SKARBECK: Regulators and 'experts' failed to stop scammers

Ken Skarbeck
December 25, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ken SkarbeckThere are many things that are difficult to understand. For example, why do the big pharmaceutical companies spend billions on advertising that warn us—in graphic detail—of the potential for repulsive side effects of using the very product they are selling?

How come politicians grant generous retirement benefits to public employees and then fail to set aside the required money in pension funds to pay for them?

Why do otherwise sane people put their money into a fund-of-funds that charges oversized fees, which in turn just hands the money off to another hedge fund that charges another layer of massive fees?

Why did certain Wall Street executives walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars as the economy was laid to shambles, and yet every day we send petty thieves to jail? A fair number of people in this country have been financially ruined in the wake of their transgressions, but the eggnog flows freely in the Hamptons.

Why is the tax rate levied on the billions of dollars earned by private equity and venture capitalists only 15 percent, when the rest of America pays tax on their income as high as 35 percent?

Do corporate boards really have the best interests of shareholders in mind? Particularly when it comes to setting executive compensation? Are their policies influenced by the generous compensation and benefits they in turn receive?

Most people find it incomprehensible that there are hundreds of con men around the country who wake up every morning with the objective of looting people who have placed their trust in them. Where were the rating agencies, accountants, lawyers and investment consultants who were paid handsomely to provide the due diligence and unbiased checks and balances that are supposed to ferret out these scams? Are they incompetent, complacent, willingly looking away, drinking the Kool-Aid, intimidated, or some combination of the above?

How does the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ignore Bernie Madoff for 30 years, particularly when they were alerted to his crimes multiple times? Why did the Ohio Division of Securities routinely allow the issuance of non-insured investment certificates backed by personal loans with no equity behind them? We need more regulators with the backbone of the Cuomos, Spitzers and Volckers.

This is not to say that investors deserve a free pass. For example, should you invest in a 9-percent non-insured certificate paying more than twice the risk-free rate and not ask why? People need to understand the concept of no free lunch—if the touted returns look too good to be true, the danger signs should flash.

And that perhaps is the central lesson: We just can’t blindly rely on proclaimed experts and regulators when making decisions on financial affairs. It is incumbent on all of us to educate ourselves and use a strong dose of common sense.

Finally, one last thing I know I will never understand: Why we must remain pin-drop silent while a golfer swings at a stationary ball sitting on the ground, but we can scream at a batter trying to hit a 90 mph fastball?•


Skarbeck is managing partner of Indianapolis-based Aldebaran Capital LLC, a money-management firm. His column appears every other week. Views expressed are his own. He can be reached at 818-7827 or ken@aldebarancapital.com.


  • Wake up
    The answers to your Fund of Funds question is very simple. FOF's provide diversification to individual funds that have very high minimum investments. They provide due diligence to individual funds that is expensive and hard to evaluate. There is many benefits to investing in a FOF which is a great vehicle, but a FOF is still an investment so do your homework or put your money under the mattress if you are too stupid.

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

  2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

  3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

  4. Send them back NOW.

  5. deport now