Stanford Bests Geithner

Posted by: David Henry on February 18

Perversely, alleged conman R. Allen Stanford did more in the past 10 days to boost confidence and stability in the banking system than U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

On Tuesday Stanford became a one-man reason for people to buy certificates of deposit only from banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Stanford, a Texan operating from the tropical island paradise of Antigua, was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission for making up stories and statistics to sell $8 billion of what the commission said were “self-styled” CDs that fraudulently promised higher returns than “true certificates of deposit offered by traditional banks.”

Stanford deployed an army of salespeople with his CD pitch to convince as many as 50,000 wealthy investors in the U.S., Caribbean and Latin America to send him their money. He apparently spent a lot of their cash to buy illiquid stakes in real estate, pay sales commissions for his brokers and acquire the luxurious accouterments that a flashy promoter needs to host cricket matches, politicians and money managers in the Caribbean.

It will take years to see how much the authorities, who seized Stanford offices in the U.S., will recover from the international operation. It might even take months to bring Stanford before a judge.

But the immediate consequence of the raid is that millions of people are learning not to trust anyone with their money. It is a natural reaction since Stanford’s fall came so quickly after the collapse of Bernie Madoff’s alleged pyramid scheme and the devastating losses of wealth in houses and stocks.

Now more people are buying gold and jewelry to store what wealth they have left. Gold was above $969 again after climbing to its highest levels since July. Other people will favor cash, but look for more practical alternatives than mattresses. They’ll likely turn to banks, specifically banks insured by the FDIC for up to $250,000 per depositor per bank, banks that offer what the SEC called “true certificates of deposit.”

This will be good for the legitimate banking system. For banks, insured certificates of deposit are one of the more stable sources of financing they can get. Depositors are less likely to run to take their money back than are institutions that lend to banks through the capital markets. That’s why banks build branches to attract deposits. And, that’s why the government raised FDIC insurance coverage of bank deposits to $250,000 from $100,000 on Oct. 3 after the near meltdown of the financial system. The additional insurance essentially encourages people to lend to banks so that the banks can lend to others and support the economy.

When BusinessWeek revealed the SEC investigation and doubts about Stanford on Feb. 11, Treasury secretary Geithner was being criticized throughout Wall Street for his public presentations the day before. He had offered up an incomplete plan to restore confidence in banks. Now he can thank Allen Stanford for reminding people why they should put cash in banks.

Reader Comments

pjw

February 18, 2009 04:04 PM

Recessions reveal what auditors miss (or hide). I suspect more Stanfords and Madoffs will come to light in the comming year. - pjw

Peter Pan

February 18, 2009 04:07 PM

What's the difference between Allen Stanford and his bank and Citigroup? The difference is that the Ponzi scheme called Citigroup gets unlimited help of the government, but this crook's bank doesn't. Helicopter Ben promises to fix the economy, he just needs to hire David Copperfield as his assistant. The guy can do marvelous magic.

Mishap

February 18, 2009 04:36 PM

Peter Pan,

Did Citi promise you 4X the returns of every other bank? They screwed up the real estate game bad...at the peril of its shareholders but they didn't spend CD money on houses and cricket matches.

You also don't seem to understand the mechanics of a Ponzi scheme. Citi's not an innocent party but at least they're a legitimate bank albeit one that had very poor risk management but no different than BOA, Wachovia, WAMU, UBS, et al.

herring

February 18, 2009 06:28 PM

I ASK THE SAME QUESTION ONE MONTH AGO.
WHEN DOES SOMEBODY GO TO JAIL?. YOU CAN'T STOP CROOKS UNLESS YOU PUT THEM IN JAIL.WHY DOESN'T SOMEBODY GET TO IT.
FLOYD

Sam Siphandone

February 18, 2009 06:30 PM

Send these crooks to Gulag in Siberia for 500 years.... For good....

Bob Snyder

February 18, 2009 09:15 PM

People hear one story about a ponzi scheme and they start calling everything and anything that loses money a ponzi scheme. Peter Pan, go take Business 101 before you try commenting on a business story.

Bobba Louie

February 19, 2009 10:39 AM

Here we go again. Another scam taking the money of hard working folks with the guise of higher returns. I call it selling "bullsh*t."

Bobba
www.scamandfraudblog.com

Steve Mathison

February 19, 2009 01:53 PM

Your headline is typically sensationalistic and misleading. Shame on you!

David Henry, BusinessWeek

February 19, 2009 02:05 PM

Steve:
I don't accept "typically," but you're
right to find fault with this particular headline.

Here's an alternate:
"Stanford Gives Geithner a Hand"

Susan S. Stephens, Seattle, WA

February 19, 2009 02:29 PM

Umm...don't buy jewelry to "preserve" wealth.. Selling my very good jewelry, purchased from excellent store, very high quality. 10-15% of cost. I had assumed it would be 30-40% of cost. Good stocks haven't dropped that much. Buy jewelry to wear and enjoy; not for savings.

Thank you for your interest. This blog is no longer active.

 

About

BusinessWeek's Adrienne Carter, Jessica Silver-Greenberg, and David Henry deconstruct the mysteries of high finance, Wall Street, and hedge funds for pros and ordinary investors. E-mail them directly if you've got tips about big deals, a hedge fund, or even securities industry gossip.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!