Sunday, 14 March 2010

Eurozone could risk 'sovereign debt explosion'


Eurozone could risk 'sovereign debt explosion'

Europe's governments are at increasing risk of an interest rate shock this year as the lingering effects of the Great Recession drive debt issuance to record levels and saturate bond markets, according to Standard & Poor's.

Colosseum - Eurozone could risk 'sovereign debt explosion'
Italy has to refinance 20pc of its entire debt, tapping the bond markets for a total ?259bn this year
"Debt-related sovereign vulnerabilities have increased, particularly in the Eurozone, where we expect government borrowing will rise to further new peaks," said Kai Stukenbrock, the ratings agency's European credit analyst. "The resulting fiscal pressure from a sustained increase in financing cost could be significant in our view."
The warning comes as bond giant PIMCO spoke of a "sovereign debt explosion" that has taken the world into uncharted waters and poses a major threat to economic stability. "Our sense is that the importance of the shock to public finances in advanced economies is not yet sufficiently appreciated and understood," said Mohamed El-Erian, the group's chief executive.
Mr El-Erian said most analysts are still using "backward-looking models" that fail to grasp the full magnitude of what has taken place in world affairs since the crisis. Some 40pc of the global economy is in countries where governments are running deficits above 10pc of GDP, with no easy way out.
Standard & Poor's said Europe's states need to raise €1,446bn (£1,313bn) this year as the full damage inflicted by the credit collapse – masked last year by emergency stimulus measures – becomes ever clearer. This will become harder to fund cheaply as central banks start to tighten. "We believe that benchmark yields have benefited from liquidity injections into the financial sector and quantitative easing measures by the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. As that support could eventually be withdrawn from 2010, excess supply in government bond markets could start driving benchmark yields back up. Such a development could add to fiscal pressure in a number of sovereigns with high deficits," it said.
Several states have come to rely on cheap short-term funding, storing up "roll-over risk" that will come to a head in coming months. Italy has to refinance 20pc of its entire debt – the world's third largest after Japan and the US – tapping the bond markets for a total €259bn this year. Belgium has to roll over 22pc of its substantial debt.
"This implies dependence on more or less constant access to financial markets," said the report.
Weaker states risk a double effect of rising yields on benchmark bonds as well as higher spreads as investors demand a greater risk premium in the harsher climate now facing heavily-indebted countries.
Greece has already seen a surge of 300 basis points in its long-term funding costs since the new Pasok government of George Papandreou revealed that the country's true budget deficit was 12.7pc, double the previous estimate.
The agency estimates that a sustained rise in yields of 300 basis points would raise the burden of interest costs each year by 3.9pc of GDP for Greece, 2.6pc for Portugal, and 2.5pc for Italy and Britain by the middle of the decade.
A jump of this kind would amount to an extra £35bn or so in annual interest costs, roughly equal to the UK defence budget. This would play havoc with UK public finances and force the Government to squeeze fiscal policy even further. S&P's warning clearly underscores the risk of waiting too long before restoring the deficit to a sustainable path.
The report said there had been a notable increase in "alternative channels of borrowing" that "embellish" the true debt picture. France's Société de Financement de l'Economie (SFEF) has issued €77bn of state-backed bonds since 2008 and the Caisse d'Amortissement de la Dette Sociale has amassed liabilities of €103bn. Austria's infrastructure financing companies, used to buttress state stimulus programmes, have €23bn in debts.
This hidden iceberg of debt kept off balance sheet is likely to be the next focus of bond vigilantes.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7424555/Eurozone-could-risk-sovereign-debt-explosion.html

Saturday, 13 March 2010

Government to speed up reform of overseas tax


Government to speed up reform of overseas tax

Businesses may have to rethink their overseas expansion plans after the Treasury signalled it would accelerate plans to reform the way that it taxes the profits earned by companies' foreign branches.

 
Stephen Timms, the financial secretary to the Treasury, told accountants in London last week that the Government would clarify the taxation of overseas profits from branches and legislate in next year's Finance Bill.
Branches are permanent offices in overseas markets but are not structured in the same way as formal subsidiaries. They are used by a wide range of trading businesses as well as banks and insurance companies.
Ian Young, international tax manager at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, welcomed the Treasury's decision to tackle branch taxation more quickly.
"It's very sensible," he said. "We need to have a coherent tax system that they don't keep chopping and changing and modifying, which is what they seem to do at the moment. What businesses like is having some certainty."
The Association of British Insurers agreed. Kerrie Kelly, director general of the ABI, said: "A more modern regime will help global businesses remain headquartered in the UK as well as attract those domiciled abroad."
One impact could be that setting up an overseas presence becomes more expensive, Mr Young warned, as losses generated by an overseas office as it sets up could no longer be offset against UK profits.
"If we say you do something abroad we will not tax you, arguably you will not get relief if you make losses," he said. "It might discourage people as when you set up a business you have lots of expenses and not a lot of profits, or it could encourage you to do it in a different way, perhaps through a local agent."

Pound up as UK inflation expectations rise


Pound up as UK inflation expectations rise

Sterling rose on Thursday after a slight uptick in inflation expectations, though analysts still expected economic and political concerns to keep the pound under pressure ahead of an upcoming general election.

 
Pound up as UK inflation expectations rise
Pound up as UK inflation expectations rise Photo: PA
The pound skidded to one-week lows against the dollar and euro on Wednesday after below-forecast manufacturing output figures added to a string of disappointing data.
But Britons' expectations for inflation over the next 12 months rose slightly, a survey from the Bank of England showed on Thursday, helping to underpin sterling, albeit temporarily.
"Inflation expectations showed a modest uptick and sterling has moved up on the day, but this is not overly significant. I don't think it will have any impact on Bank of England policy ahead," said Lee Hardman, currency strategist at BTM-UFJ.
Hardman added sterling's bounce was most likely flow-driven, reiterating his bearish stance on the pound going into a UK general election, widely expected in May.
At 1139 GMT, sterling was trading up around 0.4pc versus the dollar at $1.5050, off a one-week low of $1.4873 hit on Wednesday. Euro/sterling was down around 0.4pc at 90.75 pence, retreating from a high of 91.30 hit on Wednesday.
The Bank of England's trade-weighted sterling index edged up to 76.7 after falling to a fresh 11-month low at 76.4 on Wednesday. Sterling has fallen 7pc on a trade-weighted basis from its January highs.
Analysts remained jittery the threat of a hung parliament after the election would stymie efforts to deal with the UK's spiralling budget deficit.
Adding to the negative mix was concern over Britain's sovereign ratings after Fitch Ratings highlighted on Tuesday the UK's deteriorating credit profile.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Wednesday he believed Britain would maintain its coveted top credit rating and announced a pay freeze for top civil servants to help tame a record deficit.
But worries over the public finances prevailed, with the deficit heading for 12pc of GDP this fiscal year.
"Markets are currently not very receptive to an overly casual approach to national finances. As a result the period of weakness in sterling is likely to continue," said Commerzbank analysts in a note.
Data releases in the UK are now sparse ahead of BoE minutes and employment data due next Wednesday.

Get critical illness cover for peace of mind


Get critical illness cover for peace of mind

Illnesses that used to be fatal are now survivable, so it makes sense to protect yourself from the fallout.


Phil Smith received £1.2m payout from his critical illness insurance after being diagnosed with skin cancer. He now has the all-clear and his family has financial security. Photo: Christopher Jones
Nearly two-thirds of the population have no form of financial protection if they die or become critically ill, despite advances in medicine and technology that mean more people are living longer and surviving illnesses that used to be fatal. In research conducted by insurer Aviva, most people aged 45 to 54, the age group most likely to claim, say they cannot afford protection.
But a debilitating illness can take years to recover from – and while your company may readily allow you sick leave, it can be restricted to a pay percentage or term length. Without a source of income, family savings can quickly dwindle on the essentials – let alone expensive medical care, or unexpected costs.






















Although most homebuyers take out life cover to ensure loved ones are provided for in the event of their death, few people realise the financial implications of surviving – but in serious ill health.
"The diagnosis of a life-threatening illness can mean you will have to give up work temporarily or permanently and you may decide to pay for complementary treatments that are not available through the NHS to aid your recovery," warned Stephen Crosbie, of Aegon. "You're also still likely to incur costs such as mortgage repayments, loan repayments, utility bills and other living expenses."
Critical illness cover typically provides an individual with a lump-sum payment or monthly income if they survive for at least 14 days after being diagnosed with an illness that meets the policy's criteria. These can include cancer, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, organ transplants, a stroke or heart attack among others. Cover cannot be purchased for a pre-existing illness and the younger and healthier you are, the lower your monthly premium – so it pays to be prepared. Premiums can be guaranteed or reviewable, meaning monthly payments are fixed for the term of the policy or can change on an annual basis. Customers can choose which type is best for them depending on their needs, as reviewable rates are initially cheaper, but the rates are reviewed every five years at which point they could increase. Guaranteed rates ensure customers pay the same premiums throughout the life of the policy.
As technology allows us to live longer, illness blights lives. Assuming you will be one of the lucky few is not practical – nearly two thirds of the population has not bought any form of protection, such as life insurance or critical illness cover, but one in three of us will be diagnosed with cancer, and every year about 146,000 people in Britain have a heart attack. Each year, 10,000 people under the age of 55 suffer a stroke.
Axa says that the average age at which people claim for critical illness cover is 43 for a man and 40 for a woman – a time when expenses are high, with children still at home and a mortgage outstanding. This means that without cover they may struggle.
You can buy critical illness cover in conjunction with life cover, and some company health policies include it as standard, so it is advisable to check what cover you have before taking out a new policy. Some life insurance policies may pay out if you are diagnosed with a terminal illness – but not if it is in the final year of the benefit term. If you are self-employed or run your own business, critical illness cover will not just protect your family should you become ill, but your business, too. Company policies may pay for your bills and mortgage, but they often won't stretch to other expenses such as child care or travel. Aviva offers ''integrated'' critical illness cover that includes life cover to a selected sum – usually the amount outstanding on the policy holder's mortgage.
When buying a critical illness cover, consider whether the policy matches your needs. For example, some insurers will automatically include children's critical illness cover to your plan – while others will have an option to include a spouse. You may want overseas cover should you spend time abroad, or are planning to retire overseas.
All of these inclusions will affect your premiums. Because of the individual requirements of a policy, these quotes from Axa are generalised, but

  • a monthly premium for a healthy, non-smoking, 40-year-old male requiring £150,000 of critical illness cover over a 20-year term is £77. 
  • The monthly premium for a healthy, non-smoking, 40-year-old female requiring £150,000 over a 20-year term is £73. 
  • In comparison with life insurance, a monthly premium for a healthy, non-smoking, 40-year-old female requiring £150,000 of life cover over a 20-year term is £12. 
  • The monthly premium for a healthy, non-smoking, 40-year-old male requiring £150,000 of life cover over a 20-year term is £15.
Life cover may be affordable, but you are much more likely to become seriously ill than die before you reach retirement age.
To illustrate how the later you leave it, the more expensive cover is, just five years on, 

  • Axa's quote for a non-smoking male aged 45 years, based on a smaller benefit of £100,000 over a 20-year term, is £85 a month. 
  • Fortis quotes the same individual £75 a month, and 
  • PruProtect £96.
Statistics show that the number of critical illness claims paid out is increasing. In the past, insurers would have required a letter from the claimant's doctor detailing their full medical history. Due to new guidelines from the Association of British Insurers, now assurers require only medical details relating to the critical illness claim – so you are less likely to have your claim about cancer dismissed because of your non-disclosure about an ingrown toenail.
Additional information may be required if the insurer suspects the claim is fraudulent or the claimant is guilty of non-disclosure. 

  • Non-disclosure can lead to a claim being dismissed, but only if the insurer can prove it was deliberate. 
  • Alternatively, innocent or negligent non-disclosure relating to a misleading question or misinterpretation of the application form can still result in a payout.
It is not worth risking voiding your policy over misinterpretation, however, so it is always advisable to contact the insurer with any questions.
Do you require Life Insurance?
Telegraph Life Insurance, provided by Click, enables you to compare prices from major life insurances in one simple call. To find more, please call 0800 180 4158 or visit life-insurance.telegraph.co.uk.

Related Articles



Nasdaq 10 years on: how the tech sector went from boom to bust


Nasdaq 10 years on: how the tech sector went from boom to bust

A decade after the end of the tech boom, the sector is undergoing a renaissance – and fund managers and investors have sharpened up their stock-picking skills.

Nasdaq 10 years on: how the tech sector went from boom to bust
Nasdaq 10 years on: how the tech sector went from boom to bust Photo: REUTERS
A decade ago the technology bubble was about to burst, having reached a peak on March 10. The golden goose that had been so hyped up by everyone from independent financial advisers to first-time investors crashed and burned.
At the height of the technology boom in the UK there were 35 investment funds in the sector; now there are just 10, with the smallest holding only £3m under management. An outlay of £1,000 in the worst performing fund- Axa Framlington Global Technology, just before the crash a decade ago would now be worth a paltry £244.


At the start of the millennium investors could not get enough of technology. The huge returns that the sector had seen in the previous five years created a buzz that investors found irresistible. If you had invested £1,000 in the sector five years before the crash and cashed in your investment in March 2000 you would have seen your investment grow tenfold – and in the 10 years previously if you had picked your stocks right you could have turned £1,000 into £100,000.
By far the most popular fund at the time was Aberdeen Technology, the fund with the best track record. Ben Rogoff, now manager of Polar Capital's Technology trust, was on Aberdeen team during the technology rush. "Investors and managers alike were clamouring for technology funds," he said. "The attitude was that old investment truism- the only thing worse than losing money is watching someone else make it."
In the first three months of 2000, £567m was poured into tech funds- 10pc of all the money invested in unit trusts over that period. British technology funds totalled £3.4bn – £3bn more than the amount invested at the end of 1998, and with £1bn of the total being invested in February and March alone.
The deregulation of the telecommunications industry in both America and Britain in the mid-Nineties sparked the upturn as new companies were launched to rival BT and AT&T. Roads were dug up to lay cables and demand for technology increased. The launch of the Microsoft's Windows 95 software made the internet accessible to households and not just companies.
Telecoms companies' share prices increased as demand grew and technology funds returned profits. New internet browsers were launched and companies 'piggybacking' on BT lines were set up to cash in on the demand for the web at home.
The 'Y2K' phenomenon – also known as the millennium bug – forced companies to upgrade their computer systems as old systems' date functions were based the last two digits of the year and were said not to have the capability to work after 1999. This also generated cash for the industry, and led to a period of very rapid growth for the technology sector.
Hungry for their piece of the cash cow, 'blue sky' companies were launched, raising capital off the back of nothing more than a business plan and hugely inflated valuations.
Mr Rogoff recalls how in early 2000 Aberdeen saw as much money invested in just three days as half of the fund's total worth when he joined in 1998. "It seems unreal now, looking back. Unless you were there it is difficult to explain," he said. "I do have regrets."
The sector was flooded with capital and companies couldn't deliver their projected earnings. The industry reached saturation point and the market crashed.
"All our contacts were in IT departments," said Stuart O'Gorman, the manager of Henderson's Global Technology fund. "They were saying this and that were the next big thing. People got ahead of themselves and spending and projections were overly optimistic."
It wasn't just the technology funds that suffered in the dotcom crash. Many ordinary funds had high exposure to tech stocks. For example, Dresdner's RCM Europe fund, Invesco's European and Henderson Small Companies funds were among those to have almost three-quarters of their respective portfolios in technology-related stocks.
Of the companies launched during the dotcom boom, the vast majority are no longer around today. Similarly, most of the funds have merged or been closed. But in the past five years the technology sector has slowly been growing in value, outperforming the average unit trust and emerging unscathed from the global market crash of the past couple of years.
The technology sector is debt-free, and finally proving to be a driving force in the economy. When Amazon.com was launched, commentators assumed that it would mean the instant death of the high street bookstore. While that prediction proved to be overstated, Amazon has grown to be a retailing giant.
Mr O'Gorman said: "My mentor Paul Kleiser, former manager of the Henderson fund, always used to say, 'The problem with technology is everything that is predicted happens, but always five years later than promised.' I think that's definitely true."
One example that proves Mr Kleiser's point is 3G mobile technology. Five years ago 3G phones were bricklike, and consumers were being sold the idea that soon we would all be walking along the road video calling one another. This idea never took off but Apple's iPhone, which utilises 3G technology, has revolutionised the mobile phone market.
Consumers can now get home-speed internet on their mobiles, wherever they are, using technology that was developed nearly a decade ago.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/7414651/Nasdaq-10-years-on-how-the-tech-sector-went-from-boom-to-bust.html

Introduction to Page Elements

1 Year Later: Where Are The Value Stocks?


1 Year Later: Where Are The Value Stocks?
By: Zacks Investment Research   Friday, March 12, 2010 3:29 PM

For value investors, this week's one-year anniversary of the "bottom" of the stock market is truly the best of times and the worst of times.
A year ago, stocks were cheap. It was a value investor's dream as P/E ratios fell well below the historic norm. Almost all stocks were suddenly value stocks as panic gripped the Street.
And now, this market appears to be the value investor's worst nightmare.
The mega-rally literally lifted all stocks, which has been great for investor portfolios. When it comes to value investing though, the rally changed the landscape dramatically as even stocks that would normally lag the market surged sharply higher.
But there is hope for the value investor. Value investing isn't dead. Undervalued stocks are still out there. It's just a matter of digging deeper than usual to find them.
Look Beyond the P/E Ratio
Most value investors know to look at the price-to-earnings ratio (or P/E) to find stocks that are undervalued. To find true value: the lower the P/E, the more undervalued the stock.
Many value investors use a P/E under 20. This method to search for value stocks is a great starting point in normal markets, but stocks are more expensive now.
So while you should start with the P/E ratio, don't end there. You're going to need some more tools in your arsenal to find the true value stocks.
3 Tools to Dig Deeper for Value Stocks
1) Use Price-to-Sales
Many value investors neglect the sales component, but sales cannot be easily manipulated. There are no "charges" or "exclusions" or other accounting hocus pocus with sales. They usually are what they are; and they're easy to compare quarter over quarter and year over year. The healthier the sales growth of an organization, the healthier its potential for profit growth. The lower the Price to Sales ratio (P/S), the better. So look for stocks with a P/S ratio of less than 1.
2) Growth is still your friend
Growth? For value investors? Yes, value investors can use the PEG ratio to find growth stocks trading at reasonable prices. As you probably already know, the PEG ratio is simply the price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) divided by earnings growth. The lower the PEG ratio, the more undervalued the stock is. So look for stocks with PEG ratios under 1.
3) Look at the Industry Rank
This is a little known factor that, when used with value metrics, can give you powerful results. Zacks ranks industries according to improving earnings prospects, so value investors can look at the Industry Rank lists to get an idea of which industries have rising earnings estimates. The Zacks Industry Rank is the average of the Zacks Rank for all companies in the industry.
Just like with the Zacks Rank, the lower it is the better. So a Zacks Industry Rank of 1.00 is better than one of 4.35.


Value Is King in Bull and Bear Markets
Numerous studies of various bull and bear markets around the world come to one conclusion: it may not be glamorous, but value investing outperforms growth investing over the long term.
Is it any surprise that one of the greatest investors of all time, Warren Buffett, is a value investor?
Now is the time to stay the course. Rally or no rally, value is still king.
Digging for Value Every Day
I know how frustrating it is to try and find value stocks as the markets continue to climb. I seek out value stocks every trading day with the Zacks Value Trader trading service, and some days there just isn't much to get excited about. But all it takes is finding a hidden gem here or there for a value investor to really profit.
Just a few days ago, for instance, I added a big international oil company to the Value Traderportfolio. It has great "digging deep" value fundamentals, such as a price-to-sales ratio of just 1.08 and a forward P/E of 11. It also has a Zacks Industry Rank of 2.20, placing it 20th out of 264.
The Value Trader dug deep to find great stocks during last year's rally. The portfolio returned 47.5% last year, which is nearly double the S&P 500 over the same time period, proving that value hasn't gone away, you just have to know where to look.
I invite you to see what stocks are in the portfolio and learn the secrets behind the Value Trader's success. You'll want to look into this right away because the remaining spots in the service are quickly being snapped up. There's a special savings that ends at 11:59 pm Saturday, March 13.
About Zacks Value Trader
Best,
Tracey Ryniec

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3943707

The most important determinants of your success in investing

The most important determinants of your success in investing are QVM:

QUALITY - the quality of the company you own,

VALUE - the price you paid for your stock, and,

MANAGEMENT - the integrity of its management.

The story of Madoff and the slightly eccentric Harry Markopolos


Books: How I brought down Madoff

Exclusive excerpt: In his thrilling new memoir, famed whistleblower Harry Markopolos details how he uncovered Madoff's ponzi scheme — and why nobody would listen until it was too late


In early 2000, Harry Markopolos, a math whiz and former career soldier in the U.S. army, was employed as an equity derivatives portfolio manager at the Rampart Investment Management Co. in Boston. Tasked with developing a financial product that might compete with Bernie Madoff’s legendary hedge fund, Markopolos examined Madoff’s numbers backwards and forwards, only to conclude the returns Madoff was claiming to get for his investors were quantifiably impossible. When Markopolos’s employers kept pushing him — the implication being that he wasn’t a strong enough mathematician to replicate Madoff’s model — he grew frustrated and took it upon himself to launch an independent investigation into Madoff’s operation with the help of a crack team of financial sleuths. Over a span of eight years, Markopolos lobbied the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission and major news organizations for an investigation into Madoff, presenting them with a steady stream of damning evidence, only to be ignored. By the time Madoff’s scheme collapsed under its own weight in 2008, it was too late. The former Wall Street bigwig had carried out the largest Ponzi scheme in history, defrauding his investors out of $65 billion. Now, Markopolos works full-time investigating fraud and conflicts of interest in Fortune 500 companies. In his newly published memoir, No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller, he details his whirlwind eightyear whistle-blowing campaign, which began with a set of numbers that wouldn’t add up.
Month after month, year after year, no matter how wildly the market performed, Madoff’s returns remained steady. He reported only three down months in more than seven years. His returns were as reliable as the swallows returning to Capistrano. For example, in 1993 when the S&P 500 returned 1.33%, Bernie returned 14.55%; in 1999 the S&P 500 returned 21.04%, and there was Bernie at 16.69%. His returns were always good, but rarely spectacular. For limited periods of time, other funds returned as much, or even more than Madoff’s. So it wasn’t his returns that bothered me so much — his returns each month were possible — it was that he always returned a profit. There was no existing mathematical model that could explain that consistency. Bernie Madoff was among the most powerful and respected men on Wall Street. How could he be perpetrating such a blatant fraud? And if it was so obvious, why hadn’t other people picked it up? I kept looking at these numbers. I had to be missing something.
During the next few weeks, I began modelling his strategy. He claimed that his basket of about 35 securities correlated to the S&P 100. Right from the beginning that made no sense to me, because it meant he had single stock risk. He couldn’t afford for even one of his 35 stocks to go down substantially, because it would kill his returns. While I knew that in reality it was impossible to successfully pick 35 stocks that would not go down, I accepted the dubious assumption that information from his brokerage dealings allowed him to select the strongest 35 stocks. But because this basket represented about a third of the entire index, there still should have been a strong correlation between his returns and those of the underlying index. But that’s not what he was reporting. Whatever the index did, up or down, he returned the same 1% per month.
Modelling his strategy was complex. It had a lot of moving parts—at least 35 different securities moving at different rates of change—so it required making some simplifying assumptions. For this exercise, I assumed he was front-running, using buy and sell information from his brokerage clients to illegally buy and sell securities based on trades he knew he was going to make. That meant that he knew from his order flow what stocks were going to go up, which obviously would have been extremely beneficial when he was picking stocks for his basket. We found out later that several hedge funds believed he was doing this.
I created hypothetical baskets using the best-performing stocks and followed his split-strike strategy, selling the call option to generate income and buying the put option for protection. The following week I’d pick another basket. I expected the correlation coefficient—the relationship between Bernie’s returns and the movement of the entire S&P 100—legitimately to be around 50%, but it could have been anywhere between 30% and 80% and I would have accepted it naively. Instead Madoff was coming in at about 6%. Six per cent! That was impossible. That number was much too low. It meant there was almost no relationship between those stocks and the entire index. I was so startled that the legendary Bernie Madoff was running a hedge fund that supposedly produced these crazy numbers that I didn’t trust my math. Maybe I’m wrong, I figured. I asked my colleague Neil Chelo to check my numbers. Neil went through my math with the precision of a forensic accountant. If I’d made any mistakes, he decided, he couldn’t find them.
By this time, I had been working in the financial industry for 13 years and had built up a reasonably large network of people I knew and respected. In this situation, I turned to a man named Dan DiBartolomeo, who had been my advanced quant teacher. Dan is the founder of Northfield Information Services, a collection of math whizzes who provide sophisticated analytical and statistical risk management tools to portfolio managers. I told him that I thought we’d discovered a fraud, that Bernie Madoff was either front-running or running a Ponzi scheme. I could almost see his brain cells perk up when I said that. Every mathematician loves the hunt for the sour numbers in an equation. After going through my work, Dan told us that whatever Madoof, as he referred to him, was doing, he was not getting his results from the market. Pointing to the 6% correlation and the 45-degree return line, he said, “That doesn’t look like it came from a finance distribution. We don’t have those kinds of charts in finance.” I was right, he agreed. Bernie Madoff was a fraud. And whatever he was actually doing, it was enough to put him in prison.
That might have been the end of it for me. I might have filed a complaint with the Boston office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and it would have made great pub conversation: “I’ll bet you didn’t know Bernie Madoff—you know, Madoff Securities—is running some kind of scam,” and it wouldn’t have gone any further. But this was the financial industry, and there was money to be made following Bernie—potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.
Frank really pushed me to work on the new product. At times, we both got a little testy. He was pretty blunt about it. His deal with Rampart guaranteed him a percentage of the business he brought in, and he had a client who could raise hundreds of millions of dollars if he provided the right product. “C’mon, Harry, I need a product to sell. Rampart needs the product. Let’s just build the frickin’ thing and get it out the door. ”
But each time he asked me if I was making progress, I explained to him that it was impossible to compete with a man who simply made up his numbers. I couldn’t do it. Nobody could. I thought this was a complete waste of my time and did my best to avoid working on it. I had a lot of responsibilities at Rampart. But Dave Fraley kept banging on me hard.
Finally, one afternoon as he walked past my desk I stopped him. “Hey, Dave, you know what? I think I’ve got it figured out. I know how we can duplicate it.” “OK,” Fraley said, sitting down at my desk. “How’s it work?” “Well, actually we have a choice. We can either front-run our order flow or just type in our returns every month. It’s probably a Ponzi scheme, and that’s the only way we can compete with him.” Fraley stood up. “What?” I’d done what they had asked. I’d figured out Madoff’s magic formula, but they didn’t believe me. They thought I was blowing smoke with my accusations.
I was really starting to get pissed off. Neil and I had no doubt that Madoff was running some kind of scam, but at least two of the three principals in the firm and maybe Frank Casey weren’t so sure. My pride was at stake. I knew my math was better than Bernie’s, but even then, even at the very beginning, people just refused to believe me. This was the legendary Bernie Madoff we were talking about. And I was just the slightly eccentric Harry Markopolos.
At that point, I still had no idea how much money Madoff was handling or for how many clients. Nobody did. As we rapidly discovered, that secrecy was key to his success. Because this operation was so secret, everybody thought they were among a select few whose money he had agreed to handle. Madoff had not registered with the SEC as an investment advisory firm or a hedge fund, so he wasn’t regulated. He was simply a guy you gave your money to, to do whatever he wanted to do with it, and in return he handed you a nice profit.
Madoff practically swore his investors to secrecy. He threatened to give them back their money if they talked about him, claiming his success depended on keeping his proprietary strategy secret. Obviously, though, his goal was to keep flying below the radar. Madoff’s clients believed he was exclusive to only a few investors, and that he carefully picked those few for their discretion. When I started speaking with his investors, I discovered that they felt privileged that he had taken their money.

Madoff’s unique structure gave him substantial advantages. As far as we knew at the time, the only entrance to Madoff was through an approved feeder fund. That meant his actual investors couldn’t ask him any questions, and they had to rely completely on their funds—who were being well rewarded—to conduct due diligence. I knew about the world’s biggest hedge funds: George Soros’s Quantum Fund, Julian Robertson’s Tiger Fund, Paul Tudor Jones’s Tudor Fund, Bruce Kovner’s Caxton Associates and Lewis Bacon’s Moore Capital. Everybody did, and we estimated they each managed about $2 billion. So when we started trying to figure out how much money Madoff was running, we were stunned. According to what we were able to piece together, Madoff was running at least $6 billion—or three times the size of the largest known hedge funds. He was the largest hedge fund in the world by far—and most market professionals didn’t even know he existed!
The fortunate thing was that at that point we didn’t know enough to be scared. It never occurred to us that we were going to be stepping on some potentially very dangerous toes. So at the beginning, at least, I didn’t hesitate to ask people I knew throughout the industry about Madoff. I began questioning some of the brokers I worked with on the Chicago Board of Exchange. A lot of these guys were longtime phone friends; I did business with them regularly and had gotten to know them on that level. I began bringing up Bernie Madoff in our conversations. It didn’t surprise me that almost all of them knew about Bernie’s brokerage arm, but knew nothing about his secretive asset management firm. I asked numerous traders if they had ever seen his volume, and they all responded negatively. But a few people who were aware he was running a hedge fund asked us if we could give them his contact information. Everyone wanted to do business with him. But nobody admitted they were doing business with him. He was the ultimate mystery man.
Talking to Wall Street people was extremely informative. Most of these people I was talking with during the normal course of Rampart business, but whenever I had an opportunity I would ask a few questions about Madoff. I spoke with the heads of research, traders on derivatives desks, portfolio managers and investors. Neil was doing the same thing, and both of us were doing it secretly, because if our bosses found out about it they would have demanded that we stop.
Probably what surprised me most was how many people knew Madoff was a fraud. Years later, after his surrender, the question most often asked would be: How could he have fooled the brightest people in the business for so long? The answer, as I found out rather quickly, was that he didn’t. The fact that there was something strange going on with Bernie Madoff’s operation was not a secret on Wall Street. But even those people who had questioned his strategy had accepted his nonsensical explanations—as long as the returns kept rolling in.
The response I heard most often from people at the funds was that his returns were accuratebut he was generating them illegally from front-running. By paying for order flow for his broker-dealer firm, he had unique access to market information. He knew what stocks were going to move up, and that enabled him to fill his basket with them at a low price and then resell them to his brokerage clients at a higher price.
There were at least some people who told Neil and me, confidentially of course, that Madoff was using the hedge fund as a vehicle for borrowing money from investors. According to these people, Madoff was making substantially more on his trading than the 1% to 2% monthly that he was paying in returns, so that payout was simply his cost of obtaining the money.
Some of the explanations I heard bordered on the incredible. These were sophisticated guys who knew they had a great thing going and wanted it to keep going. They were smart enough to see the potholes, so they had to invent some preposterous explanation to fill them. “Here’s what I think it is, Harry,” a portfolio manager told me. “He’s really smart. It’s really important to him that he show his investors low volatility to keep them happy, so what he does when the market is down is he subsidizes them.” In other words, in those months when Madoff’s fund loses money, he absorbs the loss and continues to return a profit to the investors. “He can afford to eat the losses.” But of all the stories I heard those first few weeks, the one that probably shocked Neil and me the most was told to Frank Casey by the representative of a London-based fund of funds. It was handling a substantial amount of Arab oil money, and before investing with Madoff it had asked his permission to hire one of the Big Six accounting firms to verify his performance. Madoff refused, saying that the only person allowed to see the secret sauce, to audit his books, was his brother-in-law’s accounting firm. Actually, we heard this from multiple sources. The fact is that Madoff’s accountant for 17 years, beginning in 1992, was David Friehling, who definitely was not his brother-in-law. Friehling operated out of a small storefront office in the upstate New York town of New City. It seems likely that Madoff claimed he was a relative because it was the only plausible reason he could think of to explain why a sophisticated multibillion-dollar hedge fund would use a two-person storefront operation in a small town as its auditor. Brother-in-law or not, this certainly should have been a major stop sign. Even a marginally competent fund manager should have said, “Thank you very much, Mr. Madoff, but no thanks,” and run as fast as possible in the other direction. But this fund of funds didn’t. Instead, this firm, which had been entrusted by investors with hundreds of millions of dollars, handed Bernie Madoff $200 million.
None of us—Frank, Neil, or myself—was naive. We had been in the business longenough to see the corners cut, the dishonesty and the legal financial scams. But I think even we were surprised at the excuses really smart people made for Bernie. The fact that seemingly sophisticated investors would give Madoff hundreds of millions of dollars after he refused to allow them to conduct ordinary due diligence was a tribute to either greed or stupidity.
The feeder funds—funds that basically raised money for a larger master fund—knew. They knew as much as they wanted to know. They knew they could make money with him; they knew that if they kept their money with him for six years they basically would double their original investment, so they were betting against the clock. And it wasn’t like everybody else in the business was completely honest and he was the only one cheating. This was just another guy cutting some corners. It was a great deal; they were reaping the benefits of this financial theft without having any of the risk. My guess, and this is just a guess, is they assumed that even if Bernie got caught, their ill-gotten profits would end but their money was safe. How could it not be safe? Bernie Madoff was a respected businessman, a respected philanthropist, a respected political donor, a self-proclaimed co-founder of Nasdaq and a great man.
We were beginning to see him as he really was: a monster preying on others; a master con artist. Unfortunately, we were only at the beginning of our investigation. We couldn’t even imagine how much of that we would encounter in the next eight years.