IBJNews

Feds: Hauke OK'd disastrous real estate investments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal prosecutors don’t buy hedge fund manager Keenan Hauke’s assertion that he was victimized by a business partner who poured $4.7 million dollars into Michigan real estate investments early in the 2000s without his approval.

Hauke’s Samex Capital Partners hedge fund lost nearly the entire sum, and by 2004 Hauke had launched a sophisticated scheme to hide the losses from his clients, according to a criminal complaint unveiled Tuesday.

The scheme ended this spring, when a co-worker alerted investigators that something was awry. And on Tuesday, federal prosecutors charged the 40-year-old Fishers resident with one count of securities fraud, a charge that carries up to 25 years in prison.

Hauke had been a regular investing columnist for IBJ for nine years when news of the investigation broke in April and the newspaper canceled his column.

In an investigative story IBJ published in August, an attorney for Hauke said that Robert Beasley, another hedge fund manager whose firm had provided back-office administration for Hauke’s fund, had made the losing real estate investments without Hauke's knowledge or approval.

But court papers filed by prosecutors Tuesday said that that while “initially, the real estate transaction was initiated by [Beasley’s firm] ... Hauke ultimately approved the real estate investment made by the hedge fund.”

As IBJ reported Tuesday, Hauke has agreed to plead guilty to orchestrating a seven-year scheme that ultimately resulted in losses topping $7 million for 67 investors—many from Indianapolis, others scattered from North Carolina to California. The plea agreement, which requires court approval, would prevent the government from recommending a prison sentence of more than 17 years.

It’s not clear why the Michigan residential real estate investments went awry. However, in 2007, the Benton Spirit newspaper of Benton Harbor, Mich., listed nearly three dozen Samex-owned parcels in the area as being in foreclosure.

To avoid fessing up to clients, Hauke began producing fake account statements listing fictional investments and fake rates of return, according to prosecutors. They said he kept the scheme going by using funds from new investors to pay off earlier clients.

Prosecutors also allege Hauke diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars for personal use, including daily living expenses and overseas vacations.

They said he shifted assets among accounts to obscure his wrongdoing. After suffering the real estate losses, Hauke separated clients into the “Brokerage Group” and the “Real Estate Group.” He consolidated all the hedge fund’s legitimate investments into the Brokerage Group, while the Real Estate Group got the disastrous Michigan investments.

Investors put in the Real Estate Group didn’t know anything was amiss because Hauke generated fake account statements, investigators allege.

Prosecutors say Hauke favored himself and the other Indiana investors by putting them in the Brokerage Group. Investors in the Brokerage Group suffered much smaller losses since Hauke had moved all the non-real-estate investments to them.

But William Wendling, the court-appointed receiver trying to marshal assets and reduce investors' losses, said he may attempt to recover money from Samex clients in the Brokerage Group, given that they fared better only because of the way Hauke shifted assets.

Wendling has recovered $1.6 million so far by gaining control over bank accounts and selling some of Hauke’s possessions, including gold and silver coins. He might collect as much as $400,000 by selling Hauke’s Barbados condo.

Wayne Pomanowski, a New Jersey investor in Hauke’s hedge fund, said he didn’t concentrate his investments with Hauke and thus will be OK. But he said he has been in touch with many investors who are financially devastated.

“It’s a sad thing,” Pomanowski said. “I feel bad for people I have spoken to who basically are wiped out. If you listen in on those conversations, it is hard to be merciful.”

Investors said this fall that they felt comfortable with Hauke partly because of his high profile in the media—his investing column, for instance, as well as appearances on CNBC, Fox Business Network, Bloomberg Television and Bloomberg Radio.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • How long?
    Doug---

    IIRC, Hauke's employee blew the whistle just after tax day, April 15th, so how long did the IBJ continue to run his column? Did Hauke try to use that forum to defend himself?
  • Hauke
    Well he adds to the list, Dorothy Geisler who stole millions....Jerks....
  • 3 is a charm
    Don't forget Marcus Schrenker. That makes 3 Fishers investment gurus living off their clients money.
  • Why I quite the print IBJ
    Hauke's column (and IBJ's continuing to run it) was the primary reason I dropped the print version of the IBJ. It was clear to anyone in the investment business that Hauke's advice was goofy, at best and dangerous, at worst. His "I'm so good I have it all figured out" attitude simply seemed very out of line with most of the rest of the IBJ, which I highly respected. While I'm glad they eventually dumped him, I believe they lost a fair amount of credibility by continuing to provide a forum for Hauke.
    • Fisher Problem
      Seems picking a Fishers Investment adviser is not a wise move. Durham now Hauke. Next?

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT