how little interest anyone inside the financial system had in exposing it. It wasn’t just Harry Markopolos who smelled a rat. As Mr. Markopolos explained in his letter, Goldman Sachs was refusing to do business with Mr. Madoff; many others doubted Mr. Madoff’s profits or assumed he was front-running his customers and steered clear of him. Between the lines, Mr. Markopolos hinted that even some of Mr. Madoff’s investors may have suspected that they were the beneficiaries of a scam. After all, it wasn’t all that hard to see that the profits were too good to be true. Some of Mr. Madoff’s investors may have reasoned that the worst that could happen to them, if the authorities put a stop to the front-running, was that a good thing would come to an end.The Madoff scandal echoes a deeper absence inside our financial system, which has been undermined not merely by bad behavior but by the lack of checks and balances to discourage it. “Greed” doesn’t cut it as a satisfying explanation for the current financial crisis. Greed was necessary but insufficient; in any case, we are as likely to eliminate greed from our national character as we are lust and envy. The fixable problem isn’t the greed of the few but the misaligned interests of the many…
OUR financial catastrophe, like Bernard Madoff’s pyramid scheme, required all sorts of important, plugged-in people to sacrifice our collective long-term interests for short-term gain. The pressure to do this in today’s financial markets is immense. Obviously the greater the market pressure to excel in the short term, the greater the need for pressure from outside the market to consider the longer term. But that’s the problem: there is no longer any serious pressure from outside the market. The tyranny of the short term has extended itself with frightening ease into the entities that were meant to, one way or another, discipline Wall Street, and force it to consider its enlightened self-interest.
The authors correctly lay a heap of the blame at the feet of the credit-ratings agencies such as Moody’s, and recommend that they be essentially done away with in their current form because of the perverse incentives and conflicts of interest inherent in a model that has firms with a quasi-regulatory function paid by the firms they’re supposed to regulate.
Another helping of blame goes, of course, to the SEC, and the authors cleverly endeavor to explain why it’s been so dysfunctional (besides the whole administration philosophy that would naturally water down its functionality):
IT’S not hard to see why the S.E.C. behaves as it does. If you work for the enforcement division of the S.E.C. you probably know in the back of your mind, and in the front too, that if you maintain good relations with Wall Street you might soon be paid huge sums of money to be employed by it.The commission’s most recent director of enforcement is the general counsel at JPMorgan Chase; the enforcement chief before him became general counsel at Deutsche Bank; and one of his predecessors became a managing director for Credit Suisse before moving on to Morgan Stanley. A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that the whole point of landing the job as the S.E.C.’s director of enforcement is to position oneself for the better paying one on Wall Street.

The story would carry even greater credibility had it not been for the fact that Mr. Einhorn is a victim of his own words. Einhorn has stood in the way of effective progress towards addressing what is wrong with hedge funds today.
When we heard about late trading/market timing we found that the beneficiaries of this fraud were the hedge funds. When we talk about trade failures and the lack of buy-ins we likewise find that the beneficiaries were hedge funds. Our markets insatiable appetite for liquidity (good and bad) was derived from a need to satisfy hedge funds. And when it comes to insider trading, it is usually a hedge fund that is gaining the advantage of non-public info. Unless einhorn sat with his head in the sand he knew/knows of these acts of fraud and not once spoke out against any of it because...he too was a beneficiary of short term gain.
#1 Posted by Dave, CJR on Mon 5 Jan 2009 at 10:46 AM
The second op ed, How to Repair a Broken Financial World, is refreshing because it bravely puts forward solutions, which is what all the investigative journalism ultimately enables. Two comments:
First, it seems somewhat contradictory to criticize the government for trying to reinflate the credit bubble, and then several pages later advocate reinflating the housing bubble.
Second, I agree with nationalizing banks, wiping out shareholders and selling off the assets in calm markets; but it's not that simple. Shareholders are just one (and a relatively small) source of capital for the banks. Looking at Citigroup's balance sheet, for example, they have total assets of $2 trillion but a market cap (the value of all outstanding stock) of only $35 billion. And that's before any off-balance-sheet monsters that are hidden.
So what about all the holders of this $1.965 trillion debt? Some are depositors, some are bond holders, some are counter-parties such as hedge funds. Who get's what in the nationalization? If too much pain is inflicted on these lenders, they will be very wary of lending to banks again in the future. Dole out too little punishment and we'll be encouraging the same type of reckless risk taking that caused this in the first place.
#2 Posted by Chris Corliss, CJR on Mon 5 Jan 2009 at 04:04 PM
Fantastic article by MICHAEL LEWIS and DAVID EINHORN. Two points:
1/ The use of the past tense ... the same people are still acting the same way. The "END" is a ways off yet!
2/ The is a bigger shoe still dropping and it undermines any attempt for sanity - interest rate swaps. At $306T notional, the domiino collapse from rate changes is seriouly more threatening than CDS.
Hopefully out of the ashes positive cange will occur.
Be safe everyone
#3 Posted by bob, CJR on Tue 6 Jan 2009 at 10:42 PM
An interesting column yet they never answer the main question at hand – HOW could Wall Street – and the US government for that matter – have buried itself (and in the case of Congress the rest of us) in mountains of debt? WHERE did all this money come from?
What we are experiencing is something we’ve seen before – a speculative bubble caused by the Federal Reserve counterfeiting money and credit. Sparking the Roaring 20s by counterfeiting money throughout the decade (from 1921 to 1928 the money supply increased by an average of 7.5% a year) the Federal Reserve has never learned its lesson – stop counterfeiting money. There is a reason counterfeiting is a crime – it is stealing.
Say what you want about the “gold bugs”, but the beauty of a gold standard is that you can’t counterfeit gold. THAT is why the politicians and Wall Street hate the very mention of it. Nobody would EVER buy stock in a company that could print and sell new shares of stock whenever it pleased – yet that is the monetary system we live under. Until that changes, Wall Street, and the US government immoral debt binge, will never change, either.
#4 Posted by Cyd Malone, CJR on Wed 28 Jan 2009 at 04:25 PM
Dave - Certainly many hedge funds get information others don't (see recent SEC suit against SAC Capital and Third Point) even after Reg FD. By lumping ALL hedge funds together you're keeping your own head deep in the sand. If you want a little perspective on things, read Einhorn's book "Fooling Some of the People All of the time (FSP, spelled out, .com) about how he tried to bring a company fraud to light (he was instead investigated, not the company). Also think about someone like Bill Ackman. Back in 2002 he wrote a 70 page thesis on how the ratings agencies were flawed and in danger of creating a catastrophic situation for everyone. Again, Bill was investigated and the agencies ignored. Anyway, two good examples of hedge funds fighting more for public good (Einhorn was donating to all of his profit shorting this fraudulent company to charity) than for profits.
#5 Posted by Ben, CJR on Mon 16 Feb 2009 at 03:49 PM