How Obama Throws Loyalists Under the Bus by Lloyd Grove
Hot Topics: Photo Galleries, Big Fat Story, Giving Beast, Hungry Beast, Art Beast
Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
Message:
Louis Lanzano / AP Photo After two former Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers were acquitted of fraud charges last week, Charlie Gasparino says prosecutors are afraid to bring new cases. And that’s a good thing.
It usually doesn’t get much easier for the prosecution: a pair of millionaire fund managers working for the much-loathed investment bank Bear Stearns—the first firm to implode during the financial crisis—on trial for allegedly misleading investors in their quest to prop up a failing hedge fund. Emails showing Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, appeared far less optimistic about their funds’ prospects than they told investors, not to mention a blue-collar jury, just the type of people who hate Wall Street and its spin machine.
And yet, late last week, Cioffi and Tannin were found not guilty of all charges. Had they been convicted, not only would it have put both men in jail for up to 20 years, but it also would have opened the floodgates for prosecuting far bigger fish—Wall Street CEOs who touted their companies’ financial health despite mounting evidence that the whole financial system, awash in debt and leverage, was about to crash.
It’s a little too convenient for the government to come swooping in now and blame the greedy bastards on Wall Street for the financial collapse, when in fact the government was a player as well.
Well, Tannin and Cioffi are now free men, and according to friends, both men are awaiting what they believe should be a similar verdict from the Securities and Exchange Commission. (The SEC can file only “civil” charges but can make it nearly impossible for them to go back to work in the securities industry.) On Wall Street the smart money is that the SEC will walk away now or face a similar defeat in court.
The ramifications of the Cioffi-Tannin verdict are huge. Since last fall, the Justice Department, the SEC, and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (or a combination of all three) have launched probes into the fall of Lehman Brothers; Bank of America’s messy purchase of Merrill Lynch; public disclosures made by top executives at Bear Stearns, Merrill, and Citigroup about their company’s financial health just before their collapse; and of course, the statements made by various former executives at AIG, including the head of its financial products group, Joseph Cassano, who publicly boasted about the health of firm’s insurance contracts on the risky securities that ultimately cause the insurance giant to implode with the rest.
These cases have been largely dormant, I am told by defense attorneys, as prosecutors and regulators were waiting to hear the Cioffi-Tannin verdict. The notion was to gauge public’s blood lust for Wall Street and see how a dozen average men and women took to the prosecution tactic of using emails to show how much Wall Street lies and misleads to make money.
What I am told by these attorneys (prosecutors tend not to say much, particularly when they’re losing) is that following this humiliating defeat, there’s now a better than even chance that most of these cases will remain on the back burner, and the mad rush to hold Wall Street accountable for the financial crisis will be put on hold indefinitely. Even the Cassano case, which once looked as rock solid as did the case against Cioffi and Tannin, is being seriously re-thought by prosecutors.
And that might be a good thing.
The actions of the Wall Street executives involved in these cases were of course serious. Investors lost huge amounts of money believing the Wall Street spin machine, and the crash cost taxpayers billions more for a controversial bailout of the entire financial system. There may well be fraud in some of these cases, but based on what I know and what I’ve been able to show in my book about the financial crisis, The Sellout, fraud in the legal sense—knowingly lying to the public about the true condition of their firms—wasn’t Wall Street’s real “crime.” To be sure, The Street suffered from a rapacious sense of entitlement, but mostly because the big firms were enabled so long by the government to engage in the business of risk.
In other words, Wall Street acted recklessly because it believed the worst could never happen—because the Fed or the Treasury wouldn’t allow it to happen. Throwing money at financial excess—as the Fed has done during previous meltdowns by slashing interest rates—worked well during the implosion of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management back in 1998, so why wouldn’t it save the Cioffi-Tannin fund?
Besides, the Treasury helped bailout out Lehman during the 1998 LTCM fiasco and during the earlier Mexican peso crisis, so why wouldn’t Dick Fuld feel pretty confident about his firm’s future in 2008? And after those previous bailouts, guess what happened next: Lehman emerged as one of the most profitable firms on Wall Street while Fuld became among its most respected CEOs just before its demise.
Things like entitlement or irrational exuberance, last I checked, aren’t exactly crimes, even if there are a couple of emails showing that men like Cioffi and Tannin had questioned their irrationality. I think that the jury in the Cioffi-Tannin case came away with similar conclusions—even if most of the media believed these guys were guilty as charged. I read where one juror couldn’t believe that the prosecution tried to hang the financial collapse on two men whom any rational person would see as bit players in the fiasco. Other jurors said the emails that the prosecutors touted as ironclad evidence weren’t so ironclad after all; they didn’t exactly depict these guys as liars, but as men wrestling with their beliefs and then believing in the best possible outcome.
I bet if pressed, the jury would also admit it’s a little too convenient for the government to come swooping in now and blame the greedy bastards on Wall Street for the financial collapse, when in fact the government was a player as well. Where was the SEC, which was supposed to be looking at the Street’s capital standards? And where was the Fed, which can usually throw buckets of cold water on such risk taking? At least in the white-collar realm that I know about, prosecutors tend to make cases that the public wants. They feed off outrage and class warfare. It’s how the former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer made a name for himself and became New York State governor before his encounters with a prostitute placed him out of a job and now on the ethics lecture circuit. It’s how the current New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo plans to become governor—or else why would he be wasting his time with an investigation against BofA CEO Ken Lewis that doesn’t save New York taxpayers a dime.
But average Americans—the ones who spend more time trying to earn a living than keeping up with Wall Street, the ones who populate our jury pools—seem to have developed a keener sense of right and wrong. They know it’s a little too easy to blame the financial crisis on the Ralph Cioffis and the Matthew Tannins of the world. The public even understands that there are many reasons besides fraud that people like Dick Fuld and Joseph Cassano might say everything is okay just before it isn’t.
Prosecutors may still want to punish people for this economic crisis, but real people know that won’t bring their money back.
Charles Gasparino is CNBC's On-Air Editor and appears as a daily member of CNBC's ensemble. He is a columnist for the Daily Beast and a frequent contributor to the New York Post, Forbes, and other publications. His forthcoming book about the financial crisis, The Sellout, is scheduled to be published later in 2009.
For More of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
The voters in NJ sent the governor from Goldman Sachs packing. Bloomberg, formerly of Salomon, won by the narrowest of margins running against a lightweight. The CEO of Goldman Sachs is out there saying the firm does "God's work". I'm not sure that there won't be a lot of perp walks before this thing has run its course. Did you see the meltdown coming Charlie? As Yogi Berra noted, it's tough to make predictions-- especially about the future. George Patton
There are two important intertwined yet distinct issues at work: A high degree of media interest acts as a safeguard from overly zealous US Attorneys who are more concerned with winning than with justice. They can't lie and cheat as they ordinarily do. The second is that they overcharge cases and rather than focus on the basic conduct, create these fantastic far reaching conspiracies. The sad fact is that too many prosecutors "win" simply because the defendants don't have the ability to generate the level of media scrutiny these guys were lucky enough to have.
Its Barny Frank and Chris Dodd who ought to have been on trial. Talk about the big fish going free!
In the Ronald Coleman classic movie of Dickens' novel "A Tale of Two Cities" there is a scene where the mob approaches the castle, ready to initiate a form of immediate justice against the nobility inside. The terrified rich folks don't know what to do. The army suddenly marches in and places themselves on the steps, between the mob and the wealthy. The rich come out to watch the army fire upon the rabble. The army suddenly turns and fires upon the swells. Say what you want about the verdict of a carefully scrutinized and hand picked jury, Charlie. But don't assume that's the end of it for the Wall Street banksters. If the system won't provide justice, maybe the system will change.
A lot of wishful thinking there, Charlie. The feds are "humiliated" when they failed to convince a jury that those two clowns weren't also crooks and you think the rest of Wall Street gets a get-out-of-jail-free card? That's not how I'd bet. The more important development is Bharara going after Wall Street with methods borrowed from organized crime and terrorism. Yeah, so far, he's only gone after the Galleon inside-traders, not the dumbasses who ran their firms/funds into the ground and took the rest of economy down with them. But it's a sign of just how tough he's willing to play.
We entertain ourselves nightly watching portrayals of a system of crime and punishment which are almost entirely based on the premise that the exceptional is actually representative of the norm. Nothing is as it seems. The apparent guilty guy is always innocent. We have become predisposed to totally ignore Ocham's Razor -- the simplest and most logical conclusions that we can draw from any set of facts has become, indeed, the least likely conclusion that we will reach. We have also become predisposed to the notion that, in arriving at a just decision, that every successful prosecution will be secured with irrefutable evidence. Hearsay and circumstantial evidence are the tools of the devil, used to railroad innocents to prison. DNA, or at the very least, Perry Mason-like confessions on the stand will always allow every case to be resolved beyond a doubt. Common sense will never be required as an ingredient in arriving at just verdicts. Lawyers on both sides have become adept at producing shiny quarters out of the thin air behind their ears and persuading juries to simply "consider the possibility that the impossible (or at least implausible) can be real. So we have become accustomed to accepting the implausible as our default option. Perhaps this is a sign of the strength of our judicial system. Surely we are taught the virtues of presuming innocence. But how far have we journeyed into the realm of presuming implausible innocence? O.J. -- innocent? These two hedge fund guys -- innocent? Who knows? Sheik KLM -- innocent? Prosecutorial overreach? Who knows? But we (the same "we" who sits on jury panels every day) have become accustomed and addicted to belief in the implausible. Good for justice?
Whatever happened to pitchforks and torches?
So these guys walk because the government was also involved? When my children say "but he did it, too" they don't get out of the trouble their in. Give me a break.
This is a case for reform, which we need and should have done prior to TARP.
Thank you. As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.
Do Sex Tapes Matter?
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com.
The 10 Most Valuable Models
Lauren Streib is a reporter for The Daily Beast. She was previously a reporter for Forbes
.
Obama: Uncensored Internet Is Good
Hosts town hall with students in Shanghai.
GM Marks $1.2B Loss
Will start paying down government loan.
Palin Attacks Levi on Oprah
On Playgirl: “I call that porn, yes.”
What Obama Should Tell Wall Street
Charles Gasparino is CNBC's On-Air Editor and appears as a daily member of CNBC's ensemble. He is a columnist for the Daily Beast and a frequent contributor to the New York Post, Forbes, and other publications. His forthcoming book about the financial crisis, The Sellout, is scheduled to be published later in 2009.
Behind Ken Lewis' Panic
Charles Gasparino is CNBC's On-Air Editor and appears as a daily member of CNBC's ensemble. He is a columnist for the Daily Beast and a frequent contributor to the New York Post, Forbes, and other publications. His forthcoming book about the financial crisis, The Sellout, is scheduled to be published later in 2009.
Wall Street's Bonus Hypocrisy
Read Full Article »