Criminal Capitalists:Madoff and Zell

Once again as financial markets collapse they reveal the truth that all capitalism is basically a ponzi scheme.

THE MADOFF AFFAIR: $50-BILLION PONZI SCHEME ALLEGED
Madoff put under house arrest as celebrities, charities, banks disclose exposure

It befits the close of one of the most bizarre years in international finance to look at the collapse of one of its most extraordinary villains, Bernard Madoff, a former chairman of the Nasdaq sharemarket and a Wall Street titan.The crisis in the world financial system has its roots in excessive greed, stupidity, poor regulation and disappearing capital, and the story of Madoff's downfall and a $US50 billion sting bears many of the same hallmarks.

When Enron and World Com collapsed it was revealed that they were in cahoots with their accounting firms, who not only checked their books, but helped them cook those books in order to avoid taxes and to make it appear they were more profitable than they really were. And at the same time the SEC was not doing its job in fact as this recent scandal reveals they acted not as regulators but enablers of Mr. Madoffs criminal scheme.

SEC investigators discovered Madoff violations in 2006: WSJ

We should be surprised by this I think not, after all capitalism began as a joint effort between merchant bankers, pirates and private mercenaries. Why should it be any different four hundred years later.

Bernard Madoff 's $50 billion Ponzi scheme was so breathtaking that investors have been left speechless. But the alleged crook -- universally described as "charming" -- would not have succeeded were it not for the unbelievable gullibility of supposedly sophisticated investors.Madoff knew that just because people were rich it did not not make them smart -- that was the source of his success. All you have to do is talk about an investment philosophy that is vague but sounds really authoritative. Give people nonsensical statements that they glance at quickly. Make sure that the statements indicate steady returns of 10% to 13% a year. Many CFOs, CIOs and portfolio managers were amazed that Madoff produced such steady returns for so long. They were mathematically impossible. Barron's raised questions in 2001 about whether Madoff was "front-running" trades, an allegation he denied. Still, Madoff's rich buddies stood by his side.Maddoff somehow managed to convince a slew of banks and hedge funds, billionaires such as Mets owner Fred Wilpon, Yeshiva University along with charities associated with Steven Spielberg and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel that the laws of investing do not apply to them. The odds of anyone getting double-digit returns year after year are laughably small. They, of course, understood that, but figured why fix something that ain't broke. By turning a blind eye to fiscal reality, these victims showed almost as much greed as Madoff.


Madoffs clients are a who's who of the very financial institutions that lined up at the trough to be bailed out, and who claimed if they failed capitalism would collapse. In fact the whole collapse of America's financial market reveals that it was all a ponzi scheme.


After all, Madoff’s scheme -- at least in spirit, if not in its nefarious intent -- wasn’t much different than the business models at some of the nation’s largest failed financial institutions.
Back in May, four months before it collapsed, American International Group Inc. increased its dividend at the same time it unveiled plans to raise $12.5 billion in capital. Later, when its cash ran out, AIG got a government bailout, the size of which has expanded to about $150 billion.
Whether you call that a Ponzi scheme or something less sinister, AIG was paying old investors with money raised from new investors. The same could be said of many banks that blew through billions of dollars in freshly raised capital the past couple of years, continuing to pay large dividends even as their balance sheets quietly imploded. So why have other Ponzi-esque operators emerged scot-free (so far) with taxpayer bailouts, while Madoff gets pinched?

And one of these financial institutions caught up in the Madoff affair is UBS the Swiss banking company recently indited for using its banks in Canada to hide U.S. billionares fortunes offshore in its banks acounts top avoid taxes, which is itself illegal, but just another case of business as usual until we are caught.

Howewver while Mr. Madoff's actions have been declared illegal, another capitalist billionaire Sam Zell is able to do the same thing legally!!! And there really is no difference between them.

Sam Zell, Tribune's billionaire CEO, but rather the thousands of Tribune employees whose stock ownership plan was jerry-rigged to fund the company's buyout last year. Mr. Zell was the architect of the deal, but put up only around $300-million of his own money as a kind of option to later buy financial control of the company for as little as $500-million more. Under the mind-boggling structure Mr. Zell and his advisers came up with, the Tribune ESOP owns 100 per cent of the shares. What happens to them? The Chicago Tribune said it most starkly, quoting an employee conference call with Mr. Zell: “The ESOP, which Mr. Zell said a year ago offered employee “owners” the chance to share richly in Tribune Co.'s eventual success, could be wiped out, leaving thousands of Tribune Co. employees with no company retirement plan besides what they elect to save in a 401(k).”

Tribune’s Chapter 11 filing likely means a court delay for six current and ex-L.A. Times employees who are trying to oust billionaire owner Sam Zell from the board of directors. But in the meantime, they can point to Zell’s bankruptcy-protection filing as Exhibit A in the court of public opinion. “The sort of critique we made in the lawsuit has been borne out,” says plaintiff Henry Weinstein, the Times’ former legal affairs writer and now a professor at UCI’s new law school. In addition to the Times, Tribune’s assets include KTLA-TV, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Cubs. In late 2007 Zell took the company private by putting up $315 million and borrowing $8 billion. The class-action suit, filed in September, accused Zell of orchestrating a scam and burying the company in debt. Zell called the suit “a distraction that’s unnecessary.” Says Weinstein: “We are certainly going to try to be heard in the bankruptcy court. There are all sorts of employee interests” ...

The following is an official statement from Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa.
"When billionaire Sam Zell took Tribune private in an overleveraged, doomed deal that swiftly brought down the 161-year-old media giant, the risks involved were placed squarely on the shoulders of Tribune workers. Now, as Tribune's creditors head to bankruptcy court for payback, these workers should go directly to the front of the line.
By transferring 100 percent ownership of the company and some $13 billion of debt to an S-Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) in the buyout, Zell insulated himself from tax responsibilities and mortgaged the future retirement savings of Tribune employees. Despite owning 100 percent of the company, employees were given no voice in the governance of the company or in the plan itself. They've had no say in the terms of their own debt obligations or decisions related to how best to service that debt.
Tribune contributions to employee retirement savings for employee-owners changed from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan structured as the ESOP. Employees participating in the ESOP can't diversify their holdings until they reach age 55.
The first of the company's contributions to the ESOP was expected to happen in the first quarter, but now -- with the Tribune mired in Chapter 11 bankruptcy -- it's unclear whether that will happen or whether those shares will have any value.
Not everyone lost on the deal. Tribune executives made millions, including CEO Dennis FitzSimons, who engineered the deal with Zell and raked in $17.7 million in severance and other payments and cashed in his stock for $23.8 million. Shareholders traded in stock rated deep into junk territory for cash representing a 21 percent premium over the stock price just before the transaction. The banks that lent Tribune the money shared some $47 million in fees.
Citigroup and Merrill Lynch who advised Tribune on the deal received $35.8 million and $37 million respectively. And billionaire Zell, who put up only $315 million in the deal, is expected to stand ahead of employees in the creditors' line at bankruptcy court.

Unfortunately Mr. Zell will not be sharing a cell with Mr.Madoff nor with another Chicago paper baron; Lord Black. Though he should.

SEE:
Super Bubble Burst
Hedge Funds, Junk Bonds, Ponzi Schemes




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Conrad Black, crime, fraud, racketeering, Sam Zell, Chicago Tribue, Barry Madoff, Chicago, Lord Black, newspapers,
CEO, pay, golden parachutes, Corporations, fatcats, rich, super rich, America,hedge funds, ponzi, risk, capitalism, bubble, Junk bonds,criminology, corporate-crime, white-collar-crime, sociology, hedge funds, scandal, criminal-capitalism, Raoul Weil, UBS, tax evasion,

Dodge Defends Defined Benefit Pension Plans

And why would Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge say such nice things about Defined Benefit Pension Plans? After years of the right wing attacking these plans in favour of defined contribution plans; RRSP's. Because they are the real source of capital investment for P3's

Because they generate more capital, faster, and thus can be used for investment purposes. In other words because OMERS, Ontario Teachers Pension Fund, CPP, the new Alberta AIM fund, all of them are now major contributors to the economy as investment funds, which are creating a new form of P3; public pension partnerships.

Once these public sector pension funds were freed from state restrictions in investing they have created a trillion dollar investment market. Further this has allowed the state to benefit by not paying its share. Thus giving the government of Canada more surpluses, along with their looting of EI.

While the private sector imitated the Government in failing to invest their required amount in their defined pension funds, leading them to funding crisis much as the Alberta Government faced a decade ago with its public sector pension funds. Which it attempted to privatize (put it under self governance) but once they discovered that allowing them to invest in the market made them profitable and they paid off their debt they gave that idea up. Today a decade later they finally discover what OMERS and the Ontario Teachers Fund have been so successful doing, becoming private venture capital funds, and created the new AIM Fund.

In the private sector we have seen the same Peter Pocklington style use of workers pension funds to bail out the corporation. Pocklington purchased Gainers in Edmonton to access not only the business capital but the unionized workers pension funds to bail out his other businesses, like the Oilers, in a barely legal ponzi scheme that saw him bankrupt both and leave the city in disgrace.

When pension fund bail outs have been successful in the private sector it has been because the company was Canadian, unionized, and formerly a crown corporation like Air Canada.

Where they have failed has been in the U.S. such as in the case of Delphi, where the unionized workers pension funds are looted when the company uses their failure to invest in them as an excuse to declare bankruptcy and hand over their pension responsibilities to the U.S. government in a perverse appeal to state capitalism to bail them out.

This is the reason that both the Canadian and American governments want workers to work longer, so as to have more liquidity in the CPP in Canada and Social Security in the U.S. Conservatives Want You To Work Longer

I am reproducing these articles because they are the most informative and because they will eventually disappear behind locked subscription walls.

And while Dodge says nice things about Defined Benefit Plans he also wants to deregulate them, including allowing employers to retain their surpluses, which shortchanges worker, something a former Liberal PM benefited from.

Making private pensions stronger

Dodge says defined-benefit plans way to go, with changes to improve them

By JULIAN BELTRAME The Canadian Press

OTTAWA— Bank of Canada governor David Dodge is calling for changes to Canada’s private pension plan system, and a swing back to defined-benefit plans, to ensure it produces the best results for employees and the economy.

Private plans have been under pressure in Canada for several years, with many company pensions running huge shortfalls because of future liabilities.

A survey of chief financial officers, released Thursday by the Conference Board of Canada, found that two-thirds believe there is still a pension crisis in Canada. But the number who feel the crisis will be long-lasting has declined to 48 per cent from 61 per cent last year, the survey of 141 corporate executives found.

In a speech Thursday at a Toronto pension summit, Dodge proposed six changes he said would give employers more incentives to offer workers the most desirable form of pension — those that pay predictable, defined benefits on retirement.

Private pensions are important both to the employee who receives them and the employer hoping to attract and retain the best available staff, he said. They are also important for the economy as a whole, he added.

"As a central banker, I know that a sound pension system is important from the perspective of economic and financial market efficiency," Dodge said.

But while he mostly praised Canada’s legal and regulatory framework governing private pensions, Dodge said there are several shortcomings that should be addressed to strengthen the system.

Those shortcomings are increasing the risks to employees and preventing the plans from functioning at maximum capacity, he said.

As a result, Dodge said employers "have been scaling back or restricting new entries into these types of plans, largely because they do not have the right incentives to maintain and operate defined-benefit plans."

Many have been converting to defined-contribution plans instead as they are usually easier to budget for.

One drawback to the current system is that when pension plans run a surplus, federal and provincial laws increasingly have given employees the right to those surpluses even though it is the employer that bears the risk of default.

He added that tax regulations perversely discourage pension managers from building a surplus above 10 per cent, even though such surpluses are desirable and useful in offsetting periods of deficits.

Dodge said many employees miss out on the opportunity to be protected by private pension plans because they work for companies that are too small to afford them.

"But risks can be mitigated by sponsors forming multi-employer plans, thus pooling risks across a number of plan sponsors," he argued.

"If structures such as large multi-employer pension plans could be created, this would help them to pool both costs and risks, making it easier for smaller employers to sponsor defined-benefit plans."

He noted that municipalities in Ontario have done exactly that in forming OMERS, the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, so there should be away to explore that avenue for private-sector employers.

Among other concerns noted by the central banker were increasing flexibility to deal with actuarial deficits and making sure accounting rules don’t introduce unnecessary volatility to employers’ balance sheets.

"Ultimately, Canada can have a better-managed system that is good for members, good for employers, good for the economy and good for Canadian society," he said.

Bank of Canada calls for private pension plan reforms

Governor Dodge wants clarity. Suggests giving plan sponsors more flexibility to cover pension fund shortfalls

ERIC BEAUCHESNE,

CanWest News Service

Published: Friday, May 11, 2007

Bank of Canada governor David Dodge is calling for widespread reforms to deal with the country's private pension fund crisis, including the elimination of tax penalties and other rules that discourage employers from building up pension fund surpluses, as well as a greater awareness among employees of the risks and costs of enriching their retirement benefits.

"First, we should reduce the disincentives for sponsors to run actuarial surpluses in good times that will offset actuarial deficits in other periods," Dodge told a pension conference in Toronto yesterday. "More clarity regarding legal ownership of surpluses is needed, so that the sponsor that owns the risks also owns the benefits from taking those risks."

Dodge focused on measures that would make defined benefit plans - seen as superior to defined contribution plans but which employers have been abandoning as too risky - more viable.

Generally, in defined benefit plans, employers guarantee employees a pre-set level of benefits, while in defined contribution plans the employees bear the risk as the level of their benefits is based on the investment returns the plan earns.

"An effective defined benefit pension system is a tremendous asset for individuals, for employers and for our society as a whole," Dodge said. "Putting these plans on a sustainable footing involves strengthening the legal, regulatory, accounting, actuarial and economic frameworks."

Dodge suggested that defined benefit fund surpluses should belong to employers because they face the risk of having to cover any shortfall, and that existing tax penalties on fund surpluses should be eased.

"Given the significance of our pension system, policymakers in Canada need to keep working on improving its operation," Dodge told the pension conference.

His comments follow reports that the worst of the recent pension crisis has eased, thanks to healthy returns in the stock market and extra payments by employers to cover pension fund shortfalls.

Dodge suggested giving plan sponsors more flexibility to cover pension fund shortfalls, and letting smaller companies pool costs and risks to form multi-employer defined benefit pension plans.

The governor also called for greater sharing between employers and employees of the costs to pension funds from increases in longevity, and that the costs and risks of any enriching of plan benefits be made clear to both corporate shareholders and workers.

"These changes would give sponsors the appropriate degree of flexibility needed to manage risk effectively," Dodge said. "Ultimately, Canada can have a better-managed pension system that is good for members, good for employers, good for the economy and good for Canadian society."

While Dodge noted that the benefits of pension plans to workers are obvious, he said they also are good for employers and society.

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2007

FULL TEXT-Speech by Bank of Canada Governor

TORONTO, May 10 (Reuters) - The following is the prepared text of a speech by Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge to be delivered on Thursday to the Conference Board of Canada's 2007 Pensions Summit.

A Sound Pension System - Handling Risk Appropriately Good afternoon. I'm happy to be here to talk about the importance of Canada's pension system. It goes without saying that a sound system of private pensions is important from the perspective of pensioners who rely on a given plan for their retirement income. For firms, a pension plan can help to attract and retain staff, and so the business community also counts on a sound pension system. And as a central banker, I know that a sound pension system is important from the perspective of economic and financial market efficiency. Given the significance of our pension system, policy-makers in Canada need to keep working on improving its operation. Ultimately, it is crucial for all Canadians that our pension system function as well as possible. But what is it that makes a system of private pensions function well, or not? As I see it, a key to answering this question is understanding how pension plans deal with risk, in all of its many forms. So today, I want to spend some time discussing private pensions and risk, and suggest what needs to be done to make sure that those who have to bear risk also have the right incentives to deal with it in the most appropriate manner. I will focus on who is best placed to bear risk, and on how risk management can be better supported. Risks and Challenges Let me start with a fundamental question: Why do people save for their old age? Essentially, people save during their working years so they can retire at some point and not suffer a precipitous drop in income and living standards. Economists might put it somewhat less elegantly, saying that people save in order to smooth their lifetime consumption. In the absence of any kind of pension system, individuals, businesses, and society as a whole would all face a number of challenges and risks. I want to spend a few minutes talking about the challenges and risks from these three perspectives, beginning with individuals. First, individuals without a pension plan would have their personal savings as their only source of retirement income, aside from income from the publicly funded Canada Pension Plan/Quebec Pension Plan and the Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement. And so, individuals would naturally be exceedingly cautious with their investments, particularly as they approached retirement age. In short, individuals without pensions would likely be too risk-averse with their savings to generate a sufficient rate of investment return. Second, individuals can recognize that they lack the expertise to handle their investments in the most effective way, and so will try to acquire this expertise. This could come by way of an investment adviser, or by investing their savings in managed, diversified retail investment vehicles such as mutual funds. The challenge posed by this approach is that it can be costly, since individuals outside a pension plan have to purchase investment advice and ongoing funds management retail, not wholesale. Third, individuals without a pension plan face market risk in a couple of ways. Market conditions could be such that at the time of retirement, the value of their assets could be abnormally low. Or interest rates could be abnormally low at the time of retirement. In either case, the person would need to spend a much greater amount to purchase an annuity or other guaranteed stream of income compared with a period when market conditions were more favourable. The fourth point is related to the third. Sellers of annuities have to deal with the risk that those individuals who expect to live much longer than actuarial tables would suggest are the ones who buy annuities. To deal with this adverse selection problem, sellers compensate for the risk by charging significantly more for the annuity. In other words, the cost of an annuity is much greater for an individual than it is for members of a group. Both of these last two points demonstrate that without a pension system, individuals would need significantly higher levels of savings to ensure adequate funding for their retirement. And all of these points I raised demonstrate that pensions generate enormous benefits by making it much simpler for individuals to successfully save for retirement. But while the benefits of pension plans are obvious for individuals, let's not lose sight of the benefits for businesses and for society as a whole. From the perspective of business, pension plans are typically thought of as a recruitment and retention tool. But historically, pensions were also the way that good employers helped workers to save so that they could avoid penury in old age. And with a pension plan, older workers had the ability to retire, and thus did not need to keep working well beyond the point of their greatest productivity. As for society as a whole, pensions provide a couple of important benefits. First, no society wants to see large numbers of its senior citizens relying entirely on government transfers, although there is fairly universal agreement across most countries that it is desirable to have some degree of public income support for people in their old age. Beyond that, however, a well-functioning pension system is an important source of the long-term risk capital that is essential to finance growth. Mitigating Risks: Defined-Contribution Plans Most of the challenges and risks I've mentioned can be mitigated, to a greater or lesser extent, through the pooling effect that a pension plan provides. Of course, different kinds of pension plans deal with risks in different ways. First, let me briefly discuss defined-contribution plans and the way they deal with risks. A defined-contribution plan mitigates, at least partially, many of the challenges and risks I mentioned for individuals. For example, the costs of funds management and investment advice are pooled. Further, pooling helps to mitigate the risk that individuals will not have saved enough to purchase an appropriate annuity.

Most execs see a pension crisis

Fewer fear it will be long lasting

ERIC BEAUCHESNE, CanWest News Service

Published: Thursday, May 10, 2007

Nearly two-thirds of senior executives believe Canada still has a corporate pension funding crisis but a lot fewer fear it will be long-lasting, according to a survey to be released Thursday at a pension conference in Toronto.

The percentage of chief financial officers who feel the pension crisis will be long-lasting has slipped below half to 48 per cent this year from 61 per cent last year, and the proportion of senior human resource executives who see it as long-lasting has fallen to 40 per cent from 67 per cent, the survey found.

The results are being released at a Conference Board of Canada pensions summit in Toronto at which Bank of Canada governor David Dodge will give his perspective of how to manage pension risks.

"Compared to one year ago, the sense of crisis appears to be abating, but chief financial officers are still concerned about both the volatility and the current level of pension expense," said Gilles Rheaume, the board's vice-president public policy. "In an environment of labour shortages, pensions ... are considered a very valuable recruitment and retention tool." The lower level of concern likely reflects better investment returns and shrinking funding deficits, added Ian Markham, a pension specialist with Watson Wyatt, which conducted the survey of 141 employers.

However, he noted that employers are still pursuing reforms in both pension fund investment strategies and the design of pension plans.

Forty-one per cent of employers with a defined benefit plan, seen as the most attractive plan for attracting and retaining employees, indicated that they had made some reforms over the last two years or were planning to do so over the coming year.

Among private sector employers, the most common reform has been to convert to a defined contribution plan, under which the level of pension payments is determined by investment returns, from a defined benefit plan, under which an employer must make up any shortfall in a fund to cover the cost of paying an agreed upon level of benefits.

That's despite the fact that employers strongly agree that a defined benefit plan is more attractive when trying to recruit or keep employees, the report noted.

Firms jettison defined-benefit pension plans

Shift means many will work longer

May 10, 2007 04:30 AM

James Daw

Traditional pensions continue to slip from workers' grasps.

A third of the 45 public companies polled in a new survey will soon have stripped benefit guarantees out of pension entitlements that new and existing employees will earn in future.

In the face of a new era of low investment returns and rising obligations, more pension providers are aiming to limit contributions to a fixed percentage of pay.

Affected employees could face having to work longer – if their health and skills allow – or deal with a lower standard of living in retirement, a senior actuary warns.

The trend that began in the early 1990s is gaining momentum, just as an Ontario commission searches for a survival and expansion plan for pension plans that have defined benefits.

Ian Markham, an adviser to the Ontario Expert Commission on Pensions, says the number of workers who have lost pensions with defined benefits for each year of service may be more than official figures recognize.

Statistics Canada estimates about 83 per cent of the two million pension-plan members in Ontario still have defined benefits.

Most of the members are in the public sector.

But the agency has a great deal of difficulty dealing with private-sector employers that will pay benefits based on service up to a certain year, but in future will make a fixed level of contributions for each dollar earned.

"How do we categorize that?" asks Markham.

Results of the new survey, by the Conference Board of Canada and Watson Wyatt Worldwide, where Markham is a consulting actuary, are to be presented today at a pensions summit in Toronto.

An early release was provided to the Toronto Star.

Key findings are that about 18 per cent of the 45 public companies polled across Canada have swung in the past two years to defined-contribution plans for future service.

Another 15 per cent said they will follow in the next year, while 5 per cent have or will get rid of defined benefits entirely.

Most said they were moving away from guaranteeing a certain benefit based on years of work and salary in order to avoid fluctuations in contribution requirements and to cut costs.

More than 60 per cent of public and private companies said they are making extra payments to eliminate funding shortfalls, which are anotther type of risk for employees if their employer fails.

Few of those employers (16 per cent) pay more into their plans than the minimum legal requirement.

Two-thirds of respondents think pension funding is in crisis, but the percentage who think it will last for many years has fallen to 48 per cent from 61 in 2006.

Many companies see the move away from defined benefits as a financial necessity, but most employers with the cheaper defined-contribution plans worry retirement benefits won't be adequate.

These lesser plans may thus make it difficult to recruit and retain top talent, or to ease out unproductive workers. The national unemployment rate is down to about 6.1 per cent, and a growing number of baby boomers will soon reach the age of retirement.

Public-sector plans are moving to increase both employee and employer contributions, while private-sector companies are increasingly shifting risk to employees.

Markham said that a 30-year-old worker five years ago might earn a pension equal to 54 per cent of pay by age 65 if he or she and an employer each contributed 5 per cent of pay to a defined-contribution pension plan.

But the outlook for returns on all forms of investment is now significantly lower because interest rates on long-term bonds are low all around the world. On the flip side, the cost of life annuities is much higher.

So, the same combined level of contributions (10 per cent of pay) might replace only 38 per cent of pay at age 65 (excluding government benefits).

To get back to a 54 per cent rate of replacement, contributions might have to rise more than 40 per cent, or the person would have to work years longer.

Markham said he doubts many employers, let alone employees, realize the impact of lower interest rates on prospects for retirement. Other research suggests most employees are ill-equipped to invest their retirement savings, and the available investment options are more costly and less well managed than defined pension plans.

The commission on pensions in Ontario, headed by labour-law expert Harry Arthurs, has until next summer to report.

A discussion paper on the Web at pensionreview.on.ca asks for suggestions about a number of questions, including how to make defined-benefit plans less costly, and surplus funds or contingency reserves less a bone of contention.

Director of research Robert Brown said at a pension conference yesterday that 20 research papers have been commissioned. Public hearings are to be held in six cities, starting in Toronto Oct. 15, the deadline for making written submissions.

See

The Importance of Savings

Your Pension Dollars At Work

P3= Public Pension Partnerships

Chinese Social Security Scandal

Social Insecurity The Phony Pension Crisis

Pension Plunder

Labour Is Capital

Pension Free China

Kids Are Commodities

Workers vs Worker

Air Canada Profits From Bankruptcy

Are Income Trusts A Ponzi Scheme

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Alberta, Heritage Trust Fund, LAPP, Alberta Investment Management Corporation,investment, infrastructure, VenCap, shareholders, economics,David, Dodge, Bank, of, Canada, Pensions, P3, public-private-partnerships, OMERS, CPP, Ontario-Teachers-Fund, OTF, Canada, investment, infrastructure, Ontario, shareholders,

Casino Capitalism

Betting in the marketplace....

Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge also repeated a concern over a sharp reduction in the pricing of risk in financial markets, singling out the carry trade as a possible source of trouble.

The carry trade is a popular strategy that involves borrowing money in low interest rate currencies like the yen and then reinvesting in riskier emerging markets.

"One-way bets are always dangerous things," he said in response to a question about such trades.

....like betting on natural gas....

Bank of Montreal, Canada's fourth-biggest lender, said last week it will post a pretax loss of as much as C$450 million ($406 million) from trading in natural gas contracts. The bank plans to fire trader David Lee and Bob Moore, an executive managing director, over the losses, the National Post newspaper said today. The men are staying with the bank until the firm can unwind its trading positions, the paper said, citing unidentified people.

BMO said the losses are primarily from natural gas trading, while Desjardins Securities analyst Michael Goldberg expects more losses in the future.

“The commodity trading losses were the result of decisions that did not adequately recognize the vulnerability of the portfolio to changes in market volatility,” Bill Downe, President and Chief Executive Officer of BMO Financial Group, said in a statement.

Mr. Goldberg interpreted this statement as “faulty trading algorithms were based on garbage in, and they generated garbage out,” he told clients in a note.

This is the same bank that laid off staff knowing full well it was losing money based on a bad bet.

BMO More ATM's Less People

Banks Profit From Job Cuts

Fool me once....fool me twice.....ah heck fool me thrice

U.S. hedge fund faces billions in losses on natural gas bet

Monday, September 18, 2006 | 7:08 PM ET

Amaranth Advisors, a big U.S. hedge fund, has told its investors to brace for huge losses as a result of its costly bet that natural gas prices — now at a two-year low — would rise.

Some reports said the fund's losses could amount to $4 billion US.

"We anticipate our year-to-date losses might be in excess of 35 per cent as we near completion of the disposition of our natural gas exposure," the hedge fund said in a letter to investors obtained by several media organizations.

Amaranth traders apparently placed hugely leveraged bets that natural gas prices would rise.

A Hedge Fund’s Loss Rattles Nerves - New York Times

Enormous losses at one of the nation’s largest hedge funds resurrected worries yesterday that major bets by these secretive, unregulated investment partnerships could create widespread financial disruptions.

Alan Zale for The New York Times

Amaranth Advisors’ trading floor in Greenwich, Conn. The hedge fund said that it had lost more than $3 billion in the downturn in natural gas.

The hedge fund, Amaranth Advisors, based in Greenwich, Conn., made an estimated $1 billion on rising energy prices last year. Yesterday, the fund told its investors that it had lost more than $3 billion in the recent downturn in natural gas and that it was working with its lenders and selling its holdings “to protect our investors.”

Amaranth’s investors include pension funds, endowments and large financial firms like banks, insurance companies and brokerage firms. The Institutional Fund of Hedge Funds at Morgan Stanley was an investor in Amaranth; as of June 30, it had a stake valued at $124 million. The turnabout in the fortunes of the $9.25 billion fund reflects the decline in energy prices recently; natural gas prices fell 12 percent just last week.

The scale of Amaranth’s losses — and how quickly they appear to have mounted — was the talk of Wall Street yesterday, as was speculation on how much the bet was leveraged, or made on borrowed money. Still, there were no signs of ripples on the financial markets as a result.

Amaranth’s woes are largely the result of a decline in natural gas prices that began in December, well before the spring months of March or April, when they typically fall off. Amaranth’s biggest stake was a combination bet on the spread between natural gas futures prices for March 2007 and those for April 2007. Amaranth had often bet that the spread on that so-called shoulder month — when natural gas inventories stop being drawn down and begin to rise — would increase.

But instead the spread collapsed. In the last six weeks, for example, the spread between the two futures contracts ranged from $2.50 at the end of July to around 75 cents yesterday.

Traders briefed on Amaranth’s problems, including one person who examined the fund’s books yesterday, said that the losses might be considerably larger than the firm estimated. Over the weekend, according to one person briefed on the situation, Goldman Sachs examined the fund’s positions.

Amaranth is not the first hedge fund to experience problems in energy markets. MotherRock Energy Fund, a $400 million portfolio, shut down last month after losing money on its bets that natural gas prices would fall. Summer heat sent prices soaring and the fund lost 24.6 percent in June and 25.5 percent in July, according to one investor.

The natural gas market is exceptionally volatile, making it an ideal playground for hedge funds that thrive on wide price movements in securities. Natural gas prices are subject to more severe swings than oil, in part because gas cannot be stored easily.

Amaranth Advisors LLC was an American multistrategy hedge fund managing US$9 billion in assets. In September 2006, it collapsed after losing roughly US$6 billion in a single week on natural gas futures. The failure was the largest hedge fund collapse in history.

Amaranth’s energy desk was run by a Canadian trader named Brian Hunter who placed "spread trades" in the natural gas market. Hunter had made enormous profits for the company by placing bullish bets on natural gas prices in 2005, the year Hurricane Katrina had severely impacted natural gas refining and production. Hoping for a repeat performance, Amaranth wagered with an 8:1 leverage that the difference between the March and April futures price of natural gas for 2007 and 2008 would widen.

Natural Gas: Amaranth Advisors & Centaurus Energy

And although the loser in this, Brian Hunter is doing much better than the Amaranth investors. He’s still has the couple hundred million he made before he nuked Amaranth and being quite cheeky, he’s actually shopping around a new fund!

Econbrowser: Amaranth hedge fund losses

Of course, if anybody ever audited Amaranth's holdings, they would have seen what was going on immediately, and indeed NYMEX apparently inferred from the volumes that something was wrong and warned Amaranth to reduce its positions. But the way the hedge fund game is often played, foolishly credulous investors never get to see the books and base their decision simply on the fund's track record and slick sales pitch. I have to join Big Picture and Motley Fool in blaming the folks who supplied Amaranth with capital, rather than the managers themselves. Anyone who tells himself that 35% annual returns with no risk are there to be obtained by some unseen hedge-fund magic is soon to be parted from his wealth.

When you hold a significant portion of the outstanding contracts, you have the potential to move markets in a big way when you liquidate, making your swan song all the more dramatic when it comes. This is what happened to Long Term Capital Management, and it seems likely that a significant part of the September volatility in the graphs above is directly due to Amaranth.

I have often argued that as long as speculators make a profit, their actions tend to be stabilizing, as they have helped direct resources to where they are most needed. But by that metric, we got $6 billion worth of destabilization out of Amaranth last month. And when I hear a story like this, my first instinct is that there could well be a lot more of this going on. Amaranth's staggering losses leave me more open to the claim that a significant part of the general commodity price increases we have seen in recent years might be the result of actions by speculators who are destined to earn spectacular losses.

See

Criminal Capitalism Redux

CEO

Stock Options

Corporate Crime

White Collar Crime

Criminal Capitalism

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
criminology, Amaranth, corporate-crime, white-collar-crime, sociology, hedge funds, scandal, criminal-capitalism, workers, employees, theft, crime, layoffs,, Canada,, banks,, banking,, BMO,, natural gas,, Bank of Montreal,, Banks,, Canada,, jobs,, layoffs,, profits,, BMO,, Bank, of, Montreal,, workers,, bank, workers,,petroleum,,David Dodge, Bank of Canada,

Canadian Ponzi Scheme Funds Republicans

While the headline for this story emphasized the fact that there was some spurious connections with terrorism the real story is that a Christian Businessman from Canada and his American partner bilked Christian investors in a ponzi scheme that helped finance the Bush Regime. The good thing is that when he goes to jail he won't have to find Jesus.

The portly Mr. Anderson seems an unlikely financier of Islamist terror. A born-again Christian, he has actively fundraised for evangelical groups and worked at Trinity Western University until the late 1980s.

"During the time he was employed at the university, his role was in the fundraising office," said Ron Kuehl, senior vice-president of External Relations at the Christian university in B.C.'s Bible belt.

"It seemed that there was a bit of a variety of [job] titles but I would say that the function that he took at the university was clearly in the area of development."

Mr. Anderson’s troubles stem from the business ventures he launched in 2001, Frontier Assets and the Alpha Program, which securities regulators say were "Ponzi schemes" that conned investors
into handing over money that was never actually invested.

A lawsuit filed by nine people who claim they were scammed by Mr. Anderson says he deliberately sought out investors who "held strong Christian values and beliefs."

"Anderson told Plaintiffs that he was offering some very lucrative and confidential investment opportunities that would, while providing a good financial return to Plaintiffs, also benefit Christian organizations and projects throughout the world," the lawsuit says.

According to the FBI and the B.C. Securities Commission, Mr. Anderson collected at least $7-million from his backers, but the money was never invested and the investors were left empty-handed.

Mr. Anderson is tied to terror-financing allegations through his business partner Mr. Alishtari, a 53-year-old American of Moroccan origin who has donated generously to Republican election campaigns.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
ponzi, fruad, Canadian, Christian, B.C., Canada, Republicans, terrorism, finances,

Income Trust Fraud

Dianne Urquhart speaking before the Commons Finance Committee investigating Income Trusts on Tuesday, January 30, 2007,in answer to a question from NDP member Judy Wasylycia-Leis said that indeed according to both Canadian Securities law as well as American securities law that there may have been unethical sales of Income Trusts to seniors based on false promises and could be investigated by the RCMP as fraud.

Judy Wasylycia-Leis was making the point that even with the change in taxation status the Trusts themselves operate in a fashion that current accounting practices would be considered illegal. A point neither the Liberals or Conservatives have bothered to deal with.

Mrs. Dianne Urquhart (Independent Consulting Analyst, As an Individual):

Thank you.

I support the income trust tax plan, with no increase in grandfathering beyond four years. I strongly urge that the income trust tax plan be enhanced by the addition of prescribed conditions to the Income Tax Act to stop income trusts from reporting deceptive, non-gap financial measures. Cash distribution must be defined as income distribution and return of capital distributions. The cash yield calculation should be restricted unless there is an equally prominent income yield calculation.

The federal government should not be giving tax incentives for an investment targeted to seniors where the product is an unsuitable investment based on the investment objective of secure retirement income and preservation of retirement capital. The high-risk design of income trusts and their deficient investor protection legal framework makes them unsuitable for seniors.

Making matters worse, the tax incentive is promoting the purchase of an investment where there is considerable malfeasance in the financial reporting and marketing material, which I'll speak about in a moment.

I have found that two out of three business income trusts pay distributions well in excess of their incomes. The average amount that the cash distributions are above income is 60%. The sources of the extra money are borrowed money, reserves from prior financing, and not retaining cash to replace plant, machinery, equipment, and software. This financial engineering, without proper transparency, is causing the return of capital to be capitalized as income. This is causing excessive pricing in the market.

In my research “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose”, I found that the business income trust market was trading at a premium of 55% relative to the TSX/S&P60, which comprises sixty of Canada's largest public corporations and a few income trusts. I also compared it to a sample of Canada's non-cyclical public corporations, which comprise the banks, the telcos, the utilities, and the power companies. On that basis, Canadian business income trusts were trading at a 55% premium. Even when I looked at the cashflow from operations, I found that income trusts were trading at a 40% premium. I believe the tax advantages in income trusts contributed 16% of the 55% premiums.

I conclude that the income trust tax plan with a four-year grandfathering period has a 10% negative impact on prices. My calculations differ from the calculations Mr. McKay asked about earlier with respect to what the investment losses have been since October 31 and the announcement of the plan. Business income trusts and energy income trusts, based on a roll-up of each of the individual trusts, are down 13%—up to about two to three days ago—for a loss of $23 billion.

On the basis of my detailed analysis of the tax advantages and the elimination of the premium associated with the tax advantages, it's my opinion that the income tax loss associated with the decision to introduce the income tax plan is $17 billion. This damage is a necessary consequence of a government closing a tax loophole that is not achieving benefits for the economy and is promoting the purchase of an investment by seniors for which this investment is unsuitable.

For a properly diversified portfolio with less than 20% invested in income trusts, the new tax damage is 2%. This is clearly capable of being absorbed by Canadians who invested in this security. Those who have higher losses than this have seen them occur as a result of improper diversification, or perhaps they have suffered the losses as a result of the malfeasance with respect to the improper marketing of income trusts to seniors.

I want to note that on May 3, 2006, the Canadian Accounting Standards Board said that the failure to distinguish clearly between returns on capital and returns of capital is inaccurate and potentially misleading, particularly when terms such as “yield” are used to describe the amount distributed.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I just wanted to say that I didn't hear Dianne Urquhart condoning Enron. What I heard Dianne Urquhart saying was that we need to be vigilant at all times, and whenever there is the possibility of unethical practice or even criminal undertakings, we should be ready to crack down on it.

I want to ask Dianne, since I'm just getting up to date on this Prudential Securities issue, are you saying that what is common practice in Canada would be considered criminal in the more tightly regulated U.S. environment?

Mrs. Dianne Urquhart:

I would say that the RCMP and provincial and municipal police forces have the tools within section 380 of the Criminal Code today to call the deceptive cash yields...as has been said by the chairman of the Canadian Accounting Standards Board and by Paul Hayward, OSC senior legal counsel, who said in a tax journal in 2002 that an investigation could be conducted and fraud could be found. I'm not making that allegation specifically, but the wording concerns the Canadian Accounting Standards Board and Paul Hayward, OSC senior legal counsel. The actual criminal charges in the United States suggest that the misconduct of the limited partnerships of the eighties and early nineties was similar to that which has occurred in the Canadian income trust market, and it could be considered criminal in Canada upon investigation.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

Thank you.

I have one more question for Dianne Urquhart and then one for Mr. Teasdale.

Dianne, as you and others know, I have publicly stated that I support measures to shut down income trusts used as a way to avoid paying taxes, and I accept the statistics we've now had from a number of jurisdictions and a number of years, which are consistent with what you and others are saying.

My question to you, Dianne, is given the fact that the ways and means motion is likely to go through, based on the previous vote in Parliament.... And I've been working on this issue you've raised about the undervaluing—or overvaluing, sorry.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

No, it's clearly overvaluing.

It's a serious issue to change the Income Tax Act to deal with this. Is it still worth my while to do this, given the fact that, hopefully, we'll see over the grandparenting period the end of income trusts? Is it still important for consumers that we do it?

Mrs. Dianne Urquhart:

Yes, there is still $200 billion of current income trusts in the market, and 288 of the trusts are, I believe, in non-bifurcated markets--full transparency. I don't want those who know that their income trusts are overvalued having the opportunity to sell them to unsophisticated players. I believe we should have immediate requirements; the sooner we can get this into the Income Tax Act the better. The sooner we get transparency on the return on capital and the distributions, then we can have a market that's honest and not one in which sophisticated players dump trusts onto those who do believe the return on capital is there for their household expenses. It's just not there, because there is a limit on access to the amount of cash that's on the balance sheets and on the financial markets paying it.

A further hit on income trusts came when Seniors, those folks whom everyone in the income trust business says they speak for, spoke for themselves.

''The federal government should not be giving tax incentives for seniors to purchase an investment that is risky and does not have a proper investor protection regime in place,'' the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federations said in its brief to the committee. President Art Field noted that even before Flaherty announced the tax on trusts, the federation had passed a motion expressing concern seniors were being urged to invest money in what it called ''unsuitable'' and ''questionable'' income trust investments.

The Liberals who continued to opportunistically defend Income Trusts, as does Ralph Klein speaking of strange bedfellows, stated they of course would NOT have taxed Income Trusts...now they should have made that an election promise.

McCallum, meanwhile, defended the former Liberal government, noting it had moved to level the playing field between trusts and corporations, but by reducing the tax on corporate dividends rather than putting a tax on trusts. ''It's difficult to say what else we would have done had we stayed in government,'' McCallum added.

Well now we know what they would have, should have, could have done.

They issued their press release on the last day of the hearings, yesterday after Judy had issued her own private members bill, a bill that got NO attention from the MSM.

Despite the fact that neither the government nor the Liberals have addressed the real problem with Income Trusts that they are a Ponzi Scheme. An attempt to separate seniors from their pensions, since pensions are a vast untapped source of capital.

That is the elephant in the room,that the NDP has addressed in their private members bill.

“This NDP bill will bypass government inaction,” says Wasylycia-Leis.“We have a Finance Minister who claims he wants better securities regulation but continues to ignore this urgent problem. Meanwhile, our self-regulating investment system acknowledges there is a serious problem but has failed to produce an enforceable solution, and the industry continues to sell its products to unsophisticated investors using fuzzy numbers. This is unacceptable.”

See

Income Trusts

Pensions

Ponzi

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
income trusts, Canada, NDP, Liberals, Conservatives, Flaherty, seniors, pensions, retirement, income splitting, fraud, white collar crime, ponzi, income tax, FINA,Dianne Urquhart,McCallum,Judy Wasylycia-Leis, corporate crime

Income Trust Blowback

Begins today. I guess these folks won't be voting for Harpers Conservatives.

Meanwhile Financial Post (the Financial Post!!!) exposes the self interested business lobby that is pro Income Trusts; the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors (CAITI) pointing out that they are not 'really' investors;

Whether CAITI actually represents trust investors is debatable. One witness appearing tomorrow, independent consultant Dianne Urquhart, says the association is in reality sponsored by trust vendors and the law firms and accountants supporting them. They are trust "investors" only to the extent they invest in their own product.

And the FP to its credit points out, as I have here the concerns that Income Trusts were always a ponzi scheme, benefiting fund managers and owners more than investors.

Contrary to what the spin masters would have us believe, not all pensioners are opposed to the government's decision to tax trusts. The National Pensioners & Senior Citizens Federation, which speaks on Thursday, supports Flaherty's decision. Its 450 chapters and clubs represent a million seniors and pensioners, including the 300,000 members of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario.Even before the Halloween decision came down, the NPSCF was concerned about "income trusts being sold to seniors on the basis of cash yields that are inaccurate, inflated and misleading."

What the Liberals should have done and didn't and what the Conservatives promised not to do, but did, affected investors, sure, but only a small number of well off seniors. Canadian seniors who have been screwed by Income Trusts should remember the financial term used for these kinds of investment; high risk.

This is not the same kind of rip off seniors in Alberta faced under the Tories in Alberta in the eighties (during the last big boom) when Dial Mortgage Abacus-Cities and Principal Trust collapsed. Those were avoidable and had been backed by the Alberta Treasury Branch as well as the Government. Yet when they collapsed seniors were left holding the bag.

What keeps getting lost in all this brouhaha is that Flaherty is promising business another tax cut to make up for taxing income trusts. That's the real meaning behind his euphimistic "Tax Fairness". Nothing fair about it. Just another government handout to those who already have the upper hand.

See:

Income Trusts

Tax Avoidance



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, politics, finance, Flaherty, tax, taxes, tax-avoidance, offshore-tax-havens, Income-trusts, Garth, Turner, Harper, parliament, NDP, Guergis, Irving, Bronfman, income-splitting, retirees, pensions, pensioners, seniors