April 29, 2024

DealBook: British Tax Office Assailed for ‘Cozy’ Ties With Big Companies

LONDON — Goldman Sachs, Vodafone and other big businesses were treated too favorably by British tax officials, potentially costing the nation billions of pounds of revenue as a result, according to a government report released on Tuesday.

The report did not say how much the deals — often struck at expensive restaurants — cost the government. But the government said there were 2,700 unresolved cases with big companies, with potential tax of £25 billion ($39 billion) as of March 31.

The finding comes at a time when spending cuts and tax increases are squeezing households as part of a government austerity plan to reduce the national budget deficit.

Partly based on information from a whistle-blower at Goldman Sachs, the report paints a damning picture of tax officers who attend lunches and dinners with company officials while negotiating tax deals. One senior tax official had as many as 107 such meals in two years, according to the report.

“The department’s working practices must be seen by the taxpaying public to be absolutely impartial,” Margaret Hodge, a member of Parliament and the chairwoman of the committee of public accounts, said in a statement. “The impression being given at the moment is quite the opposite, of far too cozy a relationship between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and large companies.”

The tax office rejected the conclusion of the report, saying it was “based on partial information, inaccurate opinion and some misunderstanding of facts.”

The report did not identify any companies, but Mrs. Hodge mentioned two names in a BBC interview on Tuesday that had been previously cited in newspaper reports: Goldman Sachs and the British telecommunications giant Vodafone.

Vodafone called the allegations “unjust, unwarranted and based on gross untruths.” Goldman Sachs declined to comment.

Some economists have said corporate tax revenue is already expected to shrink in the coming years as company earnings decline with the weak economy, making it harder for the government to plug the deficit hole. Prime Minister David Cameron’s government had pledged earlier this year to be more aggressive in going after individuals evading taxes.

The report also pointed to tax officers’ lack of accountability to taxpayers, Parliament or anyone else. It said the deals with companies were made behind closed doors and without public scrutiny.

“It is absurd that we had to rely on the media and the actions of a whistle-blower to find out about the details of individual settlements,” Mrs. Hodge said, criticizing the tax office for failing to cooperate fully with the committee investigation.

“On the Goldman Sachs deal we had minutes of a meeting held in H.M.R.C. where the chief lawyer called the deal unconscionable,” Mrs. Hodge told BBC Radio 4, referring to the tax office’s own lawyer.

The report singled out David Hartnett, the permanent secretary for tax, for favoring corporate taxpayers in his negotiations and overseeing a mistake in calculating the amount of interest owed on late tax payments. Mr. Hartnett announced this year that he planned to retire in 2012.

Mr. Hartnett admitted to a Parliamentary committee in September that tax officials had failed to follow correct procedures when agreeing to two major tax deals, but he did not provide any names. Newspapers have reported that the errors involved Vodafone, which paid £1.25 billion to settle a tax dispute, and to Goldman Sachs.

Mrs. Hodge called for changes in the way tax officials deal with corporate taxpayers, including managing their relationships with large companies better to “avoid the perception of conflicts of interest.”

“What we’ve uncovered,” she said, “was really a very uncomfortable state of affairs.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ad7b0660baf47a9295427c7f2591bd2f

Endangered Dragon: Entrepreneur’s Rival in China: The State

Cathay Industrial Biotech, a private company here, developed a way to ferment hydrocarbons in industrial vats and turn them into advanced nylon ingredients for use in lubricants, diabetes drugs and other 21st-century marvels.

The patents Cathay won prompted Dupont, a leading global producer of nylon, to become one of Cathay’s biggest customers. And the $120 million that Goldman Sachs and other backers have pumped into Cathay in recent years primed investors in China and abroad to eagerly await a public stock offering that had been planned for earlier this year.

They’re still waiting.

According to Cathay, a factory manager stole its secrets and started a rival company that has begun selling a suspiciously similar ingredient, undermining Cathay’s profits. Instead of planning to go public, Cathay is now struggling to stay in business.

In this counterfeit-friendly nation, employees run off with manufacturing designs almost daily. But according to Cathay, this was copying with a special twist: the new competitor, Hilead Biotech, is backed by the Chinese government.

Court documents show that Hilead was set up with the help of the state-run Chinese Academy of Sciences. And because the project fit national and local government policy goals, Hilead received a $300 million loan from the national government’s China Development Bank. The loan came after the company won the approval of the party secretary of Shandong Province, one of the country’s highest-ranking public officials.

“We created a great product and they stole it,” Liu Xiucai, Cathay’s 54-year-old founder and chief executive, said in an interview in his office.

In a lawsuit, Cathay has accused Hilead of patent infringement and theft of trade secrets. Hilead has countersued, claiming Cathay stole patents from the Chinese Academy. The government has taken Hilead’s side, stripping Cathay of one of its top patents.

Although the specifics of the case are in dispute, the broad outline follows what some economists and academics consider a disturbing pattern.

After more than a decade in which private companies have been the prime engine of China’s economic miracle, the Chinese government is eager to control more of that wealth — even if that means running roughshod over private companies.

Chen Zhiwu, a professor of finance at Yale University and a harsh critic of the state’s dominant role in the economy, says the Chinese government is smothering the private sector. “When the government is involved in business, it’s hard for private companies to compete,” Professor Chen said.

The usurping of private enterprise has become so evident that the Chinese have given it a nickname: guojin mintui. That roughly translates as “while the state advances, the privates retreat.”

Some prominent Chinese economists are warning that the potentially corrosive effects of an approach that favors government companies at the expense of the private sector could eventually stifle innovation, saying it could stunt China’s long-term growth and quash the rising aspirations of the nation’s 1.3 billion people.

“If China doesn’t deal with this problem and strengthen the private sector, this country’s growth is not sustainable,” said Xu Chenggang, a professor of economics at the University of Hong Kong.

Hilead executives declined to comment for this article. A Chinese Academy of Sciences spokesman would say only that the lawsuit against Cathay was meant to protect his organization’s “rights and benefits.”

What is clear is that Hilead, with all its government support, has been able to slash prices. Cathay has had no choice but to do likewise, costing the company as much as $10 million in profit over the last year, a drop of at least 20 percent.

Gu Huini contributed research.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4a6abe6e7a9b9493c93991a3a7518c75

DealBook: Corzine Out as Search for MF Global Funds Continues

Jon S. Corzine on the trading floor of MF Global last year. Mr. Corzine’s Wall Street comeback ended early Friday.David Goldman for The New York TimesJon S. Corzine on the trading floor of MF Global last year. Mr. Corzine’s Wall Street comeback ended early Friday.

The missing customer money at MF Global is still missing.

On Friday, funds from the bankrupt brokerage firm suddenly surfaced at JPMorgan Chase. Washington and Wall Street, for a moment, were hopeful it was the money they had been searching for all week.

But then, just as quickly, nearly everyone agreed it was not the missing money, and the hunt was on again.

While MF Global has more than $2 billion in accounts at JPMorgan, regulators had previously accounted for those funds, according to people briefed on the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly. Federal officials estimate that roughly $600 million has been misplaced or misused or has disappeared altogether, two of the people said.

The revelation — and the sharp reversal — is the latest debacle in the bankruptcy of MF Global.

Adding to the drama, the firm’s chief executive, Jon S. Corzine, the former Democratic governor of New Jersey and head of Goldman Sachs, resigned early Friday. In a more surprising development, Gary Gensler, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, will no longer participate in the investigation due to his long acquaintance with Mr. Corzine, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

It is just the beginning. Regulators are still camped out at the brokerage firm’s Midtown Manhattan headquarters, poring over the books. Exchange officials are transferring customer accounts to other brokerage firms. And company executives are helping to close the firm.

The process of winding down MF Global will be long and arduous. The courts continue to sort through the mess at Lehman Brothers, more than three years after the investment bank filed for Chapter 11.

“It’s going to be complicated when you have a multibillion-dollar company,” said Professor J. Samuel Tenenbaum, the director of the Investor Protection Center at Northwestern University School of Law. “That just doesn’t happen overnight. It would be nice to think that you can get this done quickly, but that would be fanciful.”

The demise of MF Global can be traced to risky bets on European sovereign debt.

Soon after joining the firm in 2010, Mr. Corzine moved to transform the sleepy brokerage firm into a full-service investment bank in the mold of his former employer, Goldman. He aggressively bought up the bonds of troubled economies like Italy, Ireland and Spain, betting that the Continent would not let the countries default on their loans.

As the sovereign debt crisis dragged on this summer, regulators noticed the risky bets and pushed the firm to hold more capital against the investments. The move alarmed shareholders, clients and rating agencies, inciting a crisis of confidence. With the stock sliding, the firm searched desperately for a suitor.

But the missing money proved the death knell for MF Global.

Before dawn on Monday, the firm uncovered a nearly $1 billion hole in its customer accounts. The startling discovery scuttled a last-minute deal to sell part of the business to Interactive Brokers Group, a Connecticut rival. Out of options, MF Global filed for bankruptcy that morning.

Within hours, regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, started investigating MF Global and the missing money. The Federal Bureau of Investigation joined the fray on Tuesday. Federal authorities worried that MF Global had violated a basic principle in this business: customer assets must be kept separate from company funds.

As the scrutiny intensified, Mr. Corzine was said to have hired Andrew F. Levander, a prominent criminal defense lawyer. Mr. Levander, the chairman of Dechert, has represented other Wall Street executives including John Thain, the former chief executive of Merrill Lynch. Mr. Corzine has retained two bankruptcy lawyers from the firm Perkins Coie to represent him in the civil Chapter 11 proceedings.

Neither Mr. Corzine nor MF Global have been accused of any wrongdoing. MF Global says the shortfall is temporary, as additional money will flow in from banks and clearinghouses.

In resigning on Friday, Mr. Corzine ended what was supposed to be his grand return to Wall Street after nearly a decade in politics. The company said that he would not seek his $12 million in severance.

“I feel great sadness for what has transpired at MF Global and the impact it has had on the firm’s clients, employees and many others,” Mr. Corzine, 64, said in a statement. “I intend to continue to assist the company and its board in their efforts to respond to regulatory inquiries and issues related to the disposition of the firm’s assets.”

Mr. Gensler, head of the C.F.T.C., decided Thursday to step back from the inquiry, and the following day he did not participate in an agency briefing on MF Global; Mr. Gensler had worked for Mr. Corzine while both were at Goldman Sachs in the 1990s.

As regulators try to untangle the books, customers, whose accounts were frozen on Monday, are waiting to get their money back. The CME Group, the exchange where MF Global did business, is transferring client funds to other brokerage firms, including R.J. O’Brien and ABN Amro, people involved in the process said.

But customers won’t be made whole — at least not yet.

Industry groups pushed for customers to receive about 70 percent of their cash, according to the people involved in the process. But because roughly $600 million hasn’t been found, clients will only get on average 60 cents on the dollar, court filings show.

The situation puts customers, including individual investors, hedge funds and big companies, in a financial bind. Until the money surfaces, many clients will have to come up with extra cash to maintain their positions, or they will be forced to liquidate their trades, potentially at a loss.

It could take some time for the money to materialize, assuming it does.

With scarce information, even regulators and industry insiders are grasping for answers. The situation was underscored by the brief elation following media reports that the missing money might have turned up.

But, it hadn’t. JPMorgan, which confirmed MF Global had accounts with the bank, said in a statement “that it does not have any information as to whether any such balances are related in any way to the ‘missing’ customer funds.”

Azam Ahmed, Kevin Roose and Peter Lattman contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1a417bd547043fc37090c7a96cd91e4f

DealBook: Corzine Resigns From MF Global

Jon Corzine, second from right, on the trading floor of MF Global's Manhattan office.David Goldman for The New York TimesThe resignation capped a disastrous week for Jon S. Corzine, who saw MF Global lose two-thirds of its market value, file for bankruptcy and face several federal investigations.

Jon S. Corzine has resigned from his posts at the embattled brokerage firm MF Global, the company announced on Friday.

Mr. Corzine, the firm’s chairman and chief executive, will not seek his $12 million severance from MF Global, which filed for bankruptcy on Monday, according to the company’s statement.

The resignation capped a disastrous week for Mr. Corzine, as he saw MF Global lose two-thirds of its market value, file for bankruptcy and face a handful of federal investigations into more than $600 million in missing customer money. The decision also signaled a rapid downfall of what was supposed to be Mr. Corzine’s grand return to Wall Street — a comeback that began in early 2010, after a roughly 10-year sabbatical that he spent in politics.

“I feel great sadness for what has transpired at MF Global and the impact it has had on the firm’s clients, employees and many others,” Mr. Corzine, 64, said in a statement. “I intend to continue to assist the company and its board in their efforts to respond to regulatory inquiries and issues related to the disposition of the firm’s assets.”

Mr. Corzine’s resignation signals the end of a troubled chapter in his career. The former head of Goldman Sachs, Mr. Corzine joined MF Global in March 2010 following a failed re-election bid for New Jersey governor.

Soon after joining the firm, he moved to transform the sleepy brokerage firm into full-service investment bank in the mold of his former employer, Goldman. He aggressively bought up European sovereign debt, wagering that the Continent would not let troubled countries default on their loans.

As the sovereign debt crisis dragged on this fall, regulators noticed the risky bets and pushed the firm to hold more capital against the investments. The move alarmed shareholders, clients and rating agencies, inciting a crisis of confidence. With the stock in free-fall, the firm searched desperately for a suitor to buy at least a part of its business.

MF Global had a handshake deal late Sunday, but the overnight revelation of hundreds of millions of dollars of missing customer money scuttled any potential deal. Early Monday, the firm filed for bankruptcy.

After MF Global filed for Chapter 11 regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, started searching for missing money. On Tuesday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began its own inquiry. Roughly $630 million in assets remains unaccounted for, and regulators are examining whether the firm used the money to plug holes in a scramble to save itself.

Mr. Corzine, who has not been accused of any wrongdoing, is said to have hired Andrew F. Levander, a prominent criminal defense lawyer. Mr. Levander, the chairman of Dechert, has represented other Wall Street executives including John Thain, the former chief executive of Merrill Lynch. Mr. Corzine has also retained two bankruptcy lawyers from the firm Perkins Coie, Alan D. Smith and Schuyler G. Carroll, to represent him in the civil Chapter 11 proceedings.

Edward L. Goldberg, the head director, and Bradley I. Abelow, the president and chief operating officer, will remain in their positions at MF Global.

Peter Lattman contributed reporting


This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 4, 2011

An earlier version of this post misspelled the surname of a lawyer with Perkins Coie. He is Schuyler G. Carroll, not Caroll.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=65c6e95788cbe0c81e833dd6a552ec60

DealBook: As Regulators Pressed Changes, Corzine Pushed Back, and Won

Jon Corzine, a former governor and senator, attended a dinner with his wife, Sharon, at the White House in June. Before MF Global’s collapse, Mr. Corzine was influential in Washington.Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated PressJon Corzine, a former governor and senator, attended a dinner with his wife, Sharon, at the White House in June. Before MF Global’s collapse, Mr. Corzine was influential in Washington.

Months before MF Global teetered on the brink, federal regulators were seeking to rein in the types of risky trades that contributed to the firm’s collapse. But they faced opposition from an influential opponent: Jon S. Corzine, the head of the then little-known brokerage firm.

As a former United States senator and a former governor of New Jersey, as well as the leader of Goldman Sachs in the 1990s, Mr. Corzine carried significant weight in the worlds of Washington and Wall Street. While other financial firms employed teams of lobbyists to fight the new regulation, MF Global’s chief executive in meetings over the last year personally pressed regulators to halt their plans.

The agency proposing the rule, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, relented. Wall Street, which has been working to curb many financial regulations, won another battle.

Yet with MF Global in bankruptcy and regulators scrambling to find $630 million in missing customer funds, Mr. Corzine’s effort may come back to haunt him.

The proposed rule would have restricted a complicated transaction that allowed MF Global in essence to borrow money from its own customers. Brokerage firms are allowed to use customers’ money to earn interest, not unlike banks, but this rule would have outlawed using customer funds for a loan to the firm itself.

While such financing is not unknown on Wall Street, it carries substantial risk. An outside lender would require a firm like MF Global to produce strict accounting for a loan. Without that oversight, regulators worried that firms could use such internal customer money inappropriately, including bolstering the business in hard times. The proposed rule would have affected several dozen other financial firms.

Regulators are now examining whether these transactions explain the missing money at MF Global, according to people briefed on the investigation.

The C.F.T.C. has issued subpoenas to MF Global’s auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and the Securities and Exchange Commission is also conducting an inquiry. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is also looking into the missing money, although there is no indication that criminal laws were broken.

Still, Mr. Corzine has hired a prominent criminal defense lawyer, Andrew J. Levander, a partner at Dechert, according to people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Levander represented a number of Wall Street executives after the financial crisis of 2008, including the independent directors of Lehman Brothers and John A. Thain, the former chief executive of Merrill Lynch.

Neither Mr. Corzine nor MF Global has been accused of wrongdoing. MF Global declined to comment and Mr. Corzine did not respond to a request for comment.

Just three months ago, Mr. Corzine’s firm assured regulators that the proposed rule could cripple the futures brokerage industry by hurting their profitability. In a letter, MF Global told regulators that they were trying to “fix something that is not broken,” adding that the firm was not aware of any brokerage firm like itself that was unable to “provide to their customers upon request any segregated funds.”

MF Global’s clients, including hedge funds, individual investors and agricultural firms, now know a different reality, as the clients struggle to locate their missing funds. And regulators are pushing to again move forward on the rule. But for MF Global, the rule will come too late.

The trades at the center of MF Global’s downfall — big bets on the debt of five European countries — may yet prove profitable. But they raise questions about why the firm escalated its risk-taking under Mr. Corzine, leading to a crisis of confidence among rating agencies, creditors and regulators.

As a former sovereign debt trader at Goldman Sachs, Mr. Corzine wagered that the European regulators would backstop any default. So even as dark clouds circled over Europe, he sensed an opportunity. Starting in late 2010, MF Global began to accumulate short-term sovereign debt of countries like Italy, Spain and Portugal.

MF Global financed these purchases through complex transactions known as repurchase agreements. In these, the bonds themselves were used as collateral for a loan to purchase them. The interest paid on that loan was less than the interest the bonds paid out, earning the firm a profit from the spread.

While that practice is quite common, the C.F.T.C. wanted to crack down on such lending in those instances when customer funds were used. The C.F.T.C. proposal would have also banned the use of client funds to buy foreign sovereign debt.

It is unclear whether the firm used client funds to purchase the risky bonds of Italy, Spain, and other debt-laden European nations, but experts say it is not unusual for such transactions to be paid for with customer money.

A person close to MF Global said the firm did not use client funds to finance these trades.

Leading the government’s effort to curtail these arcane practices was Gary Gensler, the chairman of C.F.T.C., who had worked for Mr. Corzine at Goldman Sachs. Mr. Gensler pushed for the proposed change in October 2010, and planned to bring it to a vote this summer.

MF Global has four outside lobbyists in Washington, tiny by Wall Street standards. But it was Mr. Corzine who marshaled the firm’s response to the proposal, lobbying most of the agency’s five commissioners directly. One commissioner said he visited with Mr. Corzine in MF Global’s headquarters, and acknowledged being impressed by the Wall Street titan, said a person with direct knowledge of the meeting who asked for anonymity because the meeting was private.

The C.F.T.C. polices the markets for futures trades. Staff members there often do not have a Wall Street pedigree.

Mr. Corzine’s background in finance made him highly credible, agency officials said.

Mr. Corzine’s efforts culminated on July 20, as the agency was preparing for a vote on the proposal. That day, MF Global executives were on four different calls with the agency’s staff. Mr. Corzine himself was on two of those calls.

One of the calls was with Mr. Gensler. Both men are active Democrats, and served on financial panels together recently.

Shortly after the calls, Mr. Gensler, aware that he could not push the vote through, decided to delay the proposal indefinitely.

But after MF Global’s blowup and the ensuing fallout from the missing funds, regulators said they were considering pushing again on the rule.

“I think it’s time to move ahead — expeditiously — and make that rule tighter, cleaner, and ultimately safer, for customers,” Bart Chilton, a Democratic member of the C.F.T.C., said in a statement.

Mr. Chilton also wants the agency to require firms to produce detailed documentation “to ensure that the funds are really there.”

Internal repurchase agreements emerged on Wall Street in 2005. At the time, the transactions were off limits to banks and brokerage firms. But at the urging of Lehman Brothers, the C.F.T.C. blessed the new approach to getting financing.

In September 2008, Lehman collapsed amid a global financial crisis. It later was disclosed that Lehman’s use of another little-known repurchase agreement allowed it to temporarily obscure billions of dollars in losses.

Michael J. de la Merced, Andrew Ross Sorkin and Peter Lattman contributed reporting.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/as-regulators-pressed-changes-corzine-pushed-back-and-won/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: MF Global Put Up for Sale, This Weekend Only

8:13 p.m. | Updated

MF Global is racing to sell itself before the markets reopen on Monday, with its stock and bond prices nearly in a free fall.

The pressures on MF Global, a commodities and derivatives brokerage firm, and its chief executive, Jon S. Corzine — once the chief of Goldman Sachs and a former New Jersey governor — are enormous. With two major credit ratings agencies having cut their ratings on the firm to junk status, a sale of some kind appears to be MF Global’s only hope for survival.

In the space of only a week, MF Global has shed two-thirds of its market value. Its shares plunged 16 percent on Friday to $1.20, after having briefly dipped below $1 earlier in the day. And its five-year bonds tumbled to 49 cents, according to data from Trace research service.

By Friday afternoon, MF Global executives had become focused on selling the entire firm by Sunday evening, according to a person briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions were private. Other possibilities, including a sale of just its futures brokerage arm, remained on the table but were becoming less likely.

So far, MF Global has identified fewer than five suitors, a list that includes other brokerage, banking and private equity firms, this person said. Yet while the goal remained to strike a deal before the markets resumed on Monday, it is possible that a deal won’t be reached.

Speculation grew on Friday about who would be interested in buying some or all of MF Global. Several major banks have considered making a bid, especially if they could buy the firm’s well-regarded futures brokerage operations at a low enough price, according to people briefed on the matter. But it was unclear whether any would make a formal offer.

A spokeswoman for MF Global, Tiffany Galvin, declined to comment.

By Friday afternoon, MF Global still had sufficient liquidity to finance its operations, having drawn down a $1.3 billion revolving credit facility, this person added. While more clients had moved their money to other brokerage firms, this person said that the amount remained in the low single digits.

That may not matter if the firm cannot reach a sale over the weekend. While major exchanges around the world said on Friday that MF Global remained a member in good standing, clients and trading partners are generally wary of doing business with a junk-rated brokerage firm.

On Friday, analysts and industry executives were gloomy about MF Global’s survival prospects.

“We continue to believe that in this market environment, selling the entire business could be challenging,” Niamh Alexander, an analyst with Keefe, Bruyette Woods, wrote in a research note.

For now, the firm is focused on selling itself rather than preparing for any sort of bankruptcy filing, the person briefed on the matter said.

Jon S. CorzineLucas Jackson/ReutersJon S. Corzine

One thing is clear: Any outcome would spell the end of Mr. Corzine’s tenure atop MF Global. He became the firm’s chief executive last year, returning to the financial sector for the first time in more than a decade after having been ousted as Goldman Sachs’s chief executive in 1999.

Mr. Corzine’s chief goal was to transform MF Global into a full-fledged investment bank, in large part by taking on riskier trading using the firm’s own capital. The strategy backfired, however. In the year and a half since Mr. Corzine took over, the firm has earned money in only two out of six quarters.

Among the biggest millstones around the firm’s neck is the $6.3 billion worth of bonds issued by Italy, Spain, Belgium, Ireland and Portugal that it holds. Analysts became uneasy with those holdings as Europe’s debt crisis deepened, culminating in the initial credit rating downgrade by Moody’s Investors Service on Monday.

MF Global’s problems were exacerbated with its announcement of a $186 million loss for its second quarter on Tuesday. By Thursday, Moody’s and another agency, Fitch Ratings, had officially cut the firm’s credit rating to junk status.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2c640b6afa77cfcbe53bc1b9be39a184

Economix Blog: Rajat Gupta, Merely Affluent

Rajat K. Gupta leaving court on Wednesday.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesRajat K. Gupta leaving court on Wednesday.

Rajat Gupta was rich by almost any standard. He just wasn’t rich compared with many of the people who surrounded him. He knew it, and he didn’t seem to like it.

More than a few of his friends and colleagues had tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. They included his fellow board members at Goldman Sachs, the alumni of McKinsey Company — a firm that Mr. Gupta ran and that paid him a few millions of dollars a year — who then made fortunes on Wall Street and, perhaps most important, his friend Raj Rajaratnam, the hedge-fund manager sentenced to 11 years in prison for insider trading. Mr. Gupta, who was indicted Wednesday for passing along corporate secrets to Mr. Rajaratnam, has proclaimed his innocence.

DAVID LEONHARDT

DAVID LEONHARDT

Thoughts on the economic scene.

What seems beyond doubt, however, is that he was envious of the wealth that his peers were amassing. In that way, Mr. Gupta is a symbol of a different kind of income inequality from the one at the heart of the Occupy Wall Street protests, where demonstrators proclaim themselves part of the “other 99 percent” and criticize the top 1 percent of earners.

Mr. Gupta was surely part of the 1 percent. But seems to have felt as if he was part of the other 99 percent of that 1 percent.

You don’t have to sympathize with him to see how his envy could have affected the choices he made — orienting his post-McKinsey career around making money, handing over large chunks of his money to Mr. Rajaratnam and, at least according to prosecutors, going to great lengths to curry favor with Mr. Rajaratnam.

Such envy extends well beyond people accused of committing crimes. The inequality among the rich is a major force pushing many graduates of the country’s top colleges to Wall Street and drawing middle-aged professionals from other lines of work to finance.

Consider the numbers. Three decades ago, a taxpayer at the cutoff for the top 0.01 percent of earners — that is, in the top 1/10,000th — was making about 10 times as much as someone at the cutoff for the top 1 percent, according to research by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.

Since then, the top 1 percent has done very well, nearly doubling its income in inflation-adjusted terms, which is a far bigger raise than most households have received. Yet the very rich have done vastly better: someone at the cutoff for the top 0.01 percent now makes 30 times as much as someone at the top 1 percent, according to the latest numbers.

To someone making a few million dollars a year, these very rich — rather than the median-earning American — are often the relevant benchmark. “Most families are trying to keep up with the Joneses,” as Catherine Rampell wrote in a post here earlier this year. “And in dollar terms, the rich are falling far shorter of their respective Joneses than the middle-income and lower-income are.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=b0296c9945680931d4e7f22e0811625b

DealBook: A Stunning Fall From Grace for a Star Executive

Rajat K. Gupta, left, and his lawyer, Gary Naftalis, leave federal court on Wednesday after Mr. Gupta was charged with insider trading.John Marshall Mantel for The New York TimesRajat K. Gupta, left, and his lawyer, Gary Naftalis, leave federal court in Manhattan on Wednesday after Mr. Gupta was charged with insider trading.

Last year, Rajat K. Gupta delivered a commencement speech at the Indian School of Business, a graduate school in Hyderabad that he helped start.

“Try to make other people successful,” said Mr. Gupta, one of the world’s most prominent Indian-born business executives. “If you work on making other people successful, they will in turn make you successful beyond your dreams.”

On Wednesday, federal prosecutors said that Mr. Gupta had tried to make other people successful — illegally.

Mr. Gupta, 62, a former director of Goldman Sachs, is accused of leaking corporate secrets about the bank to his friend Raj Rajaratnam, the head of the Galleon Group hedge fund. Mr. Rajaratnam was sentenced to 11 years in prison this month for orchestrating a huge insider trading conspiracy.

Gary P. Naftalis, a lawyer for Mr. Gupta, has denied the government’s accusations.

“Mr. Gupta is innocent of any of these charges,” he said. “He has always acted with honesty and integrity.”

Regardless of the case’s outcome, the charges punctuate a stunning fall from grace for Mr. Gupta, whose personal story reads like a caricature of a Horatio Alger tale.

Orphaned at 18, Mr. Gupta, a native of Kolkata, received an engineering degree from the elite Indian Institute of Technology. He earned a scholarship to Harvard Business School, graduating at the top of his class and securing a prized posting at McKinsey Company, the dispenser of corporate wisdom to many of the Fortune 500.

He rose rapidly at the consulting firm, making his mark running its Scandinavian office, once considered a backwater at the firm. He expanded McKinsey’s presence in that region and became known for his low-key, dignified manner.

Most young consultants use McKinsey as a breeding ground for careers in corporate America. The firm counts among its alumni James P. Gorman, the chief executive of Morgan Stanley, and Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook.

But Mr. Gupta became a McKinsey lifer, taking on more and more responsibility until 1994, when, at the age of 45, his partners elected him to run the firm. His election — he was the first non-American-born executive to run McKinsey — was seen as a sea change for the hidebound organization.

“I know consensus says McKinsey is white and traditional, but I am testimony to the fact that image isn’t true,” said Mr. Gupta in a 1994 profile in The Chicago Tribune. “If anything, it’s a meritocracy.”

Under his tenure, McKinsey expanded its global reach, aggressively moving into emerging markets like India and China. While he oversaw an era of growth at the consulting firm, his reign was not without controversy.

Mr. Gupta and some of his partners got caught up in the euphoria of the dot-com boom. One former executive, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss his former firm, said that during that time, McKinsey strayed from its core big-company consulting work and began helping dot-coms cut deals and develop their businesses.

“It was pigging out,” said this executive. “The work was there, and the young people wanted to do it.”

The firm was also an architect of Enron’s push from a sleepy energy pipeline company into the high-risk trading operation that led to the company’s 2001 collapse amid an accounting scandal. Jeffrey Skilling, Enron’s former chief executive, was a McKinsey alumnus.

The firm suffered, and in the wake of the technology and telecom bust during the early part of the last decade, McKinsey found itself with too many employees and not enough business.

When he stepped down from McKinsey in 2003, Mr. Gupta used the reputation — and peerless Rolodex — that he had built at the firm.

Kofi A. Annan, the former secretary general of the United Nations, appointed him to advise the international organization on management reform. The Rockefeller Foundation named him a trustee. Some of America’s top companies recruited him for their boards, including Procter Gamble, the consumer products giant; AMR, the parent of American Airlines; and Goldman Sachs.

“Over his 32-year career, Rajat Gupta has been a valued source of counsel to institutions, governments and business leaders around the world,” said Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman, in a November 2006 statement announcing Mr. Gupta’s election to the board. “Our shareholders will be fortunate to have his strategic and operational expertise and judgment.”

Mr. Gupta’s directorship at Goldman was part of his aggressive push away from management consulting and into the more lucrative arena of Wall Street. In 2007, he started a private equity firm, New Silk Route, that focused on Indian investments. One of his original partners on the New Silk Route deal was Mr. Rajaratnam. A Sri Lankan native, Mr. Rajaratnam met Mr. Gupta through their philanthropic work. The two men, both pillars of New York’s South Asian immigrant business community, became fast friends.

Mr. Gupta had a number of hedge fund and private equity investments, including several with Mr. Rajaratnam’s Galleon firm. Around that time, Mr. Gupta was weighing a position at the private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. On a taped call played during Mr. Rajaratnam’s trial, Mr. Rajaratnam and a friend gossiped about what they saw as the materialistic ambitions of Mr. Gupta, who lives with his wife in a waterfront mansion in Westport, Conn, where they raised four daughters.

“Here he sees an opportunity to make a hundred million dollars over the next five years, or 10 years, without doing a lot of work,” Mr. Rajaratnam said.

His foray into Wall Street could not have been more ill-timed. The first cracks in the global economy surfaced just as he started New Silk Route, and his Galleon investments struggled as the stock market swooned. He ultimately lost his entire $10 million investment in a special Galleon-related vehicle set up for Mr. Gupta and a third partner.

On July 29, 2008, with the financial crisis entering its most serious phase, Mr. Gupta called Mr. Rajaratnam. The conversation, secretly recorded by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, was played during Mr. Rajaratnam’s trial. On the call, Mr. Rajaratnam asked Mr. Gupta about a rumor that Goldman might look to buy a commercial bank.

“This was a big discussion at a board meeting,” said Mr. Gupta, who then told Mr. Rajaratnam that Goldman was weighing a purchase of Wachovia and the American International Group.

The charges do not include the contents of that telephone call because there appears to be no evidence that Mr. Rajaratnam traded on the tip. Instead, the government’s case is based on more circumstantial evidence — phone bills and trading records that the government says show that Mr. Gupta leaked other secret Goldman board discussions to Mr. Rajaratnam, and that Mr. Rajaratnam traded on those, gaining several million dollars.

During its closing argument in the Rajaratnam trial, the government effectively previewed its case against Mr. Gupta.

“You don’t get on the board of Goldman Sachs without having accomplished a lot in your life and having a great reputation,” said Reed Brodsky, a prosecutor. “But having a great reputation doesn’t give you a free pass to violate the law. Nobody is above the law, no matter how good their reputation is.”

Mr. Gupta spoke to the issue of reputation in his speech last year to the Indian business school graduates. Mr. Gupta urged the students to “have a set of values that guide you.”

“Don’t take the shortcut,” he said. “Have your sense of values, your compass, and follow that.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=b0b9507f07b8c6e3b455e2e660aed39e

DealBook: Ex-Director of Goldman Charged in Insider Trading Case

Rajat Gupta at his home in Westport, Conn., on Wednesday morning.Douglas Healey for The New York TimesRajat Gupta at his home in Westport, Conn., on Wednesday morning.

12:44 p.m. | Updated

Rajat K. Gupta, a former Goldman Sachs director who surrendered to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday morning, was charged with insider trading, the latest development in the government’s multiyear crackdown on illegal activity on Wall Street.

Mr. Gupta, 62, is accused of leaking corporate secrets on Goldman Sachs to the hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam, the Galleon Group co-founder who was sentenced to 11 years in prison this month for making tens of millions of dollars through insider trading. A federal grand jury in Manhattan charged Mr. Gupta with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and five counts of securities fraud, all related to tips on Goldman Sachs in 2008.

“Rajat Gupta was entrusted by some of the premier institutions of American business to sit inside their boardrooms, among their executives and directors, and receive their confidential information so that he could give advice and counsel for the benefit of their shareholders,” Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said in a statement. “As alleged, he broke that trust and instead became the illegal eyes and ears in the boardroom for his friend and business associate, Raj Rajaratnam, who reaped enormous profits from Mr. Gupta’s breach of duty.”

Mr. Gupta, wearing a navy blue suit and red tie, pleaded not guilty to all charges. He is set to be release on a $10 million bond, secured by his home in Westport, Conn. Mr. will also turn over his passport, with travel limited to the continental United States.

A car said to be transporting Rajat K. Gupta departs from the F.B.I. offices in downtown Manhattan on Wednesday.John Marshall Mantel for The New York TimesA car said to be transporting Rajat K. Gupta departing from the F.B.I. offices in Manhattan on Wednesday.

Gary P. Naftalis, a lawyer for Mr. Gupta, said in a statement: “The facts demonstrate that Mr. Gupta is an innocent man and that he acted with honesty and integrity.”

Authorities have broadly pursued insider trading on Wall Street, exacting guilty pleas from a chemist at the Food and Drug Administration, among others, as recently as this month. In the last two years, authorities have charged 56 people with insider trading, including Mr. Gupta; of those, 51 have pleaded guilty to or have been convicted of swapping illegal tips about company earnings and other major corporate events.

While the majority of those charged have been traders and analysts on Wall Street, Mr. Gupta is the first executive from the upper echelons of corporate America to be implicated. In charging Mr. Gupta, the government is tying up one of the biggest loose ends resulting from the investigation into the Galleon Group, which began nearly five years ago at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The charges are a stunning reversal of fortunes for Mr. Gupta. A native of India, he graduated from Harvard Business School and had a global profile as an adviser to some of the nation’s most well-known companies. He served as a director at Goldman, Procter Gamble and the AMR Corporation, the parent company of American Airlines. In addition to his professional pedigree, Mr. Gupta was a noted philanthropist, serving in coveted posts with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Mr. Gupta’s case has been a tricky one for the government. Though his name came up repeatedly at Mr. Rajaratnam’s trial, both in testimony and in secretly recorded phone conversations, the Justice Department never filed charges against him. The S.E.C. filed an administrative action against Mr. Gupta, and he countersued. The agency later dropped the civil proceedings, but reserved the right to refile the case.

On Wednesday, the S.E.C. filed a civil complaint against Mr. Gupta and Mr. Rajaratnam, alleging an “extensive insider trading scheme.”

“Gupta was honored with the highest trust of leading public companies, and he betrayed that trust by disclosing their most sensitive and valuable secrets to the disadvantage of investors, shareholders, and fellow directors,” Robert S. Khuzami, director of the S.E.C.’s Division of Enforcement, said in a statement. “Directors who exploit board room confidences for private gain can be certain they will ultimately be held responsible for their illegal actions.”

While the strength of the government’s case is unclear, the details, many of which emerged during Mr. Rajaratnam’s trial, are explosive.

In the S.E.C. complaint, authorities claimed that Mr. Gupta gave Mr. Rajaratnam advance word of Warren E. Buffett’s $5 billion investment in Goldman during the darkest days of the financial crisis. After hanging up from a special board meeting in September 2008, prosecutors say that Mr. Gupta called Mr. Rajaratnam within 16 seconds. Moments later, just minutes before the stock market closed, Mr. Rajaratnam purchased shares in Goldman. When the hedge fund manager later sold the position, he netted about $840,000, according to the criminal complaint.

The next month, the complaint said, Mr. Gupta shared confidential information with Mr. Rajaratnam about Goldman’s earnings. On Oct. 23, 2008, Mr. Gupta was informed that Goldman would report an unexpected loss for the upcoming quarter. Mr. Gupta then called Mr. Rajaratnam and leaked the information, prosecutors say. The next day, Mr. Rajaratnam, acting on the tip, reversed his hedge funds positions in the company and sold off shares, saving millions of dollars, the complaint stated.

One challenge for the government is that the discussions between Mr. Rajaratnam and Mr. Gupta were not taped. Instead, the government has recordings between Mr. Rajaratnam and his employees, discussing his rationale for the transactions.

In one call that the jury heard during the trial of Mr. Rajaratnam, the hedge fund manager told someone: “I heard yesterday from somebody who’s on the board of Goldman Sachs that they are going to lose $2 per share.” In a different call, Mr. Rajaratnam said, “I got a call saying something good is going to happen to Goldman.”

A judge could say the evidence was hearsay, which means it is too speculative to use in court against Mr. Gupta.

Mr. Gupta’s path to the heights of the global business elite began in India shortly after the country’s independence from Britain. He attended the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology before enrolling at Harvard Business School. After graduating near the top of his class, he joined McKinsey Company and quickly rose up the ranks of the white-shoe consultancy, which advises a large swathe of the Fortune 500 companies on corporate strategy, executive training and other business matters.

In 1994, at the age 45, Mr. Gupta was tapped to lead McKinsey. During his tenure, the firm expanded its global reach, aggressively moving into emerging markets like India and China.

While he oversaw an era of growth at the consulting firm, his reign was not without controversy. McKinsey encouraged Enron‘s transformation from a sleepy energy pipeline company into a high-risk trading operation that ultimately collapsed amid an accounting scandal. Jeffrey K. Skilling, Enron’s former chief executive, was a McKinsey alumnus.

The complaint details ties between Mr. Gupta and Mr. Rajaratnam that predate the alleged Goldman tips. From 2003 to 2005, Mr. Gupta had money in at least two of Mr. Rajaratnam’s hedge funds, an investment valued at about $2.5 million by March of 2005, according to the complaint.

The two men also started several financial ventures together, including an investment fund with $10 million from Mr. Gupta and $40 million from Mr. Rajaratnam. That vehicle, Voyager Capital Partners, invested some of its money in hedge funds at Galleon, including some managed by Mr. Rajaratnam.The pair also founded a private equity firm to invest in Asia. Mr. Gupta served as its chairman through 2010, the complaint states.

“There were legitimate reasons for any communications between Mr. Gupta and Mr. Rajaratnam – not the least of which was Mr. Gupta’s attempt to obtain information regarding his $10 million investment in the GB Voyager fund managed by Mr. Rajaratnam,” Mr. Naftalis, Mr. Gupta’s lawyer, said in a statement. “In fact, Mr. Gupta lost his entire investment in the fund at the time of the events in question, negating any motive to deviate from a lifetime of probity and distinguished service.”


U.S. v. Rajat K. Gupta

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=444ab5de222befe30af6183ccb0771af

DealBook: Wall St. Giants Seek a Piece of Nigeria’s Sovereign Fund

Wanted: A reliable overseas business partner to invest more than $1 billion presently trapped in Nigeria.

This is not a scam.

Nigeria, the West African nation that has gained notoriety for the illicit e-mail spammers aiming for Western bank accounts, is attracting attention for legitimate financial opportunities — investing its own savings.

In an effort to preserve and increase its oil revenue, the country recently established a so-called sovereign wealth fund, following the path of many resource-rich countries. Now, Wall Street titans like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase are courting top government officials, aiming to grab a piece of a portfolio that could eventually be worth tens of billions of dollars.

“The country is at a point of inflection, and what we do in the next few years will set the pace,” said Olusegun Aganga, the former Nigerian finance minister and current minister for trade and investment, who helped create the sovereign wealth fund. “It’s a land of opportunities, which unfortunately has not been tapped well.”

More than half a century after discovering oil in the Niger Delta, the country continues to subsist barrel to barrel. Poverty is rampant. Public corruption is pervasive. And the government coffers are bare, even though Nigeria is the 10th-largest oil producer in the world.

By saving and investing the petro dollars, Nigeria hopes to break the resource curse. The nation, which derives 80 percent of its revenue from oil, created the sovereign wealth fund to buffer its economy from volatile commodity prices and impose fiscal discipline. The government so far has set aside $1 billion for the fund, and it could funnel as much as $2.5 billion a year, if oil prices remain high.

“One of our biggest problems in civil society is the time horizon that we’re operating on — whether election cycles or quarterly reports,” said Ashby H.B. Monk, a research associate at the University of Oxford who studies sovereign wealth funds. “The idea of a sovereign fund is to give government bureaucrats an opportunity to make long-term policy knowing that the buffeting winds of capitalism won’t blow them off course.”

Such funds have become powerful investment forces over the years. Abu Dhabi and Kuwait have amassed hundreds of billions of dollars by plowing their oil riches into stocks, bonds and other global assets. During the financial crisis, sovereign wealth funds provided critical capital to banks and other troubled firms.

To grab a piece of the lucrative business, big banks and asset managers have tirelessly cultivated relationships with governments worldwide and added teams dedicated to sovereign wealth funds. In recent months, bankers, lawyers and consultants flew to the Nigerian capital of Abuja to pitch officials on their services. The government chose JPMorgan Chase as one of its advisers on the structuring of the fund.

In other countries, the Wall Street feeding frenzy has drawn criticism. The Libyan Investment Authority, which was started in 2006, has complained that it lost millions of dollars on several investments, while money managers generated huge fees, according to documents leaked this summer to Global Witness, an advocacy group.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into whether American money managers, in trying to land business with sovereign wealth funds, violated antibribery laws, according to people with knowledge of the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly about the inquiry. “If you don’t get these organizations designed correctly as sophisticated investment operations, you can lose a lot of money,” Mr. Monk said. “It’s the power of finance — for good or bad.”

Nigeria’s new fund is the brainchild of Mr. Aganga, a Nigerian native who worked at Ernst Young’s London office before joining Goldman Sachs in 2001. Last year, the Nigerian president, Goodluck Jonathan, asked Mr. Aganga to join his cabinet.

As the minister of finance, Mr. Aganga pushed to start a sovereign wealth fund almost immediately. He had helped oversee part of Goldman’s Africa business, and knew Nigeria was among the last oil-rich nations without an investment portfolio.

“It’s important that we have some savings for the future generations,” Mr. Aganga said. “It just makes sense for your economy. You’re completely exposed otherwise.”

But Nigeria has a spotty record managing its money. In 2004, the country started plowing extra oil revenue into a separate account, as a way to build savings. At one point, the portfolio held an estimated $20 billion, analysts say.

The funds did not last long. State and federal authorities leaders regularly siphoned off money to fill budget holes, build utilities or pay for other projects. By last year, the assets had plummeted to less than $1 billion.

“There were no rules about withdrawals or whom it belonged to among the three tiers of government in Nigeria,” said Razia Khan, head of African research at Standard Chartered Bank.

To avoid making the same mistakes, Nigeria is earmarking assets for different purposes in a structure that mirrors older sovereign wealth funds. One portfolio, which will invest in stocks and bonds, is focused on long-term growth in preparation for the day when the oil wells run dry. An infrastructure portfolio will support upgrades to the country’s bridges, roads, buildings and railways.

During periods of weakness, the government will have an emergency account to prop up the economy. But officials will be able to access the money only under certain circumstances, like a steep drop in oil prices.

Commitment will be crucial. Some politicians are already grumbling that the sovereign wealth fund will divert assets that the economy desperately needs now, and they are threatening to derail the effort. Such pressure, said John Campbell, a former United States ambassador to Nigeria and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan research center, could prompt the country to “raid the cookie jar” to deal with short-term issues. “Unless there is the political will to live up to those aspirations,” he said, “it’s not going to work very well.”

“My view is, better mute the trumpets for the time being,” Mr. Campbell said.

It will come down to execution, say Nigerian officials and outside analysts. The government is tapping an independent board to oversee the investment process and to ensure compliance. While critics point to the delay in naming those directors as a potential concern, authorities defend their position. They argue that the new finance minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, a former managing director at the World Bank, who was sworn in this August, needs time to learn all about existing matters.

The board “will define how effective this becomes,” said Fola Oyeyinka, an adviser to the Nigerian minister of finance. “The flavor of that board will dictate not just to Nigerians but to the world how serious we are.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e6ea3131f75b28952331653b91ceb9fd