Funny Bunny
Looking for something a little lighter?
Catch Bob's more irreverent and amusing pieces in his Funny Bunny Blog.

Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad?

Location: Blogs Bob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog    
Posted by:   bobo 1/25/2006 9:12 AM

Of Bush, Hedge Funds, And Naked Short Selling

Yesterday, we were treated to a number of fun events – the DTCC issued forth a publication that contained a number of prevarications, or to put it kindly, examples of where the truth was stretched to the breaking point – specifically when they claimed they were never invited to the NASAA conference, and when they invented statements for the NASD representative declaring that he had not seen any evidence of rampant naked short selling – he never said that.

We were also treated to Gary Weiss’ fifteen minutes of fame, wherein he claimed that naked short selling was good, and further claimed to know that it wasn’t a problem. He was oddly unable to articulate how he knew this, other than to rely upon the DTCC’s invented quote, and ignore or mock all the data that exists. He particularly avoided how advertising something for sale, taking a buyer’s money, and then not delivering the product (fraud being the layman’s term) was good.

You can view both events and their unfolding in the three preceding Sanity Check blogs.

Enough about those, for the moment.

Today, my mailbox was crammed with information about a close Bush family friend being a hedge fund manager who had been fined for naked short selling.

Huh.

And pages and pages about connections between the Bush family and a host of hedge funds. Not surprising, as big money uses hedge funds – nothing wrong with that on the surface. It does speak a bit to a conflict of interest in the transparency argument, though, if a favorite vehicle of the ruling class is completely opaque to scrutiny. But that is actually the least of our worries at present.

Apparently this Bush family friend, a guy named John Mangan, was revealed by the NY Post today as having not only gotten an endorsement by Marvin Bush, but had misled his investors by omitting the information that he had been fined by the NASD for naked short selling and barred for life from working with any legitimate participant. From the Post, who at times I have expressed a less than stellar opinion of (specifically my like/dislike of Roddy Boyd's material), but who knocked one out of the park on this one:

“An exclusive corner of the New York financial community is buzzing about why a politically-connected and high-profile hedge fund didn't tell investors that regulators slammed one of its founders with a six-figure fine for shady trading.


Investors in Mangan and McColl Partners' flagship hedge fund were never told John Mangan was nailed by the NASD for sleazy trading in a separate business, in a puny Nasdaq stock called Compudyne.  Mangan, an arbitrage trader managing $1 billion as recently as 2004, and his partner Hugh McColl Jr., son of Bank of America architect Hugh McColl, declined to volunteer the information in the fund's December letter to investors.  …..Mangan was fined $125,000 and barred from NASD member firms for life. He was accused of making naked short sales, in which you sell stocks you don't own and fail to properly borrow the stock before trading…..”

 

The article continues, and discusses the relationship with the Bush family:

“The fund also has a close relationship with Marvin Bush, the brother of President George W. Bush and a founder of private-equity and fund-of-funds Winston Partners. Bush told The Post he happily served as a reference for Mangan when he was raising capital for the fund.

"John [Mangan] was a neighbor and a friend from Alexandria going back nearly 15 years. We started out playing tennis — he's an incredible player —and the relationship grew," Bush said.

"He needed a reference and he was one of the hardest working and smartest guys I knew, so I was happy to tell anyone about that," he added.

Bush declined to comment on whether he had an investment with Mangan and McColl. “

Now, I am not a political animal – but is it just me, or did we find out in the last week that Abramoff was bribing Congressmen and buying legislation, not to mention buying the press, and this week we find out that some longtime friend of the Bush family (who received the Bush seal of approval in an endorsement) not only misled investors about his past, but was a prime mover in a naked short selling scandal?

Given that we in the Market Reform Movement has been saying for over a year that naked short selling is a very real problem that defrauds Main Street America on a regular basis, and given that we have been puzzled as to why the government is unusually reluctant to look into the problem, much less acknowledge it and fix it, it is very, very uncomfortable for us to find out that a close friend of at least one Bush has been fined for the practice and barred from his profession because of his involvement in it - the week after we are treated to pictures of our leader with Abramoff – literally moments after claiming he had never met the man.

Anyone else getting a sinking feeling as more of this comes together?

Comments?
Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
Permalink  |  Trackback
Comments (22)
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By Patchie on 1/25/2006 9:40 AM
Well Bob that would explain it.

A couple years ago i was in communication with a Washington Lobbyist by teh name of Jack Wynn. Jack and I worked back and forth on the issue of naked shorting and Jack told me people in DC were concerned and that they were getting my memo's. Jack later told me that "the White House" wants a white paper on this issue and that "Bush is concerned".

I didn't realize that Bush's concern was over how to protect a family member [a brother running a Hedge Fund].

It is no wonder we have problems elevating this issue if those we expect to help out are themselves personally conflicted.
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By mfairview on 1/25/2006 9:49 AM
I'm really surprised if the Democratic leadership would not want to run with something like this. I encourage any and all blue state residents to write their reps.
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By Jim on 1/25/2006 9:53 AM
Other things to think about:

Marvin Bush was involved in one of the most crooked S&L failures roughly 20 years ago.

Four or more of the top ten officials in the CIA are former Wall Street chiefs.

The elder George Bush, former top dog at CIA before becoming Vice President to Reagan, was once chief at AB Brown, later bought by Deutschbank in the late 90s. Deutschebank is one institution known to have been involved in the insider trading occurring in the three days prior to 9/11.

The SEC never gave the public or the commission any explanation of the insider trading. Several Congressional members made fun of it, trying to sweep it under the rug. (However, there was a huge imbalance between puts and buys at large volume specifically in Delta, United, Swiss Re, and other companies that were directly impacted. Net impact was only tens of millions profit however. This is in the domestic market. Overseas insider trading prior to 9/11 is thought to have been more significant in dollar size, but impossible to gather that info without cooperation of SEC and others.)
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By mhelburn on 1/25/2006 10:05 AM
It appears that being the son of a banker is better than being a friend of the President's brother..

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/051221/1205868.html?.v=2
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By bovinepoor on 1/25/2006 11:34 AM
Ah, c'mon guys and gals. Hate Bush, but get your facts straight. With "childhood friend of the Bush family", "didn't realize that Bush's concern was over how to protect a family member", and "elder George Bush"+"insider trading occurring in the three days prior to 9/11"=traitor? You-all are painting a very broad swath with your tar brush. Remember Billy Clinton? Family members may be close and maybe not; they may be intimately involved and have inside knowledge of what other family members are doing or they may not. What you are saying is slanderous and falls into the category of the 'politics of personal destruction'. Please keep to the facts, ma'am, just keep to the facts. Going off on tangents like this just adds to the arsenal of those that link us all with the tinfoil hat crowd. bov
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By whosyouruncle33 on 1/25/2006 11:35 AM
We should not adopt the pattern of those we condemn in the media for "stretching tje truth", and implying more than is proved. While it may be true that John Mangan was "a longtime childhood friend of the Bush family (who recieved the Bush seal of approval in an endorsement)", nowhere is this statement backed up by any factual statement.

Even the souurce of the story only stated "the fund also has a close relationship with Marvin Bush, the brotjer of President George W. Bush". Presidents Clinton and Carter had relatives that caused them embarassment, without implying that that thry were tied in to their actions or statements.

It is suggested that we belabor John Mangan (and if need be Marvin Bush) but not the Bush family, unless we provide some additional facts. Our arguments may only be as strong as their weakest link. Let's not spread smears around, and give our opponents a point of attack.

Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By frogman29 on 1/25/2006 11:36 AM
There is an election coming up and many posters have told the imcumbent fund raisers to go pound sand if their candidate does not put illegal naked short sales on their speaking platform and take action to stop it. I think we should let it be widely known that challengers who speak to this issue and promise reforms will get my money, my vote and all my friends money and votes.
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By bobo on 1/25/2006 11:49 AM
Bovine? I neither hate nor like Bush, nor did I hate or like Clinton. Both are despicable for differing reasons, IMO, but I despise both equally. This isn't partisan, this is about whether the Bush family friend (Marvin's friend for at least 15 years, per his own statements) who received the endorsement of Marvin (and let's not pretend that the name Bush doesn't hold sway) is involved in naked short selling ( he certainly was, per the NASD). Whether or not GW knows or knew is not speculated.

It is certainly possible that this administration is more crooked than the last, although that would be difficult for me to personally imagine, but that isn't what we are here to discuss, methinks.

I am neither Republican (although I used to consider myself one from a fiscal standpoint) nor democrat (although I resonate with some of their freedom issues) and this is not a partisan issue. Clinton was as bad as most, and Bush is too. Just in different ways.

Now everyone can get pissed at me...
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By Patchie on 1/25/2006 12:38 PM
bovine,

Simple question. When the White House is interested in understanding the issues of naked shorting, and Hedge Funds are at the center of the controversy, do you think George asked his brother about how things operate?

In 2004 Jack Wynn held a fundraiser for Congressman Rick Renzi (AZ) in which members of the small business council attended. I was extended an invitation to the $2,000/head event. Beyond Renzi, Watters out of California, and Kelly out of NY also supported the event as did members of the White House staff. Naked shorting was one of the subjects discussed and the White House staffers promised to stay in touch with the subject. Five months later these staff members asked Wynn for a White Paper on the subject and claimed "Bush was concerned".

Now a stretch or not, do you think George discussed any of this with his brother? Why have we seen nothing about this some 18 months later after they asked for the report and voiced concern?

I could care less about politics as each party is full of corruption - the fact is, Bush is aware of the problem and refuses to address it. We all want to know why.
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By whosyouruncle33 on 1/25/2006 2:15 PM
What is going on at this site?

At 11:20 I hit the "Add Comment" for my comment, and received a message to the effect that it would have to be reviwed or qpproved by the blogmaster (or some such word) first; did I still want to post it? I hit the Yes buttoin.

The last prior post was at 10:05. Then, at 11:34 bovine's message was posted on much the same topic as mine, but with a substantial overlay of political references. My comment was posted at 11:35, frogman's at 11:36, Patchie's on 11:38, and bobo's comment of 11:49 replies only to bovine, with the much easier reply on political matters.

Why was my comment delayed 15 minutes?

What is bobo's response to my more specific comment,without politics,
on preferring our side not to be seen as "stretching the truth"?



re specific comments about preferring our side not "stretching the truth"?
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By R. on 1/25/2006 2:16 PM
Funny how all the following recent events fit so cleanly with motives other than the ones stated in the press release. How tin foil hatty is all this when taken collectively? I mean think about the probabilities that so many far fetched conspiracies can fit together so well. The timing of these headlines is very recent as well.

Bush signs bill disallowing anonymous identies of everyone on the internet. AKA, we need to know who Bob O'brien is and anyone that opposes us on message boards.

http://tinyurl.com/9ljnb


DOJ requests search results. AKA, we want to measure how much the public knows or doesn't know about something so we can profit from it.

http://tinyurl.com/amap8


"Google censoring in China". AKA we set the stage in US so that under the guise of porn, we can derate search results (so they are buried) or even block certain domains that we don't want the public to know about.

http://tinyurl.com/ae3bl

Oh yeah, and lets not forget that the M3 money supply is no longer being reported so that the PPT can 'protect' us into hyper inflationary times.

http://tinyurl.com/9fbrt

Anyone else thought it was weird during week of 10/19/2005 at potential market breakdown and in the heat of REFCO that the president gave like three or more speeches. Tell me the PPT wasn't called into buying overtime.

With this info, the CIA comment above, and the questionable titles of DOJ, and CIA, it is becoming clear that George Orwell was only off by 22 or maybe even -35!!

Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By bobo on 1/25/2006 2:22 PM
Whosyouruncle:

Simple explanation - my Internet went down for some reason for a few minutes, and I had to reboot my computer to make sure it wasn't me. Nothing nefarious.

I agree that we shouldn't stretch the truth. Sometimes my flair for the dramatic gets the best of me, but I'm hopeful that the collective keeps me in check.

I replied to Bovine because I was working contiguously, and then got sidetracked and basically forgot. I have hundreds of emails coming in per day, and all kinds of crazy stuff happening, so my attention is one of FIFO.

Sorry.
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By Jim on 1/25/2006 11:30 PM
Bov and others,

As with naked shorting, it is difficult to prove things because no one hands this information out or makes it easy to verify. But inferences can be drawn from related facts that by themselves usually mean little, but together show either amazing coincidences or some significant gaps in your perception of how our world works:

AB Brown had strong linkages with CIA (elder Bush, Buzzy Krongard, others),

CIA continues to have strong linkages with other Wall Street firms (ask yourself why?),

Extraordinarily rich/political families usually get that way through some level of crookedness by which they can steal from the public (Kennedy, Bush, Rockefeller, etc.),

The role of the President today is necessarily tightly intertwined with the CIA,

The true goals of the CIA are (should be?) rarely seen by the public or foreign countries,

The investigation of 9/11 was stalled and incomplete, and some critical issues, if investigated, were not released to the public

One such critical issue, the 9/11 put/call imbalances that indicated insider trading, were never explained. Similar foreign trading results were not described or explained. (The CIA monitors such trade issues, both foreign and domestic, in real time in order to assess near term threats.)

I could go on and on...or you could read one of many books out there, that lay the facts out, at least as well, probably much better, than Bobo has laid the facts out here on naked shorting.

What is the takeaway? If you think our legislators are going to do anything to eliminate naked shorting, you're nuts. Naked shorting is likely an alternative form of taxation to fund secret military goals, without the political repercussions of the kinder forms of taxation, without the political repercussions of the Iran/Contra funding scandal. This issue is so easily twisted to make it incomprehensible to the average person....it is perfect for hiding the transfer of your dollars out of your pocket and into the pockets of people doing illicit things "on behalf" of this nation, as well as other nasty folks who have figured out how to get their own cut, even if not directly involved with the national "interest".

Bobo, as for Clinton, you surprise me, his was far less corrupt than Bush administration....after the millions spent trying to catch him on anything at all, nothing could stick except a lie about marital infidelity, which shouldn't have been a question he ever needed to answer, in a sane world. Geez, I would trade back in a heartbeat for Clinton's Travelgate over the scandals and lies of today.
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By nabrum on 1/25/2006 11:31 PM
Patchie:


Maybe Bush was concerned because he was still trying to ram his SS changes thru Congress, and became "unconcerned" when he realized the SS changes weren't going to happen. Could be as simple as that.
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By whosyouruncle33 on 1/25/2006 11:32 PM
Many thanks for your prompt and understandable reply. Glad you will monitor your "flair for the dramatic", but don't overdo it, that's what makes your contributions so unique and readable.

Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By Patchie on 1/25/2006 6:39 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: jackwynn [mailto:jackwynn@mymailstation.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:02 PM
To: idpatch
Subject: Wynn message


Dave: Can you MAIL me all of your naked short selling memos? I only need the latest ones mixed with others that are educational in nature (in other words, memos that explain how naked shorts work ,etc.). I'm organzing a policy paper on this issue for distribution to the White House (which has requested it) and Members of Congress (who support us). My email does NOT accept documents or attachments. Thus, you need to mail me materials and NOT email me. Thanks for your cooperation!

Jack Wynn
President
Small Public Company Capital Formation Club
P.O. Box 20044
Alexandria, VA. 22320-1044

Hang in there. Bush is aware of this issue and is concerned.

Best,

Jack
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By mfm1021 on 1/25/2006 11:33 PM
Can we loop this back to NFI? WHO accused the guy of naked shorting? WHO prosecuted the case? I keep reading about how few crooks have ever had the whistle blown on them and here's a pprime example. Can we locate the regulator and/or enforcement official involved and see if we can focus their attention on our live case? been
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By Disgruntled on 1/25/2006 11:34 PM
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
by Margie Burns

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official. Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his arriving on the board in 1998.

McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, but did not detail the nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998.

Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked.

Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, a private investment firm in D.C. that was the security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling interest. Marvin Bush has not responded to telephone calls and e-mails for comment.

KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

The managing director at KuwAm, Wirt D. Walker III, was also a principal at Stratesec, and Walker, Marvin Bush and al Sabah are listed in SEC filings as significant shareholders in both companies during that period.

Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board in November 2002.

But none of these connections has been looked at during the extensive investigations since 9/11. McDaniel says principals and other personnel at Stratesec have not been questioned or debriefed by the FBI or other investigators. Walker declined to answer the same question regarding KuwAm, referring to the public record.

Walker is also chairman and CEO of Aviation General, a Tulsa, Okla.-based aviation company with two subsidiaries. SEC filings also show al Sabah as a principal and shareholder in Aviation General, which was recently delisted by the Nasdaq. Stratesec was delisted by the American Stock Exchange in October 2002.

The suite in which Marvin Bush was annually re-elected, according to public records, is located in the Watergate in space leased to the Saudi government. The company now holds shareholder meetings in space leased by the Kuwaiti government there. The White House has not responded to various requests for comment.

Speaking of the Watergate, Riggs National Bank, where Saudi Princess Al-Faisal had her ``Saudi money trail" bank account, has as one of its executives Jonathan Bush, an uncle of the president. The public has not learned whether Riggs - which services 95 percent of Washington's foreign embassies - will be turning over records relating to Saudi finance.

Meanwhile, Bush has nominated William H. Donaldson to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. Donaldson, a longtime Bush family friend, was a Yale classmate of Jonathan Bush.

On the very day of the tragic space shuttle crash, the government appointed an independent investigative panel, and rightly so. Why didn't it do the same on Sept. 12, 2001?

Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By Patchie on 1/26/2006 6:40 AM
nabrum, Bush would not want to expose yet another industry scandal at a time in which he hoped the investing public could trust the markets with their SS money. Imagine breaking a story such as this and then come out and say - Invest your retirement savings into the system.

I have spoken to a former aide working in the Senate Banking Committee. The aide starting to ask questions about naked shorting and was threatened to the point he feared his job. He eventually quit. Lawranne Stewart of the House Financial Services informed me just this past November that she has requested Congressional Hearings on this but Sue Kelly has killed all requests. Stewart went on to say that she told the SEC point blank that the grandfather clause makes no sense. The Republican leaders (and like Bob I have no party affiliation) in both the Senate Banking and House Financial Services have killed all requests for herarings from Committee members. Why? The White House knows about this, I proved that.

Why kill all requests for hearings that may lead to a resolution one way or another. How many hearings did we see on Steroids? The Investor's right to know and right to protection is taking a back seat - Why?
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By pontiyak on 1/26/2006 4:58 PM
water does'nt boil all on it's own, it takes heat. Perhaps putting a blister on the Chief's butt is whats needed to stop NSS.
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By nabrum on 1/26/2006 5:51 PM
Dave (Patchie)
Your 1st paragraph was my point, ie, Bush was concerned about the FTDs becoming public when trying to get his SS bill. (BTW, I also am politically independent.) And when the bill didn't happen, went back to keeping the fraud under wraps.

I (perhaps incorrectly), had assumed that this Marvin deal was just another "Billy's Beer" thing.

Anyway, we agree, and it will be interesting to see what Jack Wynn, who asked for documents, comes back with, after giving them to Congress and the WH.
Re: Bush Bombshell - Links to Naked Short Selling, Hedge Funds, Crooked Lobbyists...Is that bad? By Molon Labe on 2/25/2006 8:30 AM
Don't turn this issue into a political battle. There's much more to this than politics. If Bush's brother is guilty, we'll save him for last. For now, if this degenerate into a political battle it will never be resolved.

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Please limit your comments to 500 characters. For longer comments, use our forums.
Subscribe via Email
Get This Blog via Email:


Powered by Squeet.com
Sanity Check Archive
Resources
Copyright © 2006 The Sanity Check   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use