Showing posts with label Raj Rajaratnam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Raj Rajaratnam. Show all posts

Friday, November 18, 2011

Good News: Even When They're Given Inside Information, Politicians Are Hapless Traders

Frustrated that politicians can trade on inside information and you can't? Take heart: they're so hapless, they can't make money from it.

Read the full post in Forbes

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Gupta's Charges Latest Sign that Goldman's Board Too Cozy

By Eric Jackson03/01/11 - 04:35 PM EST

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- The news that the Securities and Exchange Commission was charging the former head of McKinsey & Co., Rajat Gupta, with insider trading for tipping off hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam were shocking.

Gupta was a blue-chip business executive. McKinsey's corporate reputation as an adviser has been beyond reproach prior to this (although another lower-level McKinsey consultant was swept up in this sameGalleon probe earlier). He moved in rarefied corporate circles since leaving the top job at McKinsey.

Gupta had served as a corporate director forGoldman Sachs (GS_) and Procter & Gamble(PG_) and is also a board member of AMR(AMR_). He'd advised the World Economic Forum and the United Nations' Secretary General.

If Rajat Gupta is tipping off hedge fund buddies, an observer must ask: How pervasive is this kind of insider trading among other corporate executives and directors?

We will likely never know the full answer to that question, but I had previously criticized Goldman Sachs for allowing Gupta to serve on its board more than 18 months ago. I said the board was too cozy with old friends of Goldman and people who were ill-equipped to strongly question the strategy of the firm presented by CEO Lloyd Blankfein and COO Gary Cohn.

I said that Gupta was likely someone who had personally consulted for Goldman for years (for compensation, of course). Even though I thought that Gupta would try to fulfill his job as a director in a professional manner, any human would feel beholden to a former client (Blankfein and Cohn), especially in a role (as director) that brings good compensation and unspokenopportunities to invest in different opportunities that Goldman uniquely has access to (like the recent private investment in Facebook for example) and general prestige that would be associated with the job.

I also disliked that Goldman's board had five former or current CEOs who were also presumably former Goldman clients, including current ArcelorMittal (MT_) CEO Lakshmi Mittal, Colgate-Palmolive's(CL_) former COO, Lois Juliber, former chairman and CEO ofFannie Mae (FNM_) James Johnson, former CEO of Medtronic(MDT_) William George, and former Chairman and CEO of Sara Lee (SLE_) John Bryan.

They could also have a hard time saying "no" to Blankfein and Cohn, for the same reasons Gupta would.


.......

[** This post is an excerpt of the full article, which is available on TheStreet.com by clicking here. Free Site.**]

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Video: Gupta's Charges Latest Sign that Goldman's Board Too Cozy



Contributor Eric Jackson says that the SEC's charges against Rajat Gupta show that boards have become too cozy with directors who swap information and pat each other on the back for their brilliance. It's been obvious for a while that Goldman Sachs board - on which Gupta used to serve - needs major reform.
Tue 03/01/11 16:56 PM EST -- Eric Jackson
Stocks in this video: GS | MDT | WMT | SLE | PG | MT | CL

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

What Galleon Teaches Us

By Eric Jackson
11/04/09 - 06:00 AM EST

Stock quotes in this article: AMD , INTC , IBM

The government's case against Raj Rajaratnam, founder of hedge fund Galleon Group, on the charge of insider trading alleges that the hedge fund manager's primary competitive advantage for investors was a web of connections close to or inside technology companies feeding him illegal tips on future directions of the companies' stock prices.

What's shocking is how Rajaratnam is accused of having, over at least 10 years, cultivated a network of insiders feeding him nonpublic information about future earnings announcements from public companies like AMD(AMD Quote) (including its former CEO), IBM (IBM Quote) Intel(INTC Quote) and some of their most prestigious advisers like McKinsey & Co.

Why would so many bright, high-ranking people at such successful companies get caught up in such activities? Perhaps they craved access to a man whom Forbes recently ranked as the 262nd richest American, worth $1.8 billion and in the top 40 of hedge fund managers.

In a recent PBS "Frontline" episode on Alan Greenspan, the program made the allegation that the former Federal Reserve chief and acolyte of free marketer Ayn Rand had once joked with former head of the CFTC, Brooksley Born, that the two of them would never get along because she believed in prosecuting capital markets crimes and he didn't. He supposedly went on to explain that his strong faith in free markets made him believe that it was unnecessary to go after white-collar criminals through any kind of enforcement program.

Instead, Greenspan believed that market participants would ferret out ill-gotten gains and punish those people for their crimes by starving them of future capital. Such efficiencies would likely occur before the governmental regulatory body even knew something nefarious was going on.

Although I'm a proponent of unencumbered free markets, this point of view, whether Greenspan held it or not, is laughable. Bernie Madoff has blown this argument out of the water. And now we have the case of Rajaratnam, his decade old hedge fund, and his alleged 10 years of generating alpha through profiting on illegal insider information.

As a hedge fund manager, I look positively on this development. If illegal activity is going on by fund managers, it deserves to be highlighted and prosecuted. Investors will learn to ask tougher questions as part of their due diligence, and capital will ultimately flow away from managers posting false performance numbers to those who are truly generating alpha.

The hedge fund industry has to be one of the most Darwinian industries of any in the world. You don't get to keep your job by being the boss' son or being friendly with the right managers above you. You get to keep your job (and paid well if you do it consistently) by beating the market. You lose your job otherwise.

Perhaps because of the big potential rewards for success, it shouldn't be surprising that some aspiring and existing managers would try to bend the rules to get or stay on top. What this case shows is that ethical managers and investors are better off with a strong enforcement office at the SEC. The industry itself is not going to highlight the next cheater and investors -- even very sophisticated ones -- cannot do this themselves.

I know many hedge fund managers who've expressed mixed feelings about the Galleon case. They're happy that illegal activities by their competitors are being halted, but they worry the case will inspire more unnecessary red tape and heavy-handed oversight. The SEC is faced with a challenge in keeping ahead of the latest and greatest tricks employed by some managers to gain a performance edge.

However, the agency appears to have been pretty creative in coming up with some ways of identifying and tracking alleged illegal behavior in the Galleon case. Hopefully, it will begin to hire more people in the enforcement division with real-world Wall Street experience and not just more bureaucratic lawyers, as was criticized by Harry Markopolos in the Madoff case.

There's been a lot of discussion of getting hedge funds to register with the SEC as an important way for the agency to keep tabs on the potential risk these funds pose to the financial system. It's important, therefore, to realize that Galleon was registered -- its assets under management at one point last year topped $3 billion. More budget resources targeted towards enforcement would be taxpayer money better spent than registration for registration's sake.

Finally, a word of caution on the Galleon case. Although criminality ought to always be prosecuted to the fullest extent, Galleon and Rajaratnam deserve the right to defend themselves in court. What if they are innocent, after having announced they would be winding down the firm two business days after news of the arrests first broke? Could they ever truly be made whole by the SEC if that happened? That Orwellian possibility should send shivers down the spines of hedge fund managers everywhere.

Mark Cuban has never run a hedge fund, but what if he had when the SEC came after him last year for purportedly trading on insider information in the small-cap stock Mamma.com? If he'd had a hedge fund at the time, it likely would have also had to be wound down when details of his arrest first emerged. The SEC later dropped the charges, although it recently made some noise about bringing them back.

Wrong-doing deserves to be regulated and prosecuted by the SEC. The government should devote more resources to enforcement with the best qualified people involved. A few correct convictions will have a ripple effect throughout the hedge fund industry and discourage illicit behavior.

However, the SEC needs to realize it is playing with people's lives and livelihoods here. Investors will -- understandably -- redeem first and ask questions later when the agency launches actions against a fund or fund manager. They have a responsibility to do their jobs to the best of their abilities, as do hedge fund managers and senior executives within public companies.

Jackson's fund holds no positions in the stocks mentioned.

Eric Jackson is founder and president of Ironfire Capital and the general partner and investment manager of Ironfire Capital US Fund LP and Ironfire Capital International Fund, Ltd.

Sphere: Related Content