2008年十大厚颜排行榜

 

市

场的崩塌暴露出了许多人的真嘴脸。人们一向认为华尔街是个自负和贪婪横溢的地方,而在2008年,一些公众人物的言行把他们的厚颜提到了一个新高度。这些家伙的所作所为让大多数投资者着实想给他们一顿老拳,这也难怪。读者们,如果你们有其他建议,尽管在文章后面的评论里提出来。

1.伯纳德路马多夫(Bernard Madoff)



跟马多夫相比,这个名单上的其他任何人都会相形见绌。这位金融市场的元老级人物被控玩弄了一场庞氏骗局,而且这并非是因为他试图掩饰在2008年的市场搏奕中的几次失利。据马多夫自己承认,他至少损失了500亿美元投资,而他之前数十年的经验为他赢得了很多的赏识和尊敬。因此,投资他旗下基金的人对他是毫无保留地信任,极少有人想到过要怀疑什么。偶有怀疑者也没能引起监管部门的重视;而马多夫从不解释他的投资策略,而这一点本应成为引起投资者警觉的第一个报警信号(实际上只要这个信号就足够了)。



2. 肯路刘易斯(Ken Lewis),美国银行(Bank of America)首席执行长



刘易斯11月时曾说,他不赞成救助汽车业,称“美国人民对只给更多钱而不帮助他们改变的做法不感兴趣”。他解释这话(难以置信的是,他是在底特律经济俱乐部里说这番话的)的意思说,他只是想用所谓的‘严厉的爱'的方式来确保汽车业能生存下来。这就是富人。当然,美国银行自己已从财政部的问题资产救助计划(TARP)里拿到了150亿美元(超过对通用汽车和克莱斯勒的137亿美元首批注资),而且,它不必对其债务结构、工作规章和人员薪酬(其实也就是高管薪酬上限)进行大规模调整。当银行业获得救助时,就说是为了保护金融系统的完善。而当谈到救助别人时,道德危害、责任缺失、干预资本主义突然间就成了压倒一切的首要问题。

3. 美国国际集团(American International Group,简称AIG)



在联邦政府对其实施救助行动之后不到一周,AIG就安排其管理人士到加利福尼亚一处奢华的度假地开会,花费为44万美元。各位,这次度假在多大程度上是以前就订好的或者它对谁有好处并不重要,重要的是,在你从纳税人那里拿到了1,200亿美元(后来又追加到1,700亿美元)的救助资金之后,你该做的就是取消这类轻浮的休闲活动。追加救助资金是另一件让人们感到愕然的事,政府追加贷款是为降低利率,而政府也保证要提供更多抵押。耶夫路史密斯(Yves Smith)在《赤裸的资本主义》(Naked Capitalism)中写道,对从TARP得到救助资金的银行,其在美国的每位按揭借款人都应该给他们的议员写信,问问为什么他们的利率不能下调近一半。今年早些时候,AIG称其在衍生品头寸上的110亿美元损失“没有实质影响”的。这话真要把人雷倒了。



4. 规则?



我们不需要规则!就在按揭领域一败涂地的时候,联邦储蓄监管机构(Office of Thrift Supervision)居然还允许处于困境的贷款银行IndyMac Bank将一笔注入资本作倒签处理,从而使其财务状况看起来比实际情况更健康。亲自批准这一做法的是达瑞尔路道丘(Darrel Dochow),八、九十年代存贷款危机期间他曾任联邦住房贷款银行委员会(Federal Home Loan Bank Board)监管和督查部门负责人。IndyMac 7月份就破产了。Fusion IQ证券研究部主任巴里路瑞索兹(Barry Ritholtz)在其博客中写道:我一直试图找出谁是这场灾难中最大的愚蛋。



5. 花旗集团(Citigroup)



先别管该公司今年的业绩有多可怕。《华尔街日报》曾援引知情人士说,11月时,花旗曾试图让有关作空金融股的禁令得以恢复。一位了解花旗在这方面游说工作的人士说:“你可能会觉得,监管部门会希望发挥领导作用,保护金融服务领域的完善”。那你可能也会想,激烈争论自由市场完整性的人应该也希望保护这些市场。



6. 克里路基林格(Kerry Killinger)



这位华盛顿互惠银行(Washington Mutual)的首席执行长2007年任职期间公司股价下跌七成,但他为自己设计了一个很不错的2008年奖金计划。要拿到这些奖金,他需要落实一些年度目标。唯一的问题是,挂钩目标中除了信用卡相关准备金和止赎相关费用之外,不包括贷款损失准备金。该公司2008年3月提交的监管文件称,董事会可以调整财务结果以消除:对重组、中止经营、非经常项目的支出,以及可定为非经常性或非平常性的利得、损失或费用等;不经常发生的项目;与一项业务的处置有关的费用;或与会计准则调整有关的项目。这基本上就是说,基林格的奖金需要满足的条件都是容易的好事,没有一件坏事。不过这一切最后没实现,因为公司被接管了,余下的部分卖给了摩根大通(J.P. Morgan Chase)。

7. 杰洛米路科维尔(Jerome Kerviel)



现在回过头来看,对科维尔的指控近乎荒唐。今年1月,这家法国兴业银行(Societe Generale)的交易员在巴黎被捕,控方怀疑他通过在该行的违规交易造成70亿美元损失。



8. 约翰路塞恩( John Thain)



塞恩的确可能是最精明的交易家,他在最佳的可能时机将美林(Merrill Lynch)卖给了美国银行。但他在当前形势下还要求拿到1,000万美元的奖金,也真够张狂的。最后,塞恩做出了他能做的唯一选择,而且这个选择也比其他许多的选择都好。不过,只是(让美林)生存下来不值1,000万美元。



9. 比尔路格罗斯(Bill Gross)



这位债券领域的大亨、Pacific Investment Management Co.长期以来的公众面孔,为自己营造出一种沉稳的形象,对所有与经济有关的事情都有智慧、理智的见解。但那并不意味着他不会谈论自己的持仓情况。9月份,他呼吁美国财政部向房利美(Fannie Mae)、房地美(Freddie Mac)和其他通过FHA和其他政府机构发行的补贴住房贷款获得按揭等机构“开放资产负债表”,他称之为“(九十年代联邦金融整顿机构)RTC的二十一世纪住房版”。当然,Pimco彼时正在按揭领域疯狂买进,而且还一直在买进。



10. 房地美首席执行长迪克路西隆(Dick Syron)



西隆8月份说过,“这将是一个极其糟糕的按揭市场,如果你说的是一个没有政府支持企业的按揭市场。”当然这话没错。而且,当然,房地美的所作所为没有一样跟后来爆发的这场混乱有关。

2008 Lookback: Of All the Nerve

 

Market meltdowns have a way of revealing the true nature of many people. It's a given that Wall Street produces more than its fair share of the egotistical and greedy, but in 2008, some public figures, through their actions and statements, managed to set new highs in terms of their sheer audacity. The things done or said by these folks engendered a desire by most of the investing public to slug them, and who would blame them? Readers, if you have other suggestions, as always, include them in comments.



1. Bernard Madoff: Really, everyone else on this list pales in comparison. This elder statesman of the market was allegedly running nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, and not just as a result of trying to cover a few bad bets in 2008. Mr. Madoff, by his own admission, lost at least $50 billion in investments, and his decades-long experience had garnered much appreciation and respect. As a result, investors in his funds trusted him implicitly ─ and very few ever thought to question it. Those that did were ignored by regulators, and Mr. Madoff never explained his strategy, which should have been the first red flag (and really, the only one needed) for investors.



2. Ken Lewis, Bank of America CEO. Mr. Lewis, in November, said he was not in favor of an auto-industry bailout, saying that 'the American people aren't interested in just giving more money and not helping them change.' He explained this statement ─ made, unbelievably, at the Detroit Economic Club ─ by saying that he was 'just trying to make sure the industry survives, with so-called 'tough love.'' That's rich. Of course, Bank of America has been a recipient of $15 billion through the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program (more than the initial $13.7 billion infusion into GM and Chrysler), and has not had to swallow massive changes to its debt structure, work rules and wages, or limits to executive pay, either. When the banking industry gets bailed out, it's to protect the integrity of the financial system. For anyone else, questions of moral hazard, the failure of responsibility, and interference with capitalism suddenly become the overriding issues.



3. American International Group: Less than a week after a federal government bailout, the insurance company sent executives on a $440,000 retreat to a swanky California resort. Folks, it doesn't matter how much of this was planned ahead of time, or who it benefits. When you're getting a $120 billion bailout ─ later revised to $170 billion ─ from taxpayers, you cancel the frivolous parties. The revised bailout was also the source of some consternation, as its government loan was changed to lower the interest rates, and the government pledged more collateral. 'Every mortgage borrower in America whose bank has gotten any money from the TARP should write their Congressman asking to know why they aren't getting their interest rate reduced by nearly half,' wrote Yves Smith on Naked Capitalism. Earlier in the year, the company referred to an $11 billion loss on derivatives exposure as 'not material.' The mind reels.



4. Rules? We Don't Need Rules! At a time when the mortgage industry was collapsing, the Office of Thrift Supervision somehow allowed struggling lender IndyMac Bank to back-date a capital injection to make it seem like it was in sounder financial shape than it actually was. The guy who personally approved it was Darrel Dochow, who was chief of regulation and supervision at the Federal Home Loan Bank Board during the savings-and-loan crisis. IndyMac was seized in July. 'I am trying to figure out who is the biggest jerk in this story,' wrote Barry Ritholtz, director of equity research at Fusion IQ, on his blog.



5. Citigroup: Never mind the horrific results the company has put together this year. In November, according to people familiar with the matter, the Wall Street Journal reported that Citi was trying to get the ban on short-selling in financial stocks reinstated. ''You would think the regulators would want to exercise some leadership and protect the integrity of the financial-services world,' said one person familiar with Citigroup's lobbying efforts. You would think that people who argue heatedly about the integrity of free markets would want to preserve those, too.





6. Kerry Killinger: The Washington Mutual executive, who oversaw a 70% decline in the company share price in 2007, put together quite the bonus package for 2008 based on certain goals met. Only thing is, the goals excluded loan loss provisions other than those related to credit cards and expenses related to foreclosures, and the company's March 2008 regulatory filing said the board could adjust results to 'eliminate the effects of charges for restructurings, discontinued operations, extraordinary items and items of gain, loss or expense determined to be extraordinary or unusual in nature or infrequent in occurrence or related to the disposal of a segment or a business or related to a change in accounting principle.' So basically, Mr. Killinger was in line for a bonus based on all the good stuff, and none of the bad stuff. It was academic anyway, as the company was put in a blender, and what was left was sold to J.P. Morgan Chase.



7. Jerome Kerviel. In retrospect, the charges against Mr. Kerviel seem almost quaint. In January, the Societe Generale trader was arrested in Paris, under suspicions of causing a $7 billion loss through rogue trades at SocGen.



8. John Thain: Mr. Thain indeed may have been the shrewdest operator, selling Merrill Lynch to Bank of America at about the best possible time. But he still had the chutzpah to ask for a $10 million bonus as a result. In the end, perhaps Mr. Thain made the only choice he felt could have been made, and it was a better one than many others. Still, mere survival isn't worth $10 million.



9. Bill Gross: The bond guru, the long-time public face of Pacific Investment Management Co., has cultivated a steady persona as an intelligent, cerebral voice on all matters economic. But that doesn't mean he won't talk his position, either. In September, he called on the U.S. Treasury to 'open up the balance sheet' to the likes of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, but also a multitude of other people with mortgages 'via subsidized home loans issued by the FHA and other government institutions,' calling it a '21st century housing-related version of the RTC.' Of course, Pimco was at the time buying like mad in the mortgage space, and has continued to do so.



10. Freddie Mac CEO Dick Syron: In August, Mr. Syron said that 'this would be an extremely ugly mortgage market, if you were looking at a mortgage market now that ─ that didn't have the GSEs.' Of course it would be. And of course, none of Freddie's actions had anything to do with the mess that erupted, either.



David Gaffen