Ethics and governance in the European Financial centers

The New York Times has reported that he Securities and Exchange Commission’s internal watchdog said in an extensive report released Wednesday that an inexperienced staff and examination delays prevented the agency from uncovering the huge fraud perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff. H. David Kotz, the S.E.C.’s inspector general said the agency received many warnings about Mr. Madoff’s business over 16 years, but missed numerous chances to uncover the scheme by approaching investigations “too narrowly.”

A quotation page 19: "For example, when Enforcement staff asked the critical question of how he was able to achieve his consistently high returns, Madoff never really answered the question but, instead, attacked those who questioned his returns, particularly the author of the Barron's article. Essentially, Madoff claimed his remarkable returns were due to his personal "feel" for when to get in and out of the market, stating, "Some people feel the market. Some people just understand how to analyze the numbers that they're looking at." Because of the Enforcement staffs inexperience and lack of understanding of equity and options trading, they did not appreciate that Madoff was unable to provide a logical explanation for his incredibly consistent returns. Each member of the Enforcement staff accepted as plausible Madoff’s claim that his returns were due to his perfect "gut feel" for when the market would go up or down."

Richard Murphy said, "regulators must assume those they regulate are crooks. Why would they need regulation if they weren’t? Which is also why self regulation can never work."

I can confirm that especially in a small jurisdiction where everybody knows everyone self regulation can never work.

As far as Luxembourg is concerned, Madoff is officially an American scandal.

I wish they were intelligent enough to realise that the small size of the jurisdiction creates the risk all the more than professionals decide what is to be done for the regulation:

“The Luxembourg Investment Fund Industry has regularly had a very close and direct say on the evolution of the Luxembourg prudential regulatory environment governing the collective Investment Industry (...) This influence has been exerted directly and indirectly by the lobbying initiatives taken on the level of the different professional associations, be it ALFI or ABBL , but also and more importantly, trough a direct association with the Luxembourg Supervisory Authorities by means of a number of standing committees" (Rafik Fischer, Vice Chairman, ALFI, in 2005)

This is confirmed by the CSSF: "The internal committees assist the CSSF in the analysis of the development of the different financial sector segments, give their advice on any question relating to their activities and participate in the drawing-up and the interpretation of regulations relating to their specific field."

In other words professionals require changes in the transposition of directives and other international texts whatever matter (AML, tax, audit...) and influence the regulator in its duties.

I am afraid my sources are not "dubious", the magic word to disregard issues raised.

They never really answer the question but, instead, attacked those who questioned . Rainer Falk from the Cercle de cooperation and I we know that.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is the business culture in Luxembourg where many professionals are like Madoff was : respectable.

 

 

Read the SEC's internal watchdog Report

TJN has reported that on the morning of August 5 there was a meeting in the Luxembourg foreign ministry between the Luxembourg Bankers' Association ABBL and heads of Cercle de Cooperation, which recently issued a study of Luxembourg as a tax haven. Curiously, they did not even invite study's author to the meeting. The issue comes from the author.

That afternoon the study was wiped off the Cercle's website and the Cercle was threatened with withdrawal of funds. (All member organisations of the Cercle have cooperation agreements with the Luxembourg foreign or development ministry, and the Cercle itself is financed 85% out of state money)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of the Picture: Bujago types and termiks'[termites] nest. (1890-1893)

New York Public Library, The earth and its inhabitants, Africa. Elisée Reclus (1830-1905), facing page 188

Author: Achille Sirouy (1834-1904)

This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the context of the censorship of the Cercle de Cooperation, I now have the answers to the questions I raised a couple of months ago when the LIGFI (Luxembourg Institute for Global Financial Integrity) was launched:

  

Will the institute be a tool to change the business culture or is it an opportunist ethical frontage for the center? 

 

The story of the Cercle de Cooperation demonstrates it definitely cannot be a tool to change the business culture and its launch was definitely a tool for the promotion of an ethical frontage.

There is no capacity to welcome "critics" especially when they lay emphasis on public and official dysfunctions that are the visible part of the iceberg. The word critic comes from the Greek κριτικός (kritikós), "able to discern", which in turn derives from the word κριτής (krités), meaning a person who offers reasoned judgment or analysis, value judgment, interpretation, or observation.

In practice critics are blacklisted in the Luxembourg business.

 

How the institute will handle specific issues in Luxembourg due to the small size: conflicts of interest that can turn into corruption defined as an impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle?

 

The story of the Cercle de Cooperation as described above demonstrates the standardisations of  the conflicts of interest and what I called last year the “system”.

 

Networks: There are many associations in Luxembourg, but the center is very small so everybody meets in the same associations and when there is an issue involving a member a couple of phone calls to fellow member may help to hush up the issue. Everybody in the network knows the issue but there is no need to repudiate the bad professional that is supported by the group. To consolidate the support fellow members may knowingly join a board with the member in question. The problem in Luxembourg is that it is visible because of the small size, which is not the case in a bigger country where the bad professional may move up to another state to join the same kind of association but with new fellow members.

 

Intimidation : This situation is met when people do not do their duty because they fear for their job or contract, or financing with the Cercle de Coopération.

 

Fame : This last type of situation is met when people may hesitate to do or do not at all do their duty because they do not want to involve people that gain a professional standing because of professional, political or academic supports (in a board, in an association...). In other word, the will is to protect the frontage of the reputation of the center and its professional in any case.

 

How the institute will handle issues relating to businesses that do not belong to the financial sector but may cause a collateral damage for the reputation of the financial sector?

 

The story of the Cercle de Cooperation demonstrates there is no will to correct dysfunctions that create the image of tax haven beyond banking secrecy (offshore, capital earnings of non-residents and the exceptional tax regime for corporate offices of foreign companies by means of financial engineering...)

The cercle de Cooperation was positive as it states recommendations based on the observations on the field depite figures that may be inaccurate : but how to be accurate when information in under banking or professional secrecy?

 

 

 

I do think that the jurisdiction has reached a point where many of its professionals and politicians are no longer reliable or trustable in the promotion of business ethics and will be responsible before the history for the collapse of the jurisdiction that cannot afford the same lax attitude as bigger jurisdictions.

 

Head offices of banks cannot invest anymore in this context in the jurisdiction.

 

 

 

 

Know more

Only right-minded experts are sought in Luxembourg

Luxembourg, a jurisdiction of censorship : evidences