Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

Stanford Takes Page from Ponzi Playbook


Texas financier accused of $8 billion fraud.

It turns about Bernie Madoff wasn't the only one cooking the books: Texas banking icon R. Allen Stanford is the latest to be charged with a massive, multi-billion dollar fraud.

In a story conveniently drowned out by President Obama's signing of the $789 billion economic stimulus package and the auto industry's latest plea for taxpayer money, the Securities and Exchange Commission raided Stanford's Houston headquarters yesterday morning, alleging he perpetrated an $8 billion fraud based on "false promises and fabricated historical data."

According to the Wall Street Journal, Stanford lured in investors by promising steady, safe returns for cash deposited in a bank he owns in Antigua, one of the many Caribbean banking havens. Instead of investing in liquid, low-risk assets as promised, Stanford allegedly funneled the money into high-risk private equity and real estate deals. Oversight was scant, as decisions were reviewed by 2 people: the bank's chief financial officer, James Davis, and Stanford himself.

Much like Madoff's much-publicized Ponzi scheme, consistently high returns that seemed impervious to market gyrations were the hallmark of Stanford's scam.

The SEC claims Stanford International Bank returned between 6-10% from 1992-2006 on its certificates of deposit, or CDs. Yields on comparable investments issued by American banks like JPMorgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC) and Wells Fargo (WFC) are significantly lower - but carry FDIC insurance to protect depositors from loss.

Strong returns on its investment portfolio, Stanford claimed, allowed the bank to pay out the oversized returns. In 2008, a year that saw the S&P 500 lose 39%, the bank said its portfolio lost just 1.3%.

The SEC says Stanford used these inflated returns to woo investors, many of which hailed from Latin American countries. Shaky banks in South America led many wealthy individuals to invest with Stanford, believing he could earn them strong returns with little risk.

But as their North American counterparts have learned from the ongoing Madoff affair: Where there's return, there's always risk.

This lax attitude towards risk, one that was fostered for decades by the Federal Reserve's overly accommodating monetary policy, was instrumental in sowing the seeds of our current financial crisis. It also helps explain how so many investors around the world were so easily duped by cons that, in retrospect, seem so easy to identify.

"Malinvestments," a term popularized in recent years by Texas Congressman Ron Paul, occur when cash is poured into assets that return a yield that isn't commensurate with their risks.

When times are good, losses remain low and Washington comes to the rescue of the financial industry every time it gets into trouble, investors become accustomed to earning high rates of return without taking much risk. As this belief becomes the status quo, more and more money is funneled towards these seemingly low-risk, high-return opportunities.

Peddlers of financial instruments, from Madoff and Stanford to Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS), dream up increasingly complex places for investors to park their money. Risk, they claimed, was as low as ever, thanks to their financial wizardry.

When real losses did occur, loan defaults began to rise, and the government wasn't deft enough to stem the tide, investors got burned. Badly.

Assets that suddenly become very risky lost value rapidly, since they carried such a low rate of return. Losses beget losses, which beget more losses. We all know how the story ends.

Meanwhile, even as it acted as enabler to Wall Street's (and Main Street's) incessant greed, the federal government now insists on pointing fingers and acting as savior for a system it was complicit in creating.

Where was the SEC to root out Madoff and Stanford before investors lost billions? Where was the Federal Reserve to act on its own findings about the risks of exotic mortgage lending?

Yet, even now, we're counting on these same institutions and politicians to invest nearly $1 trillion of our money to rescue us.

How low-risk is that investment strategy?
< Previous
  • 1
Next >
No positions in stocks mentioned.

The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opin= =3D =3D3D ion about the performance of securities and financial markets by = the wr=3D iter=3D3D s whose articles appear on the site. The views expresse= d by the wri=3D ters are=3D3D not necessarily the views of Minyanville Medi= a, Inc. or members=3D of its man=3D3D agement. Nothing contained on the web= site is intended to con=3D stitute a recom=3D3D mendation or advice address= ed to an individual investor =3D or category of inve=3D3D stors to purchase= , sell or hold any security, or to =3D take any action with re=3D3D spect t= o the prospective movement of the securit=3D ies markets or to solicit t=3D= 3D he purchase or sale of any security. Any inv=3D estment decisions must b= e made =3D3D by the reader either individually or in =3D consultation with = his or her invest=3D3D ment professional. Minyanville write=3D rs and staff= may trade or hold position=3D3D s in securities that are discuss=3D ed in = articles appearing on the website. Wr=3D3D iters of articles are requir=3D = ed to disclose whether they have a position in =3D3D any stock or fund disc= us=3D sed in an article, but are not permitted to disclos=3D3D e the size o= r direct=3D ion of the position. Nothing on this website is intende=3D3D d = to solicit bus=3D iness of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Mi= ny=3D3D anville mana=3D gement and staff as well as contributing writers wi= ll not respo=3D3D nd to em=3D ails or other communications requesting inves= tment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Videos