It’s Official: Wall Street Firms May Legally Steal From Their Customers
It’s Official: Wall Street Firms May Legally Steal From Their Customers - Rationalizations to Follow
Courtesy of Jesse's Cafe Americain
...and they may not have to pay them back, even when they are caught. The customers will be expected to 'take one for the team,' and for the good of the system. Confidence and all that.
“This means they can take segregated funds and leverage them to kingdom come. It means nothing is safe.”
If you have a commodity account with Wall Street, they may gamble with your money, with your assets, the rule on segregated accounts be damned. If they lose the money you might be reimbursed, or not. The losses may have to be 'socialized' and haircuts received.
This is most likely a distortion of the principle known as 'rehypothecation' in which a broker can use customer positions and holdings as collateral pledged for a margin loan for the purpose of securing funding from a third party to service that loan.
The principle at play here may be closer to a type of droit du seigneur, in which any assets you have posted at a futures brokerage may be used at will by the broker for their own purposes without regard to any customer obligations. It depends on the extent to which MF took customer assets and leveraged them.
In a way it is just making the unbalanced relationship between Wall Street and its customers official.
It means that customers are bearing hidden counterparty risks on assets to which they thought they had a clear title, such as Treasuries, and foreign currencies, and warehouse receipts for precious metals.
It means that brokers can go beyond the mere provision of funding for loss, and use customer accounts to fund their own leveraged speculation under exemptions duly granted by their 'regulators.'
This sort of systemic abuse is typically exposed when there is a market dislocation. It is what finally exposed Madoff, for example, despite the many years that the regulators were turning a blind eye to his scheme.
This sort of arbitrary distribution of gains and losses occurs more frequently than you might imagine on Wall Street, at least from what I have seen and heard, and not just with commodity brokers. I have even heard of specially privileged customers who can make $100,000 in a few trading days without even having any knowledge of the markets in which they have 'traded.'
I stopped trading on the futures exchanges a few years ago when I experienced enough one-sided 'rule changes' to persuade myself at least that it was becoming an insiders' game with slim odds of success for the 'outsider.' Or perhaps I was just becoming aware of it had already become, or had always been.
Unfortunately it is hard to escape inefficiency in markets, because despite all that has happened, these fellows still set the prices for much of the world's food, energy, and basic materials, at least on the official exchanges.
The CFTC has been disgracefully negligent, and given to cronyism, but in the spirit of modern American management practice it may just hide behind a claim of incompetence. They granted some exemptions to influential insiders, and the markets proved that the exceptions were loopholes for fraudulent abuse of the public trust.
The Justice Department is investigating the case of MF Global for any violation of the laws. I suggest they pay special attention to the laws regarding 'fraudulent conveyance' in the posting of the customer assets as collateral with MF's creditors, even as the firm was paying its employees bonuses, knowing that it was insolvent.
Actual fraud typically involves a debtor who as part of an asset protection scheme donates his assets, usually to an "insider", and leaves himself nothing to pay his creditors. Constructive fraud does not relate to fraudulent intent, but rather to the underlying economics of the transaction, if it took place for less than reasonably equivalent value at a time when the debtor was in a distressed financial condition.
For example, where the debtor has simply been more generous than they should have or, in business transactions, the business should have ceased trading earlier to avoid giving certain business creditors an unfair preference (see generally, wrongful trading).
Obama should bring meaningful reforms to the regulatory agencies and the financial markets after the shocking abuses of the past twenty years. But I doubt he will bite the hand that feeds him. He will likely hide behind committees and a building of 'consensus' with the unabashed servants of the monied interests. It's in the nature of a credibility trap that reform will not come until the system finally seizes, and crashes, and there is an opportunity to hide their crimes in the rubble.
MF Global May Have Used Customer Funds In The Losing $6.3 Billion Trade Without Informing Clients
By Robert Lenzner
After an intense day of investigation, I have just discovered that a CFTC rule (1.29) allowed Jon Corzine’s MF Global to use the margin and cash in customers heretofore segregated accounts to amass a risky $6.3 billion investment in European sovereign debt that backfired. Nor did Corzine have the obligation to inform any of these customers he was gambling with their money. Or that he was intending to keep all the profits for himself and his troubled firm. Nothing for the customers.
The language of Rule 1.29 allows “The investment of customer funds in instruments described in 1.29 shall not prevent the futures commission merchant (MF Global) or clearing organization so investing such funds and retaining as its own any increment or interest resulting therefrom.” Increment refers to any trading profits or gains.
The criminal division of the Justice Department in New York — as well as the SEC and the CFTC and members of Congress– are investigating whether any laws were violated and if so, whether any criminal charges can be brought. As of 3 pm today, there has been no sign of the missing $633 million. My sources believe it was probably grabbed by the institutions that made the margin calls on MF Global as the European bonds sank in value.
This shocking loophole, which is available to all commodity traders, whether giant ones like Goldman Sachs or members of commodity exchanges, means that huge risks are being taken with money that does not belong to the trading firms– without the customers having any idea of the danger they are in. As Andy Abraham, a futures trader in Israel put it to me today; “this means they can take segregated funds and leverage them to kingdom come. It means nothing is safe.”
This rule, which has been in effect since 1974, is shocking and highly irregular since it allows any futures dealer to use customers money for its own selfish purposes– and never inform its customers it is doing so. What’s even more unfair is that the dealer (MF Global) gets to keep all the income and the trading profits, if any from a transaction that uses other people’s money– not its own house capital. That is unless some prior arrangement about sharing profits was made privately beforehand with the client. None of the MF Global clients I’ve spoken to today had the foggiest notion about this arrangement– which at minimum is outrageously unfair to the rule that the customer comes first. All losses must be made up by the dealer, which in this case may be totally impossible..."
Read the rest here.
I wonder if they will even disclose the name of the firm that took the $600+ million in customer assets as collateral.
That will speak volumes in itself.
Here is some additional information from Lenzner at Forbes: Some MF Global Customers Want Corzine "Led Away In Cuffs"
My most well-informed source, who won’t identify himself tells me my original story was “partially correct in the usage of customer funds.” IE MF Global was allowed under Rule 1.29 of the CFTC, to use segregated customers accounts to invest in “high quality, liquid investments.”
He insists that, “The segregated funds rule prevents the firm from answering margin calls with Seg (segregated) funds for house bets. Lots of people in other trading firms are taking bets on when Corzine will be led away in cuffs.” My source also insists that Corzine was NOT allowed to use these funds for directional bets- and that “customer funds can only generate interest for MFG while they are held separately from house money.”
Lots of excuses will be made for what happened. The status quo has a huge vested interest in covering this up, for their personal benefit and 'the sake of the system.'
For example, the analogy in the above piece by Lenzner about customer banks deposits, and the actions of banks in lending them out to other people. Yes, and you are paid interest for that usage, and you know that they are doing it, and you know that their loan operations and deposits are (at least theoretically) regulated and insured by the government.
But overall Lenzner is one of the best financial reporters, and he shows remarkable journalistic integrity. Most mainstream reporters won't even touch this one because they are afraid to say something that might involve the sacrosanct monied interests and TBTF. Simon Johnson was not waxing poetic when he said that there had been a financial coup d'etat.
Wall Street has a wonderful way of rationalizing their slimier behaviour. After all, when the tech bubble of fraudulent representations crashed, the financial news anchor said that 'no one had MADE people buy those stocks.' Its not Wall Street's fault that people are uninformed and gullible, right?
"There will always be apologists for the powerful and politically connected who commit crimes."
My expectations for reform are remarkably low. I just hope that the customers get their money back, and more people become aware of what is going on. If anything is done about this except to make excuses for it, I will be pleasantly surprised to say the least.
In the short term, I think the avoidance of the worst neighborhoods in the financial system is a likely reaction by investors. And those seem to be the forex, stock options, and futures markets, with a few of the slimier ETFs that are designed to lose as well. Such de facto boycotts have happened before and will happen again. What else can one do?
A credibility trap is not a pretty thing. It smothers goodness and justice with a dark cloak of complicity. This will not be resolved quickly or easily.