Here's some potentially VERY good economic news that was lost amid the weekend news flurry.  Those…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Some Potentially VERY Good Economic News

Here's some potentially VERY good economic news that was lost amid the weekend news flurry.  Those with "skin in the game," and who likely possess the best perspective, are betting heavily on an upturn, as highlighted by Friday's Wall Street Journal:

Corporate insiders are buying stock in their own companies at a pact not seen in years, a sign they are betting on a rebound after a coronavirus-induced rout.  More than 2,800 executives and directors have purchased nearly $1.19 billion in company stock since the beginning of March.  That's the third-highest level on both an individual and dollar basis since 1988, according to the Washington Service, which provides data analytics about trading activity by insiders."

Here's why that's important:

Because insiders typically know the…[more]

March 30, 2020 • 11:02 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Federal Regulators Repeatedly Failed to Stop Bernard Madoff - But Now Want Even More Control Over Our Lives? Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, September 10 2009
The Post Office, Social Security and Medicare now run accounting deficits that would land a CEO in prison if attempted with a private enterprise.

The embarrassing saga of federal regulators’ failure to stop Bernard Madoff’s multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme despite multiple inquiries and tips provides a very timely lesson.  

This week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a 477-page report admitting that it overlooked repeated tips and red flags on Mr. Madoff dating all the way back to 1992.  At that time, the SEC investigated two Florida accountants who had funneled dollars to Madoff, but curiously chose to prosecute the accountants while taking no action against Mr. Madoff.

According to their new report, no fewer than 25 people “relied upon the SEC’s 1992 public statement that there was nothing to indicate fraud” and consequently reinvested directly with Mr. Madoff. 

This was only one of many examples of bureaucratic incompetence. 

A May 21, 2003 email from an unnamed hedge fund manager to an SEC investigator explicitly alerted the SEC to “indicia of a Ponzi scheme,” including the facts that Madoff’s accounts were always in cash at the end of each month, replacement capital constantly existed and no other market strategy matched Madoff’s. 

In other words, the anonymous hedge fund manager all but led the proverbial SEC horse to water.  Inexplicably, however, the SEC decided to disregard the allegation. 

Another anonymous complaint to the SEC warned of a “scandal of major proportion” looming within the Madoff scheme, prompting a call from an SEC investigator to Mr. Madoff’s attorney.  When Madoff’s attorney calmly assured the investigator that Madoff didn’t manage the complaining party’s investments, the investigator inexplicably discontinued the inquiry. 

Other inquiries by the SEC similarly “never found any real problems,” according to the report. 

Only when Madoff’s sons directly confronted authorities in December 2008 and informed them that their father had confessed to his scheme did government regulators understand what had been right under their noses for years.  As we all now know, Madoff was ultimately convicted of orchestrating the largest investor fraud scheme ever committed by an individual, with losses totaling approximately $65 billion. 

As bureaucrats continue their campaign to suffocate all remaining vestiges of individual freedom in America, this failure by SEC overlords vividly illustrates Big Government’s incompetence and inefficiency despite promises to protect our best interests. 

Although Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their chorus never miss an opportunity to mischaracterize Madoff’s fraud as an example of private market failure, they conveniently ignore federal bureaucrats’ failure to stop him, not to mention the fact that everything he did was already illegal. 

Ignoring this, Congressman Barney Frank and advocates of greater regulation of our lives contend that new governmental powers and bureaucracies are necessary to prevent this from happening again. 

But didn’t they say the same thing in 2002, when they passed Sarbanes-Oxley? 

That law, also known as the Public Company Accounting and Investor Protection Act of 2002, came in reaction to the 2000-2001 tech bubble, as well as the accounting scandals emanating from Enron, Adelphia and Tyco, among others.  Big-government advocates assured us that it would prevent these sorts of frauds and collapses from happening again, and President Bush labeled it “the most far-reaching reform of American business practices since Franklin D. Roosevelt.” 

It’s not mere coincidence that we hear the same references to Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Depression today, as Rahm Emanuel’s boss Barack Obama seeks to not let this latest crisis go to waste. 

In the end, of course, Sarbanes-Oxley failed to prevent the latest round of market bubbles, accounting scandals and fraudulent schemes such as Bernard Madoff’s.  It did, however, impose unprecedented levels of bureaucratic red tape, compliance costs, intrusion into private enterprises and drove businesses to relocate from American stock exchanges to foreign markets.  Sarbanes-Oxley led to a tripling in the number of American businesses de-registering from public stock exchanges in just the first year, and drastically reduced the number of new listings overall.  

All the while, the Post Office, Social Security and Medicare now run accounting deficits that would land a CEO in prison if attempted with a private enterprise. 

It’s all something to consider as Washington seeks to commandeer our healthcare industry, the Internet, energy sector and other vast swaths of our lives before the end of this calendar year.  Bureaucratic incompetence isn’t limited to investigations of Ponzi schemes or delivery of the mail.  

If it is allowed to spread to the healthcare industry, it will ultimately leave its mark on our very lives and health.

Question of the Week   
In which one of the following years did Congress first meet in Washington, D.C.?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"New York Governor Andrew Cuomo called on the federal government to take control of the medical supply market. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker demanded that President Trump take charge and said 'precious months' were wasted waiting for federal action. Some critics are even more direct in demanding a federal takeover, including a national quarantine.It is the legal version of panic shopping. Many seem…[more]
 
 
—Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
— Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
 
Liberty Poll   

Who is most to blame for the delay in passage of the critical coronavirus economic recovery (or stimulus) bill?