Does Wealth = Intelligence? The SEC Thinks So

 
Read/Post Comments
 
 


  Get our Newsletter


 
 
  Get our RSS Feed
 
 

Add to: Facebook Add to: Digg Add to: Del.icoi.us Add to: Reddit Add to: StumbleUpon Add to: Yahoo Add to: Google

by John Jagerson

There are a lot of traders and politicians out there wondering how exactly it is possible that Bernie Madoff could have operated his ponzi scam for so long and on such a large scale even though whistle blowers like Harry Markopolos were informing the SEC for years that there was wrong-doing. There are some obvious and systemic answers to that question and it is important to understand why from the perspective of a concerned citizen as well as an investor.Scams





Obviously, part of the problem is that the SEC investigators are not competent financial professionals. An agency largely comprised of lawyers could not reasonably be expected to understand the kinds of complex transactions now standard in the financial markets much less be able to tell whether they are honest or not. Learn more about identifying investing scams here.

The second reason could be considered even more alarming. The SEC regulates who may and may not invest in private financial investments like Madoff's. According to the SEC, only rich people should be considered intelligent enough to either understand complex private investments or to hire someone that is competent to explain it to them. If you are not rich you cannot be expected to understand investing and therefore should be protected from yourself.

Currently you must have a net worth of $1MM and income of $200,000 a year. If you are married, your spouse must also pass an intelligence test by adding $100,000 a year to your income before qualifying to make investment decisions in the private market. Currently about 8% of the U.S. population would be able to qualify. There is a proposal from the SEC to increase those restrictions so that only 1% of the population would qualify.

Unless you believe that wealth does make you smart enough to evaluate investment opportunities, the issue here is that they are using an erroneous measure to determine whether investors are qualified. The measure clearly has no correlation with intelligence or the ability to make wise investing decisions, a stupid person can inherit millions of dollars and become qualified while an intelligent professor of finance may not be.

Operating with biases like this impairs the SEC's ability to understand what is going on in the world of finance. Not understanding what investors are like leads to bad methodologies for regulation and enforcement. If you make assumptions that a certain portion of the population is more qualified over another based on bank accounts investigation priorities will be skewed and you will operate with blind-spots that allow scammers like Madoff and many others currently operating to flourish.
Comments Add New
Brian  - you're thinking of qualified investors   |2009-02-06 06:08:29
John,

The $1M/$200k requirement is for qualified investors. Madoff wasn't
running a hedge fund, only a managed fund, hence this requirement didn't come
into play.

"Hedge funds are supposed to only be for "qualified
investors", but gradually more and more small investors have found ways to
get in, either through fund of funds, **or by other kinds of pools as in the
case of Madoff.**"

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/15/
magazines/fortune/madoff.fortune/
John Jagerson  - Accredited Investors   |2009-02-06 08:45:40
I disagree but perhaps a clarification would be good.

1. I was think I
actually said "accredited investors" in the video, which is the original
model that the SEC mirrored for the "qualified purchaser" requirements,
which is what you referred to. The two are equivalent and essentially synonyms
so I suppose either word choice would work for the purposes of this article.


2. I used the euphemisms of "private market" or "private
investments" in the article to stand for the broad spectrum of investments
that fall into categories that require qualification. "Reg D" offerings
are a more well known example. Madoff's company, over its history, offered a
variety of investment services. Many of these services/investments definitely
required qualification or accreditation of any individual investors. The list of
some of these investors was made available yesterday and the highlights are sort
John Jagerson  - Accredited Investors - Continued   |2009-02-06 08:46:51
The list of some of these investors was made available yesterday and the
highlights are sort of interesting (in a morbid way.)

3. My point remains the
same. The SEC considers qualified/accredited investors as more sophisticated
(smarter) than those who do not have that level of capital. This is a
fundamental flaw. Logic like this is representative of how the SEC investigates
and enforces. How can that be relied upon? This is the point of the article.
J. Natez   |2009-02-09 17:56:38
As a humble observer (and trader) of the capital markets, and it's more than
vast opportunities, one has long noted the financial ignorance of most of the
population. John, you are to be applauded for your efforts. Know that you have
compatriots; among them, one Robert Kiyosaki- he of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"
fame. Then there are those who are active in the trading field, who are glad to
inform the public of what is really available. It may well be that financial
education- or, the notable lack thereof-will become a major political issue in
the United States. There is a certain political party that banks on continued
financial ignorance in order to effect it's agenda. So those of us who are among
The Genuinely Concerned must put out the clarion call for financial education
for the people. It will save not only Joe and Judy Sixpack from another
Enron,but from the Bernie Madoff's of the world, too. Keep up the good work.
E. P. McMinn  - Does Wealth = Intelligence?   |2009-02-10 02:44:07
Perhaps the SEC in its infinite wisdom meant "accredited investors"
were qualified to lose more money. IMHO it is GREED not intelligence that feeds
all Ponzi schemes and, thus, cannot be legislated.
John Jagerson  - Wealth   |2009-02-10 02:50:59
Yeah I agree with the greed comment - there is a sucker born every minute... and
unfortunately they allow themselves to become victims.
Brian  - Re: Accredited Investors   |2009-02-10 16:01:42
John,

My point was really just to counter this statement in your
article:

"The SEC regulates who may and may not invest in private
financial investments like Madoff's. "

That is not exactly true. Anyone
could have invested with Madoff, the recently released client unfortunately
shows why.
John Jagerson  - Accredited   |2009-02-11 02:52:36
Yeah - that is true. There were some services and investments offered by the
Madoff firm that were available to just about anyone but not all or even most
over the firms history.
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Title:
 
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.
Comments deemed inappropriate will be removed

3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 

  Learning Markets Partners                                                                                                                                           More Partners   |  Become a Partner
 

 
 
 
 
Learn to Invest   |   Reviews of Stock Brokers   |   Stock Picks   |   Technical Analysis   |   Broker News   |   Investor Education   |   What to Invest In   |   Live Market Analysis   |   Should I Invest?