Allen Stanford is a bad man.
A US court this week sentenced him to 110 years in prison for running a USD$7 billion Ponzi scheme.
Just how bad is he?
According to the US District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, it recommended an even heavier sentence:
‘Robert Allen Stanford is a ruthless predator responsible for one of the most egregious frauds in history, and he should be sentenced to the statutory maximum sentence of 230 years’ imprisonment.’
But what did he do that was so bad?
We’ll get to that in a moment. Before we do, in yesterday’s Money Morning we missed out a key part of a quote that renders the quote meaningless. The missing piece was in a quote from Bank of England governor, Mervyn King’s speech in 2007.
To read the full article again, including the missing section, click here…
Back to Stanford. Where do we start…? Put simply, Stanford operated a bank that, like most banks, sought to attract savers. Savers deposited cash and were told they would get a 3-4% return on their money.
This return was higher than other banks ‘supposedly because of low taxes and the bank’s low overhead.’
According to court files, Stanford claimed his bank ‘invested in highly liquid, safe, conservative stocks, bonds and precious metals; made no loans unless they were secured by an equal amount in cash, and therefore incurred no credit risk.’
But what actually happened to investor money is completely different. And it led the US District Court to call him a ‘ruthless predator’.
According to the court files…
‘Prior to 1990, Stanford began diverting depositor funds into various speculative real estate ventures he personally owned. By late 1990, at least half the bank’s reported assets did not exist…
‘By February 2009, Stanford had sunk over $2 billion in depositor funds into various failing businesses he owned, including, among other things: restaurants, regional airlines, a newspaper, and a host of companies which were not even actual businesses but which existed solely to hold title for tax purposes to Standford’s fleet of jets and boats.’
The files continue…
‘By 2008, Stanford was stealing $1 million a day from the bank to keep his failing personal businesses open.’
And…
‘When a potential depositor wanted to confirm the existence of the purported issuer of the insurance policy, Stanford admitted to Davis that the policy was fake and had Davis fly to London for a day to fax a false confirmation of the insurance company’s existence from a cubicle which Stanford rented.’
What else did Stanford do with the money he stole? The court files state…
‘He purchased suits from Bijan, a private Beverly Hills clothier that advertised itself as the world’s “most expensive” mens clothing store…He used his planes to fly a tailor from Bergdorf Goodman to his Miami and Antigua homes for measurements, regularly flew bottled artesian water to his home in St. Croix, flew fish for his koi pond…
‘In Antigua, he became a one-man stimulus package, eventually becoming the largest employer after the government. He developed a massive complex adjacent to the airport, constructing large, impressive buildings to headquarter his various businesses, complete with their own water treatment facility. Stanford also became a leading patron of cricket, building an enormous stadium and sponsoring the Stanford 20/20 cricket tournament with a $20 million prize.’
The list goes on. And you get the idea.
The thing is, like Bernie Madoff, if it wasn’t for the 2008 financial meltdown and investors redeeming investments for the safety of cash, Stanford’s Ponzi scheme wouldn’t have unravelled.
And they would probably still be taking investor money now.
If the court files are right, Stanford started swiping money from investors in 1990. So he had gotten away with it for 18 years before he was rumbled.
But this is more than just a crook taking savings from innocent people. It’s an extreme example of how any large deposit-taking institution works.
Look, we’re not saying the banks take your savings and use it to line their own pockets. That they buy private jets, boats and $10,000 suits with your savings.
But at the heart of the Stanford Ponzi scheme is one incontestable fact: investors couldn’t get their hands on their money when they asked for it.
And that’s no different to any large bank anywhere in the world. If too many customers try to withdraw their savings, the bank will run out of cash, simply because the money won’t be there…
Banks take deposits, create new money and then lend it out so borrowers can buy a house, car, boat or expensive suit.
But when it comes down to it, a typical bank holds less than 5% of its depositors’ obligations in the form of cash or cash-like instruments. In other words, if savers try to withdraw in cash 6% of the total savings held by a bank, the bank would have to close its doors.
The bank wouldn’t have the cash to cover its obligations.
So, even though we agree that Stanford is a crook for swiping $7 billion of savers money to fritter away on trinkets, we still can’t help think that Stanford’s business model isn’t a million miles away from most banks’ business models…
Luring investors with higher interest rates and then divvying the cash out to those who would like to spend it. In Stanford’s case, he divvied it out to himself…in the case of banks, the cash goes to the millions of borrowers, with no guarantee the loans will ever be repaid.
Madoff and Stanford were caught out because investors wanted more safety for their money. As the markets remain volatile and the solvency of financial institutions is questioned worldwide, it’s only a matter of time before more mainstream banks go to the wall.
You’re seeing that happen in Europe right now. And if there are a string of bank collapses there, it could have a knock-on effect and put a question mark over the entire global banking system.
Don’t assume your money is safe in any bank when that happens. So make sure you hold assets outside the banking system if you want to avoid a complete wipe-out when the global financial system breaks down.
Cheers,
Kris.
The Most Important Story This Week…
Money Morning editor Dr. Alex Cowie has written recently about the market for the strategic metal graphite. This is in short supply. Investors who took positions in graphite stocks have made lucrative returns recently as the market scrambled to buy into the latest hot sector. A similar shortage exists in the tungsten market. Tungsten is a vital metal but China produces 80% of the world’s supply.
The Chinese officials have imposed strict export quotas to shut out most foreign buyers. The crunch in supply is sending the tungsten price higher and higher. It’s another signal that the bull market in tungsten is set to get very hot in the near future. That means the hunt is on for explorers to find resources elsewhere. Get the full story in Why Warren Buffett is Loading Up on Tungsten
Other Recent Highlights…
Kris Sayce on Australian Housing – How to Avoid This Pauper’s Retirement Trap: “In fact, if The Australian and Fitch Ratings are right, Aussie sub-prime lending was or is only slightly lower than US sub-prime lending levels. So rather than the banks being more prudent with borrowing standards, they were knee deep in dodgy loan applications.”
John Stepek on The Hidden Cost of the Spanish Bailout: “By bailing out the banks this way… private sector lenders have been pushed down the line for payback. In other words, lending to Spain has just become even more risky. And by extension, so has every other European sovereign that might potentially need a bailout.”
Dr. Alex Cowie on Why Graphite is One of the Few Places For Savvy Investors to Make Money: “People are being very quick to brush graphite off as a bubble. The quick assumption is that it is ‘the new rare earths’. Some similarities are there: both are obscure strategic minerals, both are controlled by China, and both sectors went off like a rocket. There is one very important difference.”
Greg Canavan on Why You Should Wish For a Falling Market: “This obviously matters for Australians. Every time Europe flashes red, global markets swoon. Our market and economy – perched on the edge of the world, open and exposed – seem to cop the brunt of the fallout. That won’t change anytime soon.”