UPDATE: Read this chilling article on hedge funds, and then consider the NY spin represented below. Is anyone surprised at the level of message control in the US media? Why?
-----------------------
The NY Sun (who?!?) issued forth a typical defense of hedge funds, the likes of which are so popular with the NY press corps.
You can read it here.
What's wrong with it?
Well, for starters, consider the assumption in this statement:
"On the House side, a Democrat, Rep. Barney Frank, who had initially introduced a bill handing hedge funds to the SEC on a silver platter, now may be willing to forgo that approach in favor of handing some oversight to the Federal Reserve, a tack supported by Rep. Richard Baker, chairman of the capital markets subcommittee. To the extent hedge funds warrant any additional regulation, it's because they can sometimes pose a systemic risk, particularly if they're highly leveraged. The Fed, with a track record monitoring that kind of risk and with the trust of the markets, is better suited to keep an eye on that than is the SEC."
What additional regulation is he thinking of, when there is NO regulation for hedge funds? Additional would mean more, in my mind. There is none now. So "any" might be considered more, I suppose. Still, the assumption is that there is some now, which is false. These are anonymous pools of unregulated money, with no more regulation than you or I - and yet they account for half the trading on the exchanges.
Now, don't get me started on the Federal Reserve becoming responsible for hedge funds. That there is no such authority in the charter of the Fed should be one clue they are the wrong entity for this. That they lack any prosecution capability would be another. That they lack even the SEC's civil suit flexibility should be yet another. I have no doubt that the Federal Reserve, whose banking system is privately owned (the Federal Reserve system is no more Federal than Federal Express - the banks are privately-owned companies whose member banks own them, and are paid a dividend for that ownership) and which only has a politically-appointed governance/review board, has exactly no expertise in regulating hedge funds, nor anything else that I can tell.
How did this run so far off the tracks?
People, we are talking about "stock pools", run by "operators" - exactly the sort of stock pools that were operating in the 1920s. Replace stock pool with "hedge fund", and operator with "manager", and it is the same thing. Exactly the same thing. Nothing different. Guys like Kennedy made their fortune operating stock pools back then. Guys like Cohen are making vast fortunes operating pools now. Same thing.
The Pecora hearings revealed how pools were a manipulative scourge in the 1920s, and how some of the most venerated names on Wall Street were as crooked as can be imagined. National City Bank - now Citigroup - was responsible for the most egregious and largest fraud in US banking history, at that time, and insiders screwed investors out of fortunes. Insiders with names like Rockefeller.
Pools were engaging in every manipulative dirty trick ever conceived. It's all part of the hearings. Outrage over those revelations is what drove the creation of the SEC.
And yet now, as then, Wall Street is claiming that no regulation is the best course.
Did you know that in 1933 and 1934, Wall Street lobbied extensively to ban any regulation? That the argument was identical? That any regulation would crimp liquidity, and the efficient workings of a "perfect system"?
Incidentally, liquidity is often used as the end all reason that short selling and hedge funds are so valuable and good - and yet liquidity is really good primarily for Wall Street. Having huge amounts of bogus stock created by options MMs and short sellers, creates liquidity - but who benefits from that liquidity other than Wall Street - specifically, the brokers for whom more liquidity translates into more trades, thus more money?Answer? Nobody. Liquidity is good for those who control the market. Period. I personally could do with less liquidity, and more fairness, in the market. Less liquidity with less fraud and larceny sounds good in my book. But not in Wall Street's, or the SEC's, or the NY press corp's, apparently...
Isn't it obvious from the FFH suit, that the same sort of underhanded, larcenous tricks are being used? What part of this is confusing? If you allow the largest movers in the market complete anonymity, and provide them a system wherein they are treated differently then you or I, they will abuse the market for their own gain. That is the lesson from the 1920s and 1930s, and it is the lesson now. Anyone doubting that lesson should consider the S&L scandal, where DEREGULATION of the thrift industry provided an opportunity for crooks to rob the industry blind - and ultimately rob American taxpayers blind - all aided by the Administration, and by Wall Street.
Is everyone in NY and Washington so dense or so co-opted that they forget these lessons so easily? Is the Beltway so owned by Wall Street that our government is going to facilitate the wholesale robbery of American retirement accounts via the market?
How do you think that hedge funds have made SO MUCH MONEY over the last 4 years? How have the largest Wall Street firms made RECORD PROFITS year after year, when the market is flat to down, and commissions have never been lower?
Hello?
Is anyone in there?
Read the FFH suit, and marvel at a manipulation that is drawn from the lawless pages of the Roaring Twenties. And then ask yourself how our lawmakers, regulators, and watchdog media are managing to miss this.