SEC charges former CalPers CEO in Agent Fee Scheme

SEC Charges Former CalPERS CEO and Friend With Falsifying Letters in $20 Million Placement Agent Fee Scheme

According to http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2012/2012-73.htm website Buenrostro (former CalPers CEO) directed placement agent fees to Villalobos through falsification of documents with CalPers logo.  The placement fees paid were at least $20 million dollars.

The letter was a new requirement by this fund company for fees paid to placement agents that assisted in raising funds.

There seems to be no end of leading executives who continue to cross ethical lines to enrich themselves and their friends.  Kudos to the SEC for identifying this action and hopefully, if found guilty, will apply a sufficient deterrence to discourage others from crossing over this very clear ethical line.

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

Shapiro on Small Business and our Economy

Excerpt from Chair Mary Schapiro’s Nov 17, 2011 Review on how the SEC works to Support Small Businesses – U.S. S.E.C

As you know, studies suggest that small businesses have created 60-to-80 percent of net new American jobs over the last ten years.

But there is a footnote to that statistic: the most vigorous small business job creation comes from small businesses determined to get much larger. Job growth comes from emerging enterprises trying to grow out of their warehouse space and into a corporate campus or to jump from single downtown location into retail sites nationwide. It comes from companies that need access to capital to make that jump.

Today’s focus is on creating an environment in which those small businesses have that access, one in which they can compete successfully for a share of our country’s investment capital.

Cost-effective access to capital for companies of all sizes plays a critical role in our national economy, and we believe that companies seeking access to capital should not be overburdened by unnecessary or superfluous regulations.

As we examine ways that the regulatory structure might better facilitate small business capital formation, though, it’s important to keep in mind another critical facet of the SEC’s mission: investor protection. We must balance the instinct to ease the rules governing capital access with our obligation to protect investors and markets.

This can be a challenge. Even necessary regulation can impose burdens that are disproportionately large for small businesses with limited resources.

As the daughter of a small businessperson, I am familiar with the unique challenges small businesses face. I know that instead of planning year-to-year or quarter-to-quarter, that sometimes it’s day-to-day. And I recognize that challenges that a larger business would barely even notice can be significant drains on resources and time to an enterprise that needs to focus everything on making its place in a competitive market.

It’s also important to note that investor protection shouldn’t just be a priority for investors and their advocates. Confidence in the fairness and honesty of our markets is critical to capital formation. Investors who understand that financial market participants are honest, that disclosures are accurate, and that markets offer a fair chance to earn a reasonable return are more likely to make needed capital available, and demand less in return for doing so.

And so, in this forum and through other efforts, the SEC is seeking strategies for meeting regulatory goals while reducing the weight borne by small businesses.

That is why I have instructed our staff to take a fresh look at some of our offering rules, and to develop ideas for the Commission to consider that would — in a manner consistent with investor protection — reduce undue regulatory constraints on small business capital formation. Among the issues that we are considering are:

  • The restrictions on communications in initial public offerings;
  • Whether the general solicitation ban should be revisited in light of current technologies, and capital-raising trends;
  • The number of shareholders that trigger public reporting, including questions surrounding the use of special purpose vehicles that hold securities for groups of investors; and
  • The regulatory questions posed by new capital raising strategies, including crowdfunding.

In conducting this review, we are gathering data and seeking input from many sources, including small businesses, investor groups and the public at large.

In addition, two weeks ago, we convened the first meeting of the SEC’s new Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies. This initial meeting has produced a number of insights on these and other relevant issues, from committee members representing businesses, investors, academia and regulators.

The re-examination of existing regulations is also of a piece with a goal I set when I returned to the SEC as Chairman: to make sure that the agency was up to date, that the regulations we enforce reflect the current realities of the financial markets.

For 77 years, the SEC has contributed to small business growth by supporting a capital marketplace in which confident investors invested money in growing businesses. We worked to create a culture of compliance that supported transparent markets marked by high liquidity, strong secondary market trading and investor protection.

Full transcript at http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2011/spch111711mls.htm

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

Buffett or Buffet – an extra ‘t’ does matter

Buffet or Buffett which one would you choose to invest with? Does an additional T in your name matter?*

A firm that bears no relationship to Berkshire Hathaway filed offering with the SEC last month.

Warren Buffet is getting into the high-risk business of Regulation D private placements. This is Warren Buffet, with one T, not Warren E. Buffett.

The Buffet that’s short one ‘t’ is the moniker of a new private placement connected to a stockbroker and investment adviser based in Boca Raton, Fla., named Peter Bruno.

According to Mr. Bruno’s website, he is chief executive of Wall Street Money Management Group Inc., a registered investment advisory firm. According to filings with the SEC, the firm has $17.1 million in assets under management and 122 client accounts. At the end of September, Berkshire Hathaway reported assets of $385.5 billion.

It would seem clear that the Buffet name is being used to cash in on the Buffett record and confuse consumers. Could there be any other explanation?

*Original article by Bruce Kelly, December 2, 2011.

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

How could insider information by Hank Paulson be legal?

Information in this post is from Taken to Task on 12/2/11: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/taken-task-capt-cronyism-hank-paulson-124007702.html

How could Treasury secretary (Hank Paulson) providing insider information to Hedge fund managers be legal?

The story goes that in July 2008, then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson tipped off a small group of hedge fund managers to the government’s plan to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. When the government did just that in early September 2008, anyone hoping for a bailout of Freddie and Fannie (or just long the GSEs) got wiped out…while anyone short the stock made a boatload.

How could this not be legal? Paulson’s behavior is a dereliction of duty, violation of the public trust and for undermining the American taxpayer he swore to support.

According to the reports Paulson’s meeting and alleged comments did not violate insider trading laws; technically it was legal.  Then what do the insider trading laws protect us against? According to the rules insider trading by sitting members of Congress is wrong and offensive, Paulson’s gift to his hedge fund buddies, where he was CEO prior to becoming Treasury Secretary — is so grotesque and wrong it boggles the mind; more especially considering that Paulson told the press a different story than he told the money managers.

Why are the Justice Department, the SEC or any other federal prosecutor not investigating Paulson’s actions regarding Fannie and Freddie — and why don’t they shed light on his meeting with hedge fund managers.  Or will the SEC once again allow all to pay a small fine and claim no fault?

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

Judge Criticized SEC and Rejects Citi’s Mortgage Settlement

Judge Calls SEC on Allowing Settlements that do NOT address liability

— Content from Bloomberg and SEC websites

At question was Citigroup Inc.’s $285 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over mortgage-backed securities.  The federal judge rejected on grounds that he does not have enough facts.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan rejected the settlement – he criticized the SEC’s practice of letting financial institutions such as Citigroup settle without admitting or denying liability.

The SEC claimed that Citigroup misled investors in a $1 billion fund that included assets the bank had projected would lose money. At the same time it was selling the fund to investors, Citigroup took a short position in many of the underlying assets, according to the agency.

Citigroup, the third-biggest U.S. lender, agreed last month to settle a claim by the SEC that it misled investors in a $1 billion CDO linked to subprime residential mortgage securities. Investors lost about $700 million, according to the agency. A trial could establish conclusions that investors could use against Citigroup.

“In any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth,” Rakoff wrote in the opinion. The proposed settlement is “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest,” he said.

Danielle Romero-Apsilos, a spokeswoman for Citigroup, declined to comment pending a review of the decision. SEC spokesman John Nester declined to comment immediately on the ruling.

Rakoff today consolidated the case with another SEC suit involving former Citigroup employee Brian Stoker and scheduled the combined case for trial on July 16, 2012.

Citigroup doesn’t want to formally admit liability because of the bad publicity that would follow and because an admission would give a powerful tool to investors suing the bank.

Allowing a bank to pay a fine without admitting liability allows the SEC to avoid the uncertainty of a trial and preserves resources that can be used to pursue other securities law violators.

He rejected the SEC argument that he should defer to the agency’s determination that the settlement is fair, particularly as it asked him to issue an order requiring Citigroup not to violate the securities laws in the future.

Calling Citigroup “a recidivist,” Rakoff said the SEC hasn’t tried to enforce such an order against a financial institution in the past 10 years.

Bloomberg News and SEC response at http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2011/spch112811rk.htm

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com