From 2002 to 2007, Citi raised $2.8 billion from clients to invest in a couple of fund series called MAT Finance LLC, which invested in municipal bonds and was eventually leveraged 8:1 and Falcon, which invested in mortgage debt. Despite the former being marketed as “an attractive alternative to a bond index” and the latter receiving an S&P rating “equivalent to safe, medium-term government bonds,” anyone who bet on the funds lost what might be characterized as “a metric ass-ton of their money.”
For exampe, the funds a team of brokers from Smith Barney put their clients in fell an impressive 80% to 97% from May 2007 to March 2008. Though Citi claims no foul play and offered to cover approximately one-eighth of clients’ losses, the SEC still felt the need to launch an investigation into whether or not the bank’s employees adequately disclosed the funds’ risks and/or mismanaged them. And apparently investors are still pretty miffed about the whole thing, which one broker, Michael Johnston, intuited by the response he got from one when suggesting a sweet buyback deal that would’ve translated to the client only losing 72% and promising not to sue Citi. Continue reading »
Don’t worry, investors, returns are still a’ poppin’. But I cannot in good conscience not let you know that while your money is safe, for now, it’s very likely that your next letter from Chicago is going to be a tear stained one. He’s putting on a brave face, but Ken Griffin is hurting. We’ve just received word that after paying $11.38 million for two lots at the Four Seasons’ Hualalai resort, for the express purpose of being neighbors with Cher, the singer has up and decided to auction off her property next door.
Continue reading »
“I think that the use of the word loss in this case is pejorative and actually not at all accurate,” sniffed [Fortress CEO Wes] Edens to Rashad Fonti, analyst from Citigroup, when the matter of FIG’s public portfolio holdings falling from $7.18 billion to $765 million was brought up in passing.
Fortress CEO to analysts: We don’t call them “losses” [Reuters]
Which hedge fund lost a “metric fuckton” (not to be confused with the somewhat larger “Imperial fuckton”) on their energy desk over the last several days?
Our eyes were already glazed over when we finally turned our attention to the the report released by Société Générale on the Jerome Kerviel scandal. The ocular varnish hardened to opaque as we skimmed through blather about how almost everything had gone right, everyone had done things well, and it was just a few bad eggs. It confirms much of what we had already concluded—that the back office lacked the knowledge and spine to really control the risk of the traders. “In some cases, according to the report, controllers who asked Mr. Kerviel about irregularities in his trades didn’t understand his explanations, but they dropped their inquiries,” the Wall Street Journal writes.
We woke up a bit when we read the Journal’s summary of the report: “The findings are likely to prompt widespread soul-searching within the banking sector.” Cue laughter.
But what really got our attention and tore the scales from our eyes was the chart attached to the report. Kerviel, according to SocGen, hid his real profit and loss by displaying an “official” P&L that was very small by comparison. After the jump, we bring you the chart.
Continue reading »
