Compliance Bits & Pieces for MF Global Edition

MF Gloabl clearly took a big bet on European sovereign debt. It looks like Jon Corzine, the head of the company, essentially went “all-in” and bet the company on the trades.  He lost. His counterparties called collateral and the company quickly lost liquidity and solvency. On Halloween, MF Global filed for bankruptcy, listing $39.7 billion in debt and $41 billion in assets and put thousands of people out of work.

Unfortunately, it looks like some of the customer accounts were tied up in the company’s proprietary trading. It looks like $1.2 billion is missing from customer accounts.

MF Global and the great Wall St re-hypothecation scandal by Christopher Elias in Thomson Reuters

Under the U.S. Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation T and SEC Rule 15c3-3, a prime broker may re-hypothecate assets to the value of 140% of the client’s liability to the prime broker. For example, assume a customer has deposited $500 in securities and has a debt deficit of $200, resulting in net equity of $300. The broker-dealer can re-hypothecate up to $280 (140 per cent. x $200) of these assets.

But in the UK, there is absolutely no statutory limit on the amount that can be re-hypothecated. In fact, brokers are free to re-hypothecate all and even more than the assets deposited by clients. Instead it is up to clients to negotiate a limit or prohibition on re-hypothecation. On the above example a UK broker could, and frequently would, re-hypothecate 100% of the pledged securities ($500).

Statement of Jon S. Corzine before the US House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture (.pdf)

Recognizing the enormous impact on many peoples’ lives resulting from the events surrounding the MF Global bankruptcy, I appear at today’s hearing with great sadness. My sadness, of course, pales in comparison to the losses and hardships that customers, employees and investors have suffered as a result of MF Global’s bankruptcy. Their plight weighs on my mind every day – every hour. And, as the chief executive officer of MF Global at the time of its bankruptcy, I apologize to all those affected.

Before I address what happened, I must make clear that since my departure from MF Global on November 3, 2011, I have had limited access to many relevant documents, including internal communications and account statements, and even my own notes, all of which are essential to my being able to testify accurately about the chaotic, sleepless nights preceding the declaration of bankruptcy. Furthermore, even when I was at MF Global, my involvement in the firm’s clearing, settlement and payment mechanisms, and accounting was limited.

Corzine Rebuffed Internal Warnings on Risks by Aaron Lucchetti and Julie Steinberg in the Wall Street Journal

MF Global Holdings Ltd.’s executive in charge of controlling risks raised serious concerns several times last year to directors at the securities firm about the growing bet on European bonds by his boss, Jon S. Corzine, people familiar with the matter said.

The board allowed the company’s exposure to troubled European sovereign debt to swell from about $1.5 billion in late 2010 to $6.3 billion shortly before MF Global tumbled into bankruptcy Oct. 31, these people said. The executive who challenged Mr. Corzine resigned in March.

The disagreement shows that concerns about the big bet grew inside the company months before the trade rattled regulators, investors and customers. The executive, Michael Roseman, whose title was chief risk officer, also expressed concerns directly to Mr. Corzine in meetings of just the two men and with other people present, people familiar with the situation said.

The Corzine lesson on executive departures by Theo Francis in Footnoted*

The only other indicator that something might be wrong was the fact that MF Global paid Roseman $1.35 million as he left. But this is all MF Global’s July proxy had to say on the subject:

“Mr. Michael Roseman’s employment with the Company ended effective March 31, 2010. In connection with his separation from the Company, Mr. Roseman was paid severance totaling $1,350,000 under his employment agreement. Mr. Roseman’s severance payment was calculated by adding his fiscal 2011 target cash bonus amount ($500,000), his fiscal 2011 target equity bonus amount ($500,000) and his fiscal 2011 salary ($350,000). All of Mr. Roseman’s unvested restricted stock units vested as of March 31, 2011.”

This is where reading between the lines becomes so critical. Executives who quit of their own volition, especially non-CEOs, rarely get big bucks on their way out the door. Often, that’s a sign that they went unwillingly. And yet, it offers no hint as to why he left: Poor performance? Personality conflict? Someone’s brother-in-law needed a job? There are a million potential reasons, good and bad, for easing someone out, and investors shouldn’t be left to guess.

Comments are closed.