In Congressional testimony this morning, the outgoing acting commissioner Steven Miller has done his best to parry — some would say stonewall — Republican committee members. The simple fact is America learned what it needed to from this hearing in the opening testimony provided by the Inspector General J. Russell George.

Let’s watch, listen, and learn:

With this knowledge now confirmed, the follow up questions that must be answered are:

1. Who directed the activity?
2. Who at Treasury was made aware of it?
3. Was knowledge of this activity and information gleaned by the IRS shared with others? If so, who and when?

UPDATE: we learned later in the hearing of the following as highlighted by The New York Times:

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was auditing the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

How might we gain the necessary transparency and the ultimate truth?

I feel strongly there is a need to appoint an independent counsel with the power of subpoena to find and review any and all necessary information. First things first. Take out all the shredders from the appropriate offices.

Those on the Democratic side of the aisle are wont to make the case that this activity within the IRS stems from the Citizens United case addressing campaign finance. I would maintain that that topic should be addressed AFTER we learn what transpired at the IRS.

Truth, transparency, and integrity continue to be virtues that take a battering in and around Washington. America continues to suffer as a result. Let’s continue to fight for our country.

Larry Doyle

Isn’t  it time or overtime to subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

As if we did not already know that the SEC has all too often failed to protect investors, let’s navigate and learn about the case of current SEC employee Kathleen Furey. From a recent complaint brought by Ms. Furey against the SEC:

The three-year ascent of Kathleen Furey to higher levels of official responsibility and pay came to an abrupt halt in 2008, shortly after she was forced to become a whistleblower. 

In August or September of 2007, Furey approached Assistant Regional Director George Stepaniuk, her level-2 supervisor, to discuss the investigation of “name redacted” which seemed to be floundering, just like many investigations of other investment companies or advisers had floundered in the past.

Wouldn’t you like to know what entity this was? I would. Could it have been Bernie Madoff’s operation? Actually a review of the amended complaint reveals that Furey did work on the Madoff case — after it had blown up and the SEC was skewered by Harry Markopolos.

Furey believed that “name redacted” had violated both the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the Investment Advisors Act of 1940. Stepaniuk responded that his group—approximately twenty lawyers in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement — “does not do IM (investment management) cases.” In essence, Stepaniuk had arrogantly admitted that he was flouting two of the four major securities acts that Congress and the Code of Federal Regulations had mandated the SEC and its staff enforce.

Wow. Talk about a bombshell allegation regarding a total abdication of duty within the SEC. If this is not a smoking hot gun of enormous proportions, I do not know what is. I would maintain that Stepaniuk’s statement, if made as Furey asserts, is a clear cut indication of corruption within the commission.

If the SEC “does not do IM cases,” and we know they bring very few cases against the major banks, the question begs what was — and still is — going on within the offices of our nation’s top financial cops?

Furey faced a dilemma: should she join in Stepaniuk’s decision to flout the law and thereby violate the oath she took when she became an SEC employee or risk angering Stepaniuk by disclosing his personal moratorium on enforcing the IAA and ICA to his supervisors, the next logical step to correct the problem.

In October 2007, Furey approached Associate Regional Director David Rosenfeld,  her level-3 supervisor, and requested a transfer out of Rosenfeld’s group.  Furey told Rosenfeld about Stepaniuk’s self-imposed moratorium on “IM cases.” Rosenfeld reacted with indifference. Consequently, Furey took her concerns about Stepaniuk’s IM moratorium a step higher—to the Regional Director of the New York Regional Office, Mark Schonfeld.

Schonfeld offered Furey two options: she could recant her statement about what Stepaniuk told her or she could inform the staff of the SEC’s Inspector General, David Kotz of her allegations. In this way, Furey was forced to become a whistleblower.

Talk about cavalier. Again, if true and as alleged by Ms. Furey, Rosenfeld and Schonfeld should be thoroughly investigated by an external official. Although, if we were to look for Mr. Schonfeld these days, we would have to track him down by going through the revolving door as Schonfeld is now working at Gibson Dunn.

One year later—before the sting of her whistleblower disclosures to Rosenfeld, Schonfeld, and IG Kotz had worn off—NYRO’s indifference to enforcing the securities acts against one prominent investment manager—Bernard Madoff—would produce the worst failure or perhaps more accurately the worst scandal in the SEC’s history.

Whether Furey’s claims of the SEC’s unwillingness to investigate alluded to the Madoff scandal, we may never know. We may also never know why Ms. Furey suffers the consequences of the derailment of what was once a promising SEC career. Why is that? The SEC is contesting  Furey’s request for the necessary info to pursue her case via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Furey remains an employee of the SEC and is fighting to be compensated at the level of which her own reviews indicates that she deserves.

If the new leadership of the SEC might like to convey a meaningful change in the manner in which it handles situations such as these, then they should release the information requested. Or are we to believe that perhaps the SEC still “does not do IM cases” and remains in bed with Wall Street and Washington instead of upholding its mandate to protect investors.

You cannot make this stuff up.

I thank the regular reader who brought this story to my attention. If you find situations such as these as troubling and disturbing as I do, I hope you will care enough to share it with your friends, family, and colleagues. In light of the most recent developments with the DOJ and the AP, whistleblowers need all the support they can get these days.

For those with an interest in reading more about this case, I welcome linking to Furey’s complaint brought against the SEC and related Exhibits:

FUREY v. SEC (click on image to access pdf document):

FUREY RELATED EXHIBITS (click on image to access pdf doc):

Related Commentary
Bloomberg’s William Cohan writes, How Bad Can It Be for SEC Whistleblowers?; May 15, 2013

Larry Doyle

Isn’t  it time or overtime to subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

The stench of the cesspool of scandalous activities in Washington is now bubbling over into the backyards of those who have previously stridently defended this administration.

The flood of filth associated with the three current bombshell stories leaves me with a number of feelings and questions that I would like to share with readers. I would welcome hearing what readers make of all these sordid situations. My thoughts include:

1. We are witnessing a serious failure of real leadership. I do not pretend to think that the other side of the aisle has the statesmen our country needs right now but does anybody believe that the administration is displaying the necessary leadership to move our country forward currently.

If the administration had a real set of balls and the courage and character needed for the office, I think we would witness the immediate announcement of 3 separate independent investigations led by people with unquestioned integrity and credibility. Grant these investigators the power of the subpoena and mandate that they leave no stone unturned in determining “THE TRUTH.”  Whom would readers nominate? Allow me to throw out the names of Judd Gregg and Evan Bayh to start. Allow these individuals “to get to the bottom” of what really happened in all three situations so that our  national interests can once again be prioritized.

2. Who is Denis McDonough? At all times but especially during times of crisis, the White House Chief of Staff is the administration’s de facto chief operating officer. Check out McDonoughs’ resume. He may have a distinguished career down the road but as of now he not only has no public presence but little meaningful experience to occupy such a lofty position. This is not good.

3. In regard to the Department of Justice’s betrayal of the Associated Press, none other than the chief executive of the Project on Government Oversight, Danielle Brian, said, “The Justice Department’s seizure of the Associated Press’ phone records is Nixonian. The American public deserves a full accounting of why and how this could happen.”

Strong words from an individual and an organization that works tirelessly to promote truth and transparency in Washington.  All too much evidence of intimidating whistleblowers has streamed out of Washington over the last few years. I am all for national security. I am also all for protecting the interests and identities of whistleblowers.

4. Add it all up and what do we get and why do I feel compelled to write this commentary?

Without strong leadership, the trust and confidence so badly needed to help our economy grow will not only be stifled but will actually decline. The “people’s business” will remain relegated to the back burner. Do you think the many families struggling to make ends meet need to see our news dominated by activities that do nothing to help put bread on the table?

The Washington soap opera will run for another season. Real life in mainstream America deserves far better.

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Isn’t  it time or overtime to subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

Well, in reviewing a report released yesterday by the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, we gain a greater appreciation for just how expensive this train wreck might be.

I hope readers are not already feeling ill at ease this morning because after reading this report I can assure you that you will get sick. Let’s navigate and look more deeply at The Looming Premium Rate Shock: >>>>>>>

Affordability. It was a central premise – and promise – of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) when the law was debated in Congress throughout 2009 and signed into law on March 23, 2010. In his remarks that day, President Barack Obama stated: “This legislation will also lower costs for families and businesses . . . .” Over three years later, the White House continues to state that the PPACA will lower costs.

Then how do the wizards working at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue explain this.

On March 14, 2013 the committee sent letters to 17 of the nation’s largest health insurance companies requesting analyses of the effect of PPACA’s (i.e. Obamacare) policies, mandates, taxes, and fees on premiums.

The materials submitted by the health insurance companies show that the PPACA will increase premiums significantly for most Americans. One company stated: “…consumers in about 90% of all states would likely face significant premium increases.” Another insurer wrote that they “expect significant increases in premiums for a large percentage of our membership depending on their current health plan product and their specific circumstances.”

How large might the increases be for those purchasing individual coverage?  (caution: get your barf bag ready!!)

The total average change due to the PPACA for new business in the individual market will be a 96 percent increase in premiums. Existing customers can expect an average increase of 73 percent.

Note that these are only the average expected changes because of the PPACA. As is shown above, new business in the individual market could see a premium increase of 413 percent when new requirements on age rating and required benefits are taken into account.

In dollars, this is a large hit to every American’s pocketbook. The average yearly cost for a new customer in the individual market grows from $1,896 to $3,708 — a $1,812 cost increase.

Another insurer provided materials showing that the average increase would be much higher for a young, healthy male. As the chart suggests, the PPACA could lead to a 180 percent premium increase.

What about for small employers, those being companies with fewer than 50 employees?

 . . .  purchasers of small group plans can expect premium increases of up to 50 percent. The insurer that produced this chart estimated that a plurality, 35 percent of  the small group market, can expect premium increases over 30 percent. An additional percent of small group purchasers can expect increases ranging from 20 percent to 30 percent.

And for large employers?

Most of the insurers contacted by the committee had not conducted an analysis on the PPACA’s effects on the large group market. One insurer that did, however, estimated a premium increase for the large group market at 20 percent to 25 percent. Another insurer provided the following chart showing estimated premium increases in the large group market ranging from 15 percent to 20 percent.

As if these increases were not enough to make you sick, the committee also informs us that new taxes and fees,

. . . could increase premiums from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent in 2014 in the individual, small, and large group markets. This tax could increase premiums an additional 3 percent to 4 percent in future years. Other insurers, by grouping the fees and taxes together, found premium increases ranging from 4 percent to 8 percent.

What does the committee conclude?

The internal documents provided by the insurance industry confirm many of the concerns voiced over PPACA: despite promises that the law will lower costs, the PPACA will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially.

The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law’s higher costs.

One of the nation’s leading insurance companies that insures millions of Americans predicts premiums will nearly double for individuals getting a new plan, those keeping their insurance will see an average increase of 73 percent, and some individuals could see increases of as much as 413 percent.

These figures forecast looming financial hardships when the law takes effect on January 1, 2014.

Why is it that our economy cannot seem to gain any momentum? A variety of reasons but the grinding of the brakes related to Obamacare should not be underestimated.

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Isn’t  it time or overtime to subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

In light of the ongoing developments with the stories centering on Benghazi and the abuse of power within the IRS, I feel compelled to offer a brief comment.

Politics is certainly a dirty business.

National security in a world filled with new risks has likely never been more challenging. That said, there comes a point in time where politics need to be set aside and the people’s business needs to be prioritized.

In the course of a brief conversation with a reporter who covers the scene in Washington, he shared with me that a since departed senior White House official shared with him that he was frustrated in his capacity. Why so?

Because “everything is political” in the current administration. He offered that prior administrations, both Democratic and Republican alike, would concentrate on how the politics played out 75-80 per cent of the time. After that, political leaders from both parties would settle down and try to get the people’s business done. Not so currently as everything is addressed in terms of how it will play politically.

In a city and an administration in which everything is political, what suffers and is often compromised?  The truth.

How does that happen? A compliant media having abdicated its responsibility to find and promote “all the truth that’s fit to print” fails to uphold that mandate.

I would like to think that I am not so naive as to think that there will not always be issues of national security in which information needs to remain privileged. But when seemingly every issue is viewed through the prism of how it will play politically, then I firmly believe America as a whole suffers.

What really happened within the Internal Revenue Service to allow selected groups to be singled out and subjected to inappropriate review? In similar fashion, what has really happened within many of our financial regulatory agencies that have failed to protect the interests of homeowners, investors, consumers,and the American taxpayer?

When the truth takes a back seat to the politics, a culture of crony abuse of power is allowed to propagate.

Sad but true, I think America is awash in this political cesspool currently.

Where are the real political leaders from both sides of the aisle and where are the leaders within the media who are willing to stand up and say . . .  ENOUGH??

Good for Marco Rubio to stand up and speak out.

Thoughts, comments, constructive criticisms encouraged and appreciated.

Larry Doyle

Isn’t  it time or overtime to subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

America is increasingly aware that banks that are too big to fail, trust, regulate, prosecute, and jail are thus — duh — TOO BIG TO EXIST!!

This basic principle espoused by anybody with even a modicum of “sense on cents” is gaining momentum in Washington given the growing bipartisan support for the Brown-Vitter Bill to address the too big to fail reality.

I personally believe the Brown-Vitter Bill should only be an initial pit stop on our way to breaking up these mega-banks that own Washington and run our country. Who recently weighed in on these topics? 

Paul Ryan (R-WI) had the following to say to his constituents in a town hall in Wisconsin:

Banks are getting really big, and they are using the value of their deposits to go do other things that are really not banking and jeopardizing the stability of the system.

Dodd-Frank goes in the wrong direction. It creates a permanent bailout fund. It deems very large, interconnected  banks as too big to fail, meaning the government will back them up if they go down. And that means these really large banks can go into the markets and get money at a much cheaper rate than your community bank.

I also believe in what we call the Volcker rule, which means if you’re going to act like a hedge fund then be a hedge fund. If you’re going to be a bank, then you have to be regulated like a bank.

Meaning separate the ability of banks to take the implied subsidy of insured deposits and leverage that. I think that was one of the mistakes that was made.

What else does he have to say? Listen to this brief 2-minute clip.

Too big to fail, trust, regulate, prosecute, and jail . . . then — duh — BREAK ‘EM UP!!

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Isn’t  it time or overtime to subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

In May 2010, financier Cliff Asness said in The Wall Street Journal that the Dodd-Frank Act was “perfectly designed to create the largest and most powerful crony system in history. It’s not that the people, regulator or regulated, are personally corrupt. It’s that the system will itself select for, reward and enforce corruption.”

I would not agree with a blanket assessment that all the regulators and regulated are not personally corrupt but I give Cliff Asness credit for going where few in the industry are willing to navigate.

I will be watching Asness this afternoon from 2-3pm EST talk at the American Enterprise Institute about the impact of Dodd Frank — er, that is, aka Fraud Dank here at Sense on Cents — and the state of competition in America’s financial markets.

Asness is not bashful. Recall his open letter, Appalled in Greenwich, CT, to President Obama in early 2010 railing on the President for generalizing in his vilification of those within the banking industry.

Asness has also spoken out forcefully in defense of the rule of law.

To view this discussion with Cliff Asness, simply go to this link for the American Enterprise Institute  at 2pm. I would hope and expect that the conversation will be archived for those who would like to view it at your leisure.

I thank the regular reader who brought this event to my attention. I hope those who care about our markets, economy, and nation will share Asness’ presentation with your friends and colleagues.

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Isn’t  it time or overtime to subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

With family incomes stagnant, job prospects for graduates challenging, and pressure on the bottom line — for families and schools alike — increasing like never before, those within the executive offices of our nation’s ivory towers are scrambling.

What is one area that is getting a lot of focus? The manner in which schools dispense financial aid, which for more and more families is becoming THE key variable in determining where little Susie or Joey might go to school. In a report that is troubling to those who know that higher education is THE only real path for those in the lower income strata of our nation to advance, the New America Foundation writes this morning:

Nearly fifty years ago, the federal government committed itself to removing the financial barriers that prevent low-income students from enrolling in and completing colleges. For years, colleges complemented the government’s efforts by using their financial aid resources to open the doors to the neediest students. But those days appear to be in the past. With their relentless pursuit of prestige and revenue, the nation’s public and private four-year colleges and universities are now in danger of shutting down what has long been a pathway to the middle class for low-income and working-class students.

Undermining Pell presents a new analysis of little-examined U.S. Department of Education data showing the “net price” — the amount students pay after all grant aid has been exhausted — for low-income students at thousands of individual colleges.

The analysis shows that hundreds of public and private non-profit colleges expect the neediest students to pay an amount that is equal to or even more than their families’ yearly earnings.

As a result, these students are left with little choice but to take on heavy debt loads or engage in activities that reduce their likelihood of earning their degrees, such as working full-time while enrolled or dropping out until they can afford to return.

What are more and more schools doing with their increasingly precious financial aid dollars? Providing marginal discounts to students and families who can otherwise pay the entire freight. That is, they are trying to “buy students” in an attempt to: 1) support their bottom line, and 2) attract  stronger students who might otherwise not attend.

What is the message to lower income students and especially those who are qualified and capable of doing the work at many of these schools?

In its latest survey of college admissions directors, Inside Higher Ed found that more than one-third of public colleges and nearly two thirds of private colleges engage in “gapping” — providing lower-income students with aid packages that don’t come close to meeting their financial need. In the parlance of enrollment management, this is often called “admit-deny,” in which schools deliberately underfund financially needy students in order to discourage them from enrolling.

Selected schools with meaningful endowments such as Amherst College have been able to buck this trend by really working at it. Other schools with enormous endowments such as Harvard seem to be less motivated to truly address this issue.

While I am not surprised by the reality of this situation, the simple fact is it is troubling as this situation will certainly lead to an even greater disparity in opportunities and incomes in America for future generations.

Would love to hear what people from all ends of the spectrum and especially those facing this issue  have to say.

Larry Doyle

Isn’t  it time or overtime to subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

Fast forward a year and a recent survey of those within the hedge fund world unsurprisingly shows that a host of issues remain, and that the “findings are troubling.” Let’s navigate and review the results of this recent survey: 

An independent survey of hedge fund professionals commissioned by law firm Labaton Sucharow LLP, HedgeWorld and the Hedge Fund Association, revealed that nearly half (46%) believe that their competitors engage in illegal activity, more than one third (35%) have personally felt pressure to break the rules, and about one third (30%) have witnessed misconduct in the workplace.

Hey now . . . feel better about navigating the markets in the company of some of these sharks? Aside from those “troubling” results, we also discover:

87% of respondents would report wrongdoing given the protections and incentives such as those offered by the SEC Whistleblower Program, while 83% of respondents were aware of this important program.

29% of respondents reported that it was likely that they would be retaliated against if they were to report wrongdoing in the workplace.

28% of respondents reported that if leaders of their firm learned that a top performer had engaged in insider trading, they would be unlikely to report the misconduct to law enforcement or regulatory authorities; 13% of respondents reported that leaders of their firm would likely ignore the problem.

54% of respondents reported that the SEC is ineffective in detecting, investigating and prosecuting securities violations.

34% of respondents reported that recent regulation and law enforcement scrutiny will weaken the hedge fund industry.

13% of respondents reported that hedge fund professionals may need to engage in unethical or illegal activity in order to be successful and an equal percentage would commit a crime—insider trading—if they could make a guaranteed $10 million and get away with it.

93% of respondents reported that their firm put the best interests of investors first.

“Our members have a deep commitment to corporate integrity,” noted Lara Block, Executive Director of the Hedge Fund Association.   “Although some of the findings are troubling, this groundbreaking survey provides valuable insights that will help the industry to further strengthen its investor protection programs and root out any bad actors.”

Root out any bad actors? Really?

Or is it really cheating if you do not get caught?

Be careful out there . . . that is, navigate accordingly!!

Larry Doyle

Isn’t  it time or overtime to subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

The filth and stench surrounding this story runs so high as to have recently influenced JPM’s bedmates — er, I mean regulators — to pronounce that they do not trust JP Morgan management. Wow. That’s saying something.

We know that only 1 in 5 in America trust our banks (down from 1 in 2 a mere 5 plus years ago), but for regulators to now voice their distrust in JPM’s management is a cry from the bedroom not often heard. What’s going on at JPM? Let’s navigate.   

We now learn about another JP Morgan whistleblower who has paid the ultimate price, JPM’s questionable dealings in the electricity market, money laundering, and so much more as The Center for Public Integrity exposes the bank’s devotion to fighting the flow of dirty money. Bring the waders and let’s move downstream.

First stop, let’s meet Jennifer Sharkey:

In the summer of 2009, Jennifer Sharkey was moving in select company. As a Manhattan-based vice president at JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Private Wealth Management group, she juggled relationships with 75 “high net worth” clients with assets totaling more than half a billion dollars.

Things changed for her, she claims, after she raised doubts about a “suspect” foreign client who had millions stashed in various accounts at the bank.

The client was making questionable cash transfers and concealing who actually owned certain accounts, according to a lawsuit Sharkey is pursuing in federal court in Manhattan. She also found evidence, her suit claims, that the client had falsified financial statements for one of his companies and that he’d been involved in the “unexplained disappearance” of millions of dollars in merchandise in another venture.

After she warned high-level bank officials that the client might be involved in fraud and money laundering, her suit claims, JPMorgan moved to silence her — pressuring her to stop raising questions about the client, assigning her other clients to junior colleagues and, finally, firing her.

Seemingly standard treatment for a whistleblower. Moving right along . . .

In 2011, the bank paid nearly $90 million to settle regulators’ claims that it had violated economic sanctions against Iran, Cuba and other countries under U.S. embargoes.

In January, a consent order from JPMorgan’s main federal regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, cited the bank for “critical deficiencies” in its anti-money-laundering controls, including inadequate  procedures for monitoring transactions at foreign branches.

JPMorgan and other major banks have increased their risks and rewards in the offshore world by weaving a web of branches and subsidiaries across places that have been tagged as havens for financial secrecy and criminal activity.

A 2008 U.S. government report found JPMorgan had 50 subsidiaries in Bermuda, the Bahamas and other places labeled as tax havens or secrecy jurisdictions, tied for 11th highest among the 100 largest U.S. companies.

Since then the bank has expanded its reach in some offshore centers. Its tally of subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands grew from seven in 2007 to 20 at the end of 2012, securities filings show. Over that span its subsidiaries in Mauritius — a tiny isle off Africa’s eastern coast that’s been called “a Cayman Islands to India” — grew from eight to 14.

When the topics surrounding Madoff, Enron, and manipulation of electricity markets are broached, once again JP Morgan is prominently displayed.

The bank held as much as $5.5 billion in Madoff-connected cash and, according to court filings by Picard, earned an estimated half-billion dollars from fees and other revenues generated by Madoff’s billions.

Any concerns within the bank about Madoff “were suppressed as the drive for fees and profits became a substitute for common sense, ethics and legal obligations,” Picard’s lawsuit said.

As Enron’s primary banker, did JP Morgan learn a thing or two about manipulating electricity markets? Then how to explain that,

Investigators from the agency that regulates power markets have found a unit of JPMorgan Chase & Co manipulated trading in the California and Michigan electricity markets, the New York Times reported, in what would be the latest government crackdown on trading abuses in the markets.

The newspaper said it reviewed a confidential, 70-page government document that was sent to JPMorgan in March and that also criticized Blythe Masters, the bank’s current head of global commodities and former chief financial officer.

How does all this come to pass? Actually very easily. When bankers own the politicians and regulators they will push the envelope as far as they possibly can. When revenue streams in other books of business decline, then the questionable activities and double digit returns within the dirty money are accentuated.

As was then, is now, and forever shall be UNLESS and UNTIL the pols and the regulators are forced out of the bankers’ bedroom.

I can only chuckle thinking that JP Morgan’s chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon is stealing a page from Washington’s handbook and will try to shovel away a lot of this dirt by soon hosting a town meeting with the junior staff of the OCC. What a joke.

If they took out the banking systems and put in sewing machines, the Department of Health would likely shut the place down.

Navigate accordingly.

Larry Doyle

Isn’t  it time or overtime to subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.