Hold ’em or fold ’em Bear Stearns style

Former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Martin Tannin were arrested yesterday at their homes in New Jersey and Manhattan, and charged by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Brooklyn with securities fraud in connection with the allegation that they lied to investors about the health and safety of their funds. The indictment alleges that even though they knew the market for securitized interests in subprime mortgages was in dire trouble, Cioffi and Tannin told investors that the funds were in good shape, excellent buying opportunities existed, and they themselves invested their own money in the funds and added to their positions. Meanwhile, the charges cite emails between the two saying the subprime market was “toast” and the funds were in deep trouble. Ostensibly, the managers failed to disclose to remaining investors that others had withdrawn significant amounts from the funds. Lawyers for both men have denounced the prosecution’s case. One of Cioffi’s lawyers, Edward Little, stated: “Because his funds were the first to lose might make him an easy target, but doesn’t mean he did anything wrong.”

The issue in this case will be the extent to which it is proper for an investment adviser to characterize risk in a positive way and encourage investment while still maintaining personal doubts about the viability of a particular market. This is not a case of premeditated fraud in which phony companies were set up and flat-out lies were told to investors. To what extent can an adviser remain upbeat in the face of a declining financial situation in the hope that things will come around or a downturn will present a real buying opportunity? The massive extent of the subprime failure was beyond anyone’s crystal ball capabilities to predict. Now, in order to give the appearance of punishing those responsible, federal prosecutors are bent on dissecting every move these beleaguered advisers made. As I told the Newark Star Ledger, this effort to clean up Dodge is misguided. CR

Subprime debut?

Kate Kelly reports in today’s Wall Street Journal that indictments appear to be near in the year-long investigation of former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin. It was the collapse of their funds in July 2007 that marked the beginning of the current credit crisis.

The probe by the Brooklyn U.S. Attorney’s office focuses on the management of two high-profile bond portfolios. The issue is whether Cioffi and Tannin misled investors in these portfolios by misrepresenting the status and safety of the investments, which were tied to the mortgage and credit markets. Around the same time that Cioffi told investors he was “cautiously optimistic” about the safety of the instruments, he was moving $2 million of his own money out of one of the troubled funds. Then these markets plummeted, igniting broad problems within the economy.

This case is being closely watched on Wall Street. If these indictments are obtained, they would represent the first charges against executives in connection with the subprime mortgage market meltdown. This might signal a willingness on the part of prosecutors to aggressively pursue more cases against individual executives in connection with the broad failures in mortgage-related securities.

A few months ago, Cioffi was said to be planning an aggressive defense. One potential avenue will certainly be the unexpected and massive nature of the subprime credit failure. How could anyone have predicted its breadth and power? Moreover, simply because a manager decides to move his own money, this does not make him a liar. Why can’t he be both “guardedly optimistic” as a matter of professional opinion and extraordinarily cautious with his own dough?

For more on the potential for individual prosecutions in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis and the available defenses, there is an article in this month’s Corporate Counselor newsletter with my byline on it. I don’t claim to have a crystal ball, and I promise not to say I told you so if there is an indictment. CR

I’ve got a secret.

The SEC has refused a congressional request to disclose why it dropped its investigation into Bear Stearns’s valuation of bundles of subprime mortgage securities called collateralized debt obligations, according to a story in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. In an April 2 letter to SEC Inspector General David Kotz, Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley requested “a thorough investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the agency’s decision not to pursue enforcement action” against the defunct Wall Street firm. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox responded on April 16 that “the Commission does not disclose the existence or nonexistence of an investigation or information generated in any investigation unless made a matter of public record in proceedings brought before the Commission or the courts.” The war over access to this information is expected to continue.

Most of the time I fight with the SEC. But here I agree with Chairman Cox’s position. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York is investigating the very same issues that the Senate Finance Committee is seeking to have disclosed by the SEC. It’s no secret that the SEC and federal prosecutors work very closely together on many investigations. Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits unauthorized “leaking” of secret grand jury proceedings. If there is any overlap of confidential facts developed by both the SEC and the U.S. Attorney about the Bear Stearns investigation, there could virtually be a Rule 6 violation if the information is released to the Senate. Individuals and companies under investigation are entitled to protection until and unless allegations are made public by way of a formal accusation. CR