$1.2 Billion Vanishes From MF Global
In late October, the market suddenly realized that
the emperor had no clothes at MF Global (OTC:
MFGLQ). And as revelers all over the U.S. gutted
pumpkins in preparation for Halloween, the
centuries-old brokerage was financially gutted as
counterparties stepped away.
On Halloween, MF Global became a ghost itself,
but the week prior to the bankruptcy filing was
utter chaos for the company. As one former MF
Global employee recounted, CEO Jon Corzine
faced the distress head-on, pacing the trading
floor and directing his troops in hopes of finding a
way to save the company after the massive bet
on European debt that he championed effectively
doomed it.
Even as internal levers were pulled, MF Global
hired investment bankers from Evercore (NYSE:
EVR ) to work on finding a buyer with deep
enough pockets to save the flagging broker. Most
major financial companies thumbed their noses
at the possibility of buying it -- they figured they
could swoop in and pick over the pieces post-
failure. However, heading into the weekend it
looked like a deal would come together.
Electronic-exchange-focused broker Interactive
Brokers (Nasdaq: IBKR ) was at the table, and
the talks looked promising. As an MF Global
employee that was present for those final days
recounted, "We all thought there was going to be
a deal and we were going to be saved."
But at the eleventh hour, disaster struck. It was
found that futures customer funds -- money
which is legally required to be carefully set aside
and clearly accounted for -- were missing. Initial
media reports suggested as much as $1 billion
was unaccounted for, but the number was quickly
dropped to $700 million, then $600 million. But
as far as the Interactive Brokers deal was
concerned, the exact amount of the shortfall
didn't matter one whit -- what was very clear was
that a lot of client money had vanished. Buying
MF Global was suddenly akin to buying real
estate on Three Mile Island in late March of
1979. The deal was quashed and MF Global was
left with no other choice than to file for
bankruptcy.
Following the bankruptcy filing, it would take
James Giddens -- the bankruptcy trustee of MF
Global's broker subsidiary -- a full three weeks of
working through the company's books to offer an
"official" estimate of the shortfall. On Nov. 21, he
announced that "$1.2 billion or more" had
disappeared from the segregated customer
accounts.
Sacrosanct
Whether we're talking about a bank, an equities
broker, or a futures broker like MF Global, it's
clearly bad when deposited customer money
goes missing. However, there are safety valves
for bank depositors and stock market investors.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. protects
banking customers to the tune of $250,000.
Meanwhile, the Securities Investor Protection
Corp. steps in with up to $500,000 per customer
to help equity investors when a stock broker fails
and doesn't have adequate funds to make its
customers whole.
There is no such insurance backstop for futures
customers. What the futures industry has relied
on instead are "segregated accounts" that put
customer money in a safe side-pot that is legally
off-limits for the broker to use to directly fund its
operations or back its own proprietary trading
positions.
Ask futures customers about segregated
accounts, and nine times out of 10 they'll tell you
that those accounts are sacrosanct.
Where's the money, Corzine?
The possibility that Jon Corzine authorized the
customer funds to be pulled out of segregated
accounts to plug holes in the company's balance
sheet is in some ways a very logical scenario. As
we've detailed in this report, Corzine created an
atmosphere where serious challenges to his
power and decisions were basically nil. In the
turbulent scrum that took place as they tried to
save the company, it seems even less likely that
a Corzine directive would be denied.
This scenario would provide a tidy denouement
for those of us breathlessly waiting for resolution.
Corzine would be criminally culpable, civil suits
could plunder his personal assets, and
prosecutors could fit him for a new kind of striped
suit and send him on a long vacation with Bernie
Madoff.
This would also likely work out well for regulators,
including MF Global's primary self-regulatory
organization, CME Group (NYSE: CME ) . If
Corzine acted criminally, it may let those
regulators off the hook to some extent. It doesn't
necessarily take a regulatory failure for somebody
to act criminally. After all, robbery is illegal, but if
a thief is bent on robbing a bank, he or she will
do it anyway.
This seems to be the scenario that the CME is
pushing -- according to congressional testimony
from CME Chairman Terry Duffy and a timeline of
events released by the CME, not only were there
potentially prohibited loans made from customer
accounts, but Corzine may have known about the
loans. However, at the time of this writing, the
CME's account was uncorroborated and the
details were under wraps on who from MF Global
was talking about Corzine's knowledge of the
loans and what exactly was said.
And while there are those who think it
inconceivable that Corzine would have acted
illegally, times of extreme stress can often drive
people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise
dream of doing.
Or not...
As cleanly as the Corzine-as-criminal scenario
would wrap up the MF Global case, there are
good reasons to doubt that that's how it went
down. Corzine was a wealthy and well-connected
man, which promised him a perfectly comfortable
life even if MF Global failed. And unless the
former senator was willing to add perjury to his
rap sheet, if he had criminally authorized the use
of client funds, there's no way he would have
said the opposite during multiple testimonies in
front of Congress.
It's important to remember, too, that in a large,
global organization -- financial or not -- the CEO
is responsible for setting up the right systems
and effectively delegating responsibilities.
This leaves open the very real possibility that,
without his knowledge, somebody at a level well
below Corzine made the decision to funnel client
funds to the company's balance sheet in a
desperate attempt to keep the ship from sinking.
This doesn't necessarily let Corzine off the hook,
though. As noted above, it's a major part of the
CEO's job to put the proper systems in place. In
fact, regulations implemented through Sarbanes-
Oxley -- a bill that Corzine co-wrote while he was
a senator -- require that the CEO and CFO sign
off on the effectiveness of the controls over
financial reporting. For instance, for fiscal 2011,
both Corzine and MF Global CFO Henri
Steenkamp signed off on the fact that they had:
Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the Registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities.
If those proper "controls and procedures" were in
place, a breach of segregated client funds should
have set off loud, blaring, obnoxious alarms that
would have alerted management to that breach.
If it turns out that those proper controls weren't in
place, Corzine and Steenkamp could face both
civil and criminal charges.
It's also possible that the proper procedures were
in place, but an employee was simply determined
to illegally circumvent those systems -- perhaps
in some misguided belief that it would help save
the company and curry favor with Corzine or
other members of management.
Flabbergasted!
Of course there's also the possibility that
malfeasance isn't present here at all. Multiple
former MF Global employees that we spoke to
think that the missing money may simply be the
result of a bookkeeping error. They believe it's
unlikely that there was deliberate wrongdoing
involved, particularly on the part of Corzine.
Former MF Global trader Mike Fitzgerald
emphatically stated that he'd be "nothing less
than flabbergasted" if it turned out Corzine did
something nefarious. Even TV stock jock Jim
Cramer -- who was a former Goldmanite himself -
- stepped up to defend Corzine on CNBC, saying
Corzine is "not a bad man."
To be sure, in the best of days the accounting
and bookkeeping for a global brokerage firm is
complex. And these were anything but the best of
days for MF Global as it scrambled to pull out of
a tailspin. News reports have quoted people
close to the situation as describing MF Global's
books as "a disaster." In testimony before the
House Agriculture Committee, Corzine spoke to
the chaos that reigned in the final days before
the bankruptcy, and suggested that the amount
of money that was shifted around could make
things very difficult to pick through.
And yet the longer the process drags on, the less
likely the "bookkeeping error" scenario seems.
With forensic accountants and FBI investigators
working with former MF Global employees to
untangle the books, it seems highly unlikely that
an accounting misstep -- or even a series of
missteps -- would take more than a month to
ferret out. Furthermore, while the CME's timeline
shows that the missing funds were initially
thought to be an accounting mishap, it notes that
by the early-morning hours of Oct. 31, MF Global
reported to them that "the deficiency is real."
Flight of the red herring: Rule 1.25
In the wake of MF Global's collapse and, in
particular, the revelation of the missing customer
funds, a lot of focus -- particularly from
lawmakers in Congress -- has been put on the
Commodity Exchange Act's rule 1.25, which
dictates the way in which futures brokers can
invest customer funds. Much of the focus
appears to stem from confusion over what
exactly the rule means.
First of all, from a big-picture perspective, it's not
unusual at all for a financial company to earn
income for itself by investing customer funds. The
entire banking business model is built on
redeploying deposits in interest-earning
investments, including mortgage loans. Equities
brokers such as Charles Schwab (Nasdaq:
SCHW ) can also invest customer cash balances
to earn interest income. Even payroll giant ADP
(NYSE: ADP ) invests customer funds during the
short interval between when the client gives them
the money and when it has to go out to tax
authorities or the client's employees.
For futures brokers like MF Global, it is likewise
permitted for them to invest customer funds to
earn interest income. Rule 1.25 simply details
what types of investments are kosher. The only
reason that 1.25 should be an issue in the MF
Global case is if there was reason to believe that
overly loose parameters in the rule had
something to do with the missing client funds. At
the time of this writing, there has been no solid
evidence that client funds had anything to do with
the repo-to-maturity trade that led to the
company's collapse, or that the missing customer
funds have anything to do with overly risky
investments that were permitted under 1.25.
In fact, it seems that the only reason that 1.25 is
a hot topic among lawmakers -- besides their
lack of understanding of what the rule is -- is that
there was some appearance of fishy dealings
around proposed changes to the rule prior to MF
Global's collapse. Corzine and other high-level
executives at MF Global had met with regulators
from the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission to push back on changes that would
cut back on what was allowed under rule 1.25.
Today, those meetings look sketchy in light of MF
Global's collapse, but MF Global was one of
several futures brokers that was campaigning
against the rule change. Plus, just because
Corzine was pushing back on the rule change
doesn't necessarily mean that there was
something underhanded going on -- in fact, it
could be said that he wouldn't be doing his job
as CEO if he didn't advocate for the company
when regulations threatened to crimp the
business.
Not that the CFTC has been helpful in clearing
up the misunderstanding around rule 1.25. In a
very desperate-seeming move after MF Global's
collapse, the regulator passed the "MF Global
rule" which went ahead with the previously
considered changes and curtailed futures brokers'
ability to invest in sovereign debt or borrow
money from customer accounts via repurchase
transactions. We believe that it will eventually be
revealed that what was permitted under rule 1.25
was not the cause of MF Global's missing funds,
which will also show that the CFTC's rush to
implement the "MF Global rule" was a cheap ploy
to save face and make it look like the regulator
was doing something in response to MF Global's
collapse.
And all of the rest
In our conversations with MF Global customers,
former employees, regulators, lawyers, and other
experts, it seemed at times that there were as
many theories about the missing money as there
are sweaters in Jon Corzine's closet. Some were
simply variations of the scenarios presented
above. Others were far more creative and
sounded more like something out of a John
Grisham novel.
With significant facts still yet to be uncovered, it's
certainly possible that something surprising, or
even bizarre, happened here. As they say, fact is
often stranger than fiction. However, at the time
of this writing, we believe that one of the
scenarios presented above will eventually be
proven by investigators.
But no matter what happened to the money, MF
Global customers have had to deal with the fact
that a huge amount of money is missing and
much of the rest of their deposited funds were
frozen for an extended period of time. This has
created hardship for thousands of customers that
were directly involved with MF Global.
Furthermore, it has had a chilling effect that
reaches much more broadly than MF Global, as
futures traders all over the country wonder
whether this might be a sign that the system is
simply broken.
In late October, the market suddenly realized that
the emperor had no clothes at MF Global (OTC:
MFGLQ). And as revelers all over the U.S. gutted
pumpkins in preparation for Halloween, the
centuries-old brokerage was financially gutted as
counterparties stepped away.
On Halloween, MF Global became a ghost itself,
but the week prior to the bankruptcy filing was
utter chaos for the company. As one former MF
Global employee recounted, CEO Jon Corzine
faced the distress head-on, pacing the trading
floor and directing his troops in hopes of finding a
way to save the company after the massive bet
on European debt that he championed effectively
doomed it.
Even as internal levers were pulled, MF Global
hired investment bankers from Evercore (NYSE:
EVR ) to work on finding a buyer with deep
enough pockets to save the flagging broker. Most
major financial companies thumbed their noses
at the possibility of buying it -- they figured they
could swoop in and pick over the pieces post-
failure. However, heading into the weekend it
looked like a deal would come together.
Electronic-exchange-focused broker Interactive
Brokers (Nasdaq: IBKR ) was at the table, and
the talks looked promising. As an MF Global
employee that was present for those final days
recounted, "We all thought there was going to be
a deal and we were going to be saved."
But at the eleventh hour, disaster struck. It was
found that futures customer funds -- money
which is legally required to be carefully set aside
and clearly accounted for -- were missing. Initial
media reports suggested as much as $1 billion
was unaccounted for, but the number was quickly
dropped to $700 million, then $600 million. But
as far as the Interactive Brokers deal was
concerned, the exact amount of the shortfall
didn't matter one whit -- what was very clear was
that a lot of client money had vanished. Buying
MF Global was suddenly akin to buying real
estate on Three Mile Island in late March of
1979. The deal was quashed and MF Global was
left with no other choice than to file for
bankruptcy.
Following the bankruptcy filing, it would take
James Giddens -- the bankruptcy trustee of MF
Global's broker subsidiary -- a full three weeks of
working through the company's books to offer an
"official" estimate of the shortfall. On Nov. 21, he
announced that "$1.2 billion or more" had
disappeared from the segregated customer
accounts.
Sacrosanct
Whether we're talking about a bank, an equities
broker, or a futures broker like MF Global, it's
clearly bad when deposited customer money
goes missing. However, there are safety valves
for bank depositors and stock market investors.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. protects
banking customers to the tune of $250,000.
Meanwhile, the Securities Investor Protection
Corp. steps in with up to $500,000 per customer
to help equity investors when a stock broker fails
and doesn't have adequate funds to make its
customers whole.
There is no such insurance backstop for futures
customers. What the futures industry has relied
on instead are "segregated accounts" that put
customer money in a safe side-pot that is legally
off-limits for the broker to use to directly fund its
operations or back its own proprietary trading
positions.
Ask futures customers about segregated
accounts, and nine times out of 10 they'll tell you
that those accounts are sacrosanct.
Where's the money, Corzine?
The possibility that Jon Corzine authorized the
customer funds to be pulled out of segregated
accounts to plug holes in the company's balance
sheet is in some ways a very logical scenario. As
we've detailed in this report, Corzine created an
atmosphere where serious challenges to his
power and decisions were basically nil. In the
turbulent scrum that took place as they tried to
save the company, it seems even less likely that
a Corzine directive would be denied.
This scenario would provide a tidy denouement
for those of us breathlessly waiting for resolution.
Corzine would be criminally culpable, civil suits
could plunder his personal assets, and
prosecutors could fit him for a new kind of striped
suit and send him on a long vacation with Bernie
Madoff.
This would also likely work out well for regulators,
including MF Global's primary self-regulatory
organization, CME Group (NYSE: CME ) . If
Corzine acted criminally, it may let those
regulators off the hook to some extent. It doesn't
necessarily take a regulatory failure for somebody
to act criminally. After all, robbery is illegal, but if
a thief is bent on robbing a bank, he or she will
do it anyway.
This seems to be the scenario that the CME is
pushing -- according to congressional testimony
from CME Chairman Terry Duffy and a timeline of
events released by the CME, not only were there
potentially prohibited loans made from customer
accounts, but Corzine may have known about the
loans. However, at the time of this writing, the
CME's account was uncorroborated and the
details were under wraps on who from MF Global
was talking about Corzine's knowledge of the
loans and what exactly was said.
And while there are those who think it
inconceivable that Corzine would have acted
illegally, times of extreme stress can often drive
people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise
dream of doing.
Or not...
As cleanly as the Corzine-as-criminal scenario
would wrap up the MF Global case, there are
good reasons to doubt that that's how it went
down. Corzine was a wealthy and well-connected
man, which promised him a perfectly comfortable
life even if MF Global failed. And unless the
former senator was willing to add perjury to his
rap sheet, if he had criminally authorized the use
of client funds, there's no way he would have
said the opposite during multiple testimonies in
front of Congress.
It's important to remember, too, that in a large,
global organization -- financial or not -- the CEO
is responsible for setting up the right systems
and effectively delegating responsibilities.
This leaves open the very real possibility that,
without his knowledge, somebody at a level well
below Corzine made the decision to funnel client
funds to the company's balance sheet in a
desperate attempt to keep the ship from sinking.
This doesn't necessarily let Corzine off the hook,
though. As noted above, it's a major part of the
CEO's job to put the proper systems in place. In
fact, regulations implemented through Sarbanes-
Oxley -- a bill that Corzine co-wrote while he was
a senator -- require that the CEO and CFO sign
off on the effectiveness of the controls over
financial reporting. For instance, for fiscal 2011,
both Corzine and MF Global CFO Henri
Steenkamp signed off on the fact that they had:
Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the Registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities.
If those proper "controls and procedures" were in
place, a breach of segregated client funds should
have set off loud, blaring, obnoxious alarms that
would have alerted management to that breach.
If it turns out that those proper controls weren't in
place, Corzine and Steenkamp could face both
civil and criminal charges.
It's also possible that the proper procedures were
in place, but an employee was simply determined
to illegally circumvent those systems -- perhaps
in some misguided belief that it would help save
the company and curry favor with Corzine or
other members of management.
Flabbergasted!
Of course there's also the possibility that
malfeasance isn't present here at all. Multiple
former MF Global employees that we spoke to
think that the missing money may simply be the
result of a bookkeeping error. They believe it's
unlikely that there was deliberate wrongdoing
involved, particularly on the part of Corzine.
Former MF Global trader Mike Fitzgerald
emphatically stated that he'd be "nothing less
than flabbergasted" if it turned out Corzine did
something nefarious. Even TV stock jock Jim
Cramer -- who was a former Goldmanite himself -
- stepped up to defend Corzine on CNBC, saying
Corzine is "not a bad man."
To be sure, in the best of days the accounting
and bookkeeping for a global brokerage firm is
complex. And these were anything but the best of
days for MF Global as it scrambled to pull out of
a tailspin. News reports have quoted people
close to the situation as describing MF Global's
books as "a disaster." In testimony before the
House Agriculture Committee, Corzine spoke to
the chaos that reigned in the final days before
the bankruptcy, and suggested that the amount
of money that was shifted around could make
things very difficult to pick through.
And yet the longer the process drags on, the less
likely the "bookkeeping error" scenario seems.
With forensic accountants and FBI investigators
working with former MF Global employees to
untangle the books, it seems highly unlikely that
an accounting misstep -- or even a series of
missteps -- would take more than a month to
ferret out. Furthermore, while the CME's timeline
shows that the missing funds were initially
thought to be an accounting mishap, it notes that
by the early-morning hours of Oct. 31, MF Global
reported to them that "the deficiency is real."
Flight of the red herring: Rule 1.25
In the wake of MF Global's collapse and, in
particular, the revelation of the missing customer
funds, a lot of focus -- particularly from
lawmakers in Congress -- has been put on the
Commodity Exchange Act's rule 1.25, which
dictates the way in which futures brokers can
invest customer funds. Much of the focus
appears to stem from confusion over what
exactly the rule means.
First of all, from a big-picture perspective, it's not
unusual at all for a financial company to earn
income for itself by investing customer funds. The
entire banking business model is built on
redeploying deposits in interest-earning
investments, including mortgage loans. Equities
brokers such as Charles Schwab (Nasdaq:
SCHW ) can also invest customer cash balances
to earn interest income. Even payroll giant ADP
(NYSE: ADP ) invests customer funds during the
short interval between when the client gives them
the money and when it has to go out to tax
authorities or the client's employees.
For futures brokers like MF Global, it is likewise
permitted for them to invest customer funds to
earn interest income. Rule 1.25 simply details
what types of investments are kosher. The only
reason that 1.25 should be an issue in the MF
Global case is if there was reason to believe that
overly loose parameters in the rule had
something to do with the missing client funds. At
the time of this writing, there has been no solid
evidence that client funds had anything to do with
the repo-to-maturity trade that led to the
company's collapse, or that the missing customer
funds have anything to do with overly risky
investments that were permitted under 1.25.
In fact, it seems that the only reason that 1.25 is
a hot topic among lawmakers -- besides their
lack of understanding of what the rule is -- is that
there was some appearance of fishy dealings
around proposed changes to the rule prior to MF
Global's collapse. Corzine and other high-level
executives at MF Global had met with regulators
from the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission to push back on changes that would
cut back on what was allowed under rule 1.25.
Today, those meetings look sketchy in light of MF
Global's collapse, but MF Global was one of
several futures brokers that was campaigning
against the rule change. Plus, just because
Corzine was pushing back on the rule change
doesn't necessarily mean that there was
something underhanded going on -- in fact, it
could be said that he wouldn't be doing his job
as CEO if he didn't advocate for the company
when regulations threatened to crimp the
business.
Not that the CFTC has been helpful in clearing
up the misunderstanding around rule 1.25. In a
very desperate-seeming move after MF Global's
collapse, the regulator passed the "MF Global
rule" which went ahead with the previously
considered changes and curtailed futures brokers'
ability to invest in sovereign debt or borrow
money from customer accounts via repurchase
transactions. We believe that it will eventually be
revealed that what was permitted under rule 1.25
was not the cause of MF Global's missing funds,
which will also show that the CFTC's rush to
implement the "MF Global rule" was a cheap ploy
to save face and make it look like the regulator
was doing something in response to MF Global's
collapse.
And all of the rest
In our conversations with MF Global customers,
former employees, regulators, lawyers, and other
experts, it seemed at times that there were as
many theories about the missing money as there
are sweaters in Jon Corzine's closet. Some were
simply variations of the scenarios presented
above. Others were far more creative and
sounded more like something out of a John
Grisham novel.
With significant facts still yet to be uncovered, it's
certainly possible that something surprising, or
even bizarre, happened here. As they say, fact is
often stranger than fiction. However, at the time
of this writing, we believe that one of the
scenarios presented above will eventually be
proven by investigators.
But no matter what happened to the money, MF
Global customers have had to deal with the fact
that a huge amount of money is missing and
much of the rest of their deposited funds were
frozen for an extended period of time. This has
created hardship for thousands of customers that
were directly involved with MF Global.
Furthermore, it has had a chilling effect that
reaches much more broadly than MF Global, as
futures traders all over the country wonder
whether this might be a sign that the system is
simply broken.
Comment