Time for Truth: Three Card Monte is for Suckers
Tuesday, 03/16/2010 - 12:50 pm by Eliot Spitzer and William Black | 5 Comments
Eliot Spitzer and William Black call for an immediate Congressional investigation of Lehman’s accounting deception and the release of relevant emails and internal documents.
In December, we argued the urgent need to make public A.I.G.’s emails and “key internal accounting documents and financial models.” A.I.G.’s schemes were at the center of the economic meltdown. Three months later, a year-long report by court-appointed bank examiner Anton Valukas makes it abundantly clear why such investigations are critical to the recovery of our financial system. Every time someone takes a serious look, a new scandal emerges.
The damning 2,200-page report, released last Friday, examines the reasons behind Lehman’s failure in September 2008. It reveals on and off balance-sheet accounting practices the firm’s managers used to deceive the public about Lehman’s true financial condition. Our investigations have shown for years that accounting is the “weapon of choice” for financial deception. Valukas’s findings reveal how Lehman used $50 billion in “repo” loans to fool investors into thinking that it was on sound financial footing. As our December co-author Frank Partnoy recently explained as part of a major report of the Roosevelt Institute, “Make Markets Be Markets“, such abusive off-balance accounting was and is endemic. It was a major cause of the financial crisis, and it will lead to future crises.
According to emails described in the report, CEO Richard Fuld and other senior Lehman executives were aware of the games being played and yet signed off on quarterly and annual reports. Lehman’s auditor Ernst & Young knew and kept quiet.
The Valukas report also exposes the dysfunctional relationship between the country’s main regulatory bodies and the systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs) they are supposed to be policing. The NY Fed, the regulatory agency led by then FRBNY President Geithner, has a clear statutory mission to promote the safety and soundness of the banking system and compliance with the law. Yet it stood by while Lehman deceived the public through a scheme that FRBNY officials likened to a “three card monte routine” (p. 1470). The report states:
“The FRBNY discounted the value of Lehman’s pool to account for these collateral transfers. However, the FRBNY did not request that Lehman exclude this collateral from its reported liquidity pool. In the words of one of the FRBNY’s on-site monitors: ‘how Lehman reports its liquidity is between Lehman, the SEC, and the world’” (p. 1472).
Translation: The FRBNY knew that Lehman was engaged in smoke and mirrors designed to overstate its liquidity and, therefore, was unwilling to lend as much money to Lehman. The FRBNY did not, however, inform the SEC, the public, or the OTS (which regulated an S&L that Lehman owned) of what should have been viewed by all as ongoing misrepresentations.
The Fed’s behavior made it clear that officials didn’t believe they needed to do more with this information. The FRBNY remained willing to lend to an institution with misleading accounting and neither remedied the accounting nor notified other regulators who may have had the opportunity to do so.
The Fed wanted to maintain a fiction that toxic mortgage products were simply misunderstood assets, so it allowed Lehman to maintain the false pretense of its accounting. We now know from Valukas and from former Treasury Secretary Paulson that the Treasury and the Fed knew that Lehman was massively overstating its on-book asset values: “According to Paulson, Lehman had liquidity problems and no hard assets against which to lend” (p. 1530). We know from Valukas’ interview of Geithner (p. 1502):
The challenge for the government, and for troubled firms like Lehman, was to reduce risk exposure, and the act of reducing risk by selling assets could result in “collateral damage” by demonstrating weakness and exposing “air” in the marks.
Or, in plain English, the Fed didn’t want Lehman and other SDIs to sell their toxic assets because the sales prices would reveal that the values Lehman (and all the other SDIs) placed on their toxic assets (the “marks”) were inflated with worthless hot air. Lehman claimed its toxic assets were worth “par” (no losses) (p. 1159), but Citicorp called them “bottom of the barrel” and “junk” (p. 1218). JPMorgan concluded: “the emperor had no clothes” (p. 1140). The FRBNY acted shamefully in covering up Lehman’s inflated asset values and liquidity. It constructed three, progressively weaker, stress tests — Lehman failed even the weakest test. The FRBNY then allowed Lehman to administer its own stress test. Need we tell you the results?
We believe that the Valukas report cries out for an immediate Congressional investigation. As we did with A.I.G., we demand the release of the e-mails and internal documents from the New York Fed and Lehman executives that pertain to analyses of Lehman’s financial soundness. What downside can there possibly be in making these records available for public analysis and scrutiny?
Three years since the collapse of the secondary market in toxic mortgage product, we have yet to see significant prosecutions of the kind of fraud exposed in the Valukas report. The SDIs, with Bernanke’s open support, exorted the accounting standards board (FASB) to change the rules so that banks no longer need to recognize their losses. This has made the SDIs appear profitable and allows them to pay their executives massive, unearned bonuses based on fictional profits.
If we are to prevent another, potentially more devastating financial crisis, we must understand what happened and who knew what. Many SDIs are hiding debt and losses and presenting deceptive portraits of their soundness. We must stop the three card monte accounting practices that create the potential and reality of fundamental misrepresentation.
A.I.G.’s CEO, its board of directors, and the trustees that are supposed to represent the interests of the American people have failed to respond to our December letter calling on them to release to the public the AIG documents that would be the treasure trove (along with other SDI documents) that would allow our nation to uncover and end the gamesmanship that caused this financial crisis and will bring us recurrent crises. We call on them to act.
Eliot Spitzer is a former attorney general and governor of New York.
Roosevelt Institute Braintruster William Black is a professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
































































Correct.
Unfortunately, we are now seeing ‘Tea Parties’ and rising extremism.
Simply for the sake of restoring a little sanity and goodwill, this stuff needs to be thoroughly unpacked and displayed in a lot of sunlight.
It might cool off some of the hotheads if there were at least a public sense that ‘the story’ was being told and the dots were being connected. And that taxpayers would no longer be underwriting fraud.
Posted by readerOfTeaLeaves | March 17th, 2010 at 12:11 am
WALK ACROSS THE UNITED STATES TO ABOLISH CORPORATE PERSONHOOD
We are organizing a walk from San Francisco, CA to Washington D.C. to raise the awareness of the public and their legislative representatives of the need to amend the Constitution of the United States to wrest the control of government from corporate money and restore it to human citizens.
We are working in concert with http://www.movetoamend.org/ for media outreach to help raise the voices of the people across the nation.
We will walk in one hour shifts, 24/7, rain or shine, starting at Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on May 16th and complete the walk at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC on August 1st.
We represent no political agenda save to restore the inalienable and Constitutional rights of human beings and the dominion of human citizens over corporations.
We believe that legislation and honest philosophical debate, of the people, by the people and for the people, can only begin when people control the government.
We believe that no true benefit to human citizens can issue from a government controlled by corporate purse strings. Unless and until corporations loose the claim of Personhood as opined by a Supreme Court in the 1880’s, no limit of the expenditure of money as speech can be legislated.
We hold no bias or prejudice of any human being based on: choices in their own lifestyle, their culture, biological heritage, or personal, religious or political, beliefs. We welcome diversity in this group and celebrate our common purpose. We must amend the Constitution.
If you would like to join, or sponsor someone else, in all, or any part of this important exercise for democracy, please respond to this post at my address below and we will be glad to answer any questions and fill in details.
George L. Monahan glmonahan@bredband.net
Posted by G. L. Monahan | March 17th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I think we’re in the movie Groundhog’s Day with Fuld trying to cop to the Ken Lay defense (”nobody told me what was going on, I’m just the CEO) and with E&Y playing the auditors who aided and abetted massive off-balance sheet fraud.
Why isn’t anyone drafting an indictment for violations of Sarbanes-Oxley?
Fuld certified that Lehman’s internal controls “ensure that material information relating to the company and its consolidated subsidiaries is made known to such officers [CEO, CFO] by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are being prepared.”
He also signed off on the SEC filings that portrayed the off-balance sheet repo transactions as sales.
That’s two counts for the indictment, I’m sure a good prosecutor could come up with more. Eliot, we need you back on the beat now more than ever.
Posted by Justicia | March 17th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
The criminal actions should also extend to the auditors, Ernst & Young, as well as the lawyers who advised them that Repo 105 was legal even though it violated Sarbanes-Oxley. Both firms should be disbanded, and the partners bankrupted to reimburse creditors.
They should also bankrupt the entire board of Lehmans to raise fund for creditors. They cannot have been unaware of such actions, if they did not know then they were failing in their duty to shareholders.
Even if you cannot reintroduce moral hazard to banks you can impose it on their advisors and auditors.
Posted by David Lazarus | March 21st, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Why is it that only Alan Grayson, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders have the guts to ask the hard questions (at least, in public forums)? Audit the Fed and no off balance sheet accounting are no brainers.
Posted by John O. | March 30th, 2010 at 6:31 pm