To Madoff's Investors: Welcome to Main Street

[On July 1, 2009, seekingalpha.com chose this article as an "Editor's Pick." On July 2, 2009, it became the fourth most popular article on seekingalpha.com's website.]

The WSJ is issuing more Madoff victim propaganda. It is interesting to see the WSJ advocating free markets while slyly supporting special treatment for rich investors who failed to follow basic financial advice. Remember: Madoff's investors only lost their life savings if they chose to violate Investment 101's cardinal rule: diversify, diversify, diversify.

In a free market, the rich must suffer when they violate basic investing rules. Otherwise, you don' t have a free market. Instead, you end up with two separate systems--one where the rich get preferential rules and use Congress and the IRS as their own personal insurance policies, and another where everyone else has to suck it up when things fall apart.

As I wrote before here, people who invested with Madoff thought they were buying membership into an exclusive club shielded from the vagaries of the stock market. Middle-class investors like you and me could not get Madoff as our financial advisor. Most of us did not even hear about him until the scandal broke. We were barred from Madoff's circle because we weren't rich and we weren't connected with the elite. Meanwhile, Madoff's investors lobbied hard to gain entrance into Madoff's circle and did so because they believed returns were practically guaranteed. Well, it was an exclusive group, all right--a group of connected, rich suckers who thought they were getting a sweet deal unavailable to Main Street.

Perhaps you think me coldhearted. Don't be naive. If it wasn't for the stock market's monumental, once-in-a-lifetime bust, Madoff's investors would have continued making good, safe, and illegal returns year after year. Madoff's investors would have continued playing golf, donating millions of dollars to charities, and hanging out on their yachts while Madoff wormed his way higher in the NASD's upper ranks. In short, Madoff's investors would have been seen as pillars of their community because they knew Madoff. Meanwhile, the rest of us--not having access to hedge funds or Madoff's exclusive circle--would have had to make it on our own the old-fashioned way: by saving our pennies and diversifying our investments (otherwise known as Investing 101).

What's that? You say not all of Madoff's investors invested directly with Madoff? And not all of them were rich? Fine. Go after the mutual fund companies that failed to do due diligence and violated their fiduciary duties to their investors. Last time I checked, mutual fund advisors get paid millions of dollars in fees to do research on suitable investments, not to find secret investment clubs and then spend the week playing golf. Main Street investors rely on mutual fund managers to check investments and make sure everything's on the up and up. Many people--not just Harry Markopolos--knew something was wrong.

Remember: not everyone invested with Madoff. Many people questioned his too-consistent returns, noticed his small, little-known auditing firm, and went the other direction. By bailing out Madoff's investors, we're punishing smart, ethical people like Harry Markopolos and rewarding unethical rich people who begged to be a part of Madoff's club precisely because it used techniques unavailable to Main Street.

First, let's put all of this in perspective: according to the NY Times (6/29/09), $1.25 billion has already been recovered for Madoff's investors. The WSJ (6/30/2009, A1) cites a similar figure:

Mr. Madoff's attorney, Ira Sorkin, said that Mr. Madoff was a "deeply flawed individual" but maintained that most of the fraud money went to other investors. He added that the $13 billion figure cited by the government as the net losses suffered by account holders since 1995 was overstated, since at least $1 billion in recovered assets will be returned to investors, and perhaps a lot more.

In addition to the to $1 billion, the SIPC has already approved almost $200 million for Madoff's investors:

SIPC has mailed out about $142 million in checks to eligible claimants, out of a total of $188.4 million that already has been approved. [See WSJ (Jane Kim, 6/29/2009, C1)]

The above figures don't include the special tax breaks Congress pushed through for Madoff's investors. Oh, you didn't forget, did you? Congress changed the tax rules to benefit Madoff's investors. (Don't you wish we could do that?) If the test of fair capitalism is whether the rich have to suffer when they make mistakes, America is getting a "D" grade--and I'm being a generous grader.

On top of the tax breaks given to Madoff's investors because of their losses, millions of dollars of taxpayer money is being spent on what is essentially a civil fraud matter. Many middle class and poor Americans suffer fraud at the hands of scam artists. When was the last time you saw local D.A.s and the DOJ spending this much time and effort recovering money for middle-class and poor victims? Where are the tax breaks for small businesses going bankrupt because of the ripple effects from the big banks and hedge funds? I am disgusted by the attention given to investors who were either too lazy to follow basic investing rules or so sophisticated, they had access to special investment vehicles. I am also sorry the WSJ is ruining its credibility by portraying all of Madoff's investors as poor, impoverished souls who bear no responsibility for what has happened to them.

There are no shortcuts. Madoff's investors forgot about that. Now they want us to cover their hides because their exclusive club didn't pan out? Sorry, I don't do handouts to rich people or negligent investors--especially not investors who knowingly violate basic investing rules and look for shortcuts unavailable to Main Street. Non-rich people who invested with Madoff through mutual and feeder funds need to look to the banks and insurance companies for recourse, not the taxpayer. You have my sympathy, but don't push it. Get a job and start saving your pennies like the rest of us. And welcome to Main Street. It ain't so bad.

Essential Reading

Essential reading, from SmartMoney: "10 Things Your Congressperson Won't Say" (Brigid McMenamin, June 30, 2009)

http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/rip-offs/what-your-congressman-wont-tell-you-20207/

Basically, it's an article about how our legislative branch really works. Cover your children's eyes before clicking on the link.

Letter to Iran

From PARVANEH VAHIDMANESH: a touching letter to Iran's establishment:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623110886766123.html

Ali Khamenei, if you pursue the path you have been following, our people's anger will take a different form. It will turn you and your family, as it did the shah's and his, into forlorn and helpless individuals with the word "exile" stamped across your foreheads.

The French and Sex

I read a while back that the French have the most sex compared to all other nationalities. (I think I saw it in Durex's annual sex survey.) Here might be why:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1195624/French-women-dont-just-tolerate-husbands-affairs--expect-them.html

Seems like a realistic approach. Many marital couples stop enjoying sex frequently, and under the French system, they don't have to get divorced. They just move on and be discreet. But what about STDs?

Anyway, if you notice, in most socialist countries, women tend to be more sexually open. See Scandinavian countries, for example. If Karl Marx had gone with the sex angle, maybe we'd all be red commies today. It does seem that many people compensate for a lack of a good sex life with material possessions. Perhaps that's one reason why capitalism and Puritanism go well together.

Funny: Daily Show on Iran

Matt Miller on Heathcare

Matt Miller on healthcare, from The Commonwealth (June 2009, p. 16):

General Motors famously spends more on health care than it does on steel. And Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee. [Nice margins on coffee, eh?] Workers are left in a situation where, because of the nature of employment and benefits being tied [together], we've got 50 million uninsured and maybe 30 million additional folks [underinsured] in tremendous anxiety. It doesn't work anymore.

According to the same speech, in 1960, healthcare cost 5% of GDP. Now it costs 20%. Did we get completely out of shape in just 49 years? If so, the short time frame indicates no permanent difference, meaning we may be able to change our habits and return to a healthier society. I suspect, however, that the real problem is the way healthcare companies, including hospitals, get paid by insurance companies.

When I was in college, I remember going into the ER for some stomach and head pain--I had slept for about 21 hours in a row and was feeling terrible and nauseous. I'd never slept that long before, and I was afraid something had happened (and no, I did not drink the night before--I have never really liked alcohol because I like sweet drinks, and I hadn't discovered Drambuie yet). An ER doctor checked me out for five minutes and saw nothing wrong. Since I was already there, I asked him to check out a small growth on my calf. The doctor looked at it for five seconds and declared there was nothing serious.

As a student, I was still covered under my dad's health insurance policy, but it refused to pay the bill--the insurance company said my nausea and weariness were not true emergencies, and therefore I should not have gone to the ER. The insurance company said I should have waited until Monday to see my regular doctor, but I didn't have a regular doctor in my college town--I was a freshman, and I rarely went to a primary care physician anyway.

I got the bill from the hospital and was able to see the full charges. In addition to the normal ER fee (which is normally quite high), the doctor had charged me around 200 dollars for the five seconds it took him to check my leg. That's right--the doctor had classified my simple question as a completely new healthcare issue. Even lawyers have to account for their time, so they can't charge outrageous amounts for five seconds of work. I don't want doctors to account for every six minutes of their time, but the current system is too easily manipulated. When I received that separate charge for around 200 dollars--a princely sum for a college student back in the mid-90's--I knew there was something morbidly wrong with the American healthcare system.

There is a happy ending, if my memory serves me correctly. My mom called my dad's insurance company day after day, and I believe it finally paid the bill. I wonder what people do if they don't have a determined person who can call and argue a bill over and over. As a full-time college student, there was no way I could have paid that bill. And what's the point of having health insurance if you can't go to the doctor when you're feeling absolutely horrible and terrified about about a brand-new, sudden problem?

In any case, if you believe healthcare companies won't be forced to change their inefficient ways under an Obama administration, you may want to consider Vanguard Health Care Fund ((VGHCX) and the Vanguard Healthcare ETF (VHT).

Disclosure: as of June 29, 2009, I have no positions in any funds mentioned above.

Persian Wedding Table

For more information, click here.

The cool frame at the bottom contains "espand," to ward off the "evil eye." The word Espand refers to a class of Zoroastrian Archangels.

Eggs and nuts (fertility symbols); rose water (purify the air); rock candy and pastries (to make the marriage rock solid and to bring sweetness); wheat (a sign of fruitfulness); Koran (God's blessing for the couple); cup of honey (to sweeten life).