Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- An Outpouring of Love and Support for Bradley Manning to Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Treason of Intellectuals
- The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
Popular content
Today's Top News
Everything You Need to Know About Wall Street, in One Brief Tale
If there was ever a news story that crystallized the moral dementia of modern Wall Street in one little vignette, this is it.
Newspapers in Colorado today are reporting that the elegant Hotel Jerome in Aspen, Colorado, will be closed to the public from today through Monday at noon.
The Hotel Jerome in Aspen. (Walter Bibikow/AWL Images)Why? Because a local squire has apparently decided to rent out all 94 rooms of the hotel for three-plus days for his daughter’s Bat Mitzvah.
The hotel’s general manager, Tony DiLucia, would say only that the party was being thrown by a "nice family," but newspapers are now reporting that the Daddy of the lucky little gal is one Jeffrey Verschleiser, currently an executive with Goldman, Sachs.
At first, I couldn't remember how I knew that name. But then I looked it up and saw an explosive Atlantic magazine story, published last year, called, "E-mails Suggest Bear Stearns Cheated Clients Out Of Millions." And then I remembered that piece, and it hit me: Jeffrey Verschleiser is one of the biggest assholes in the entire world!
The story begins at Bear Stearns, where Verschleiser used to work, up until the company exploded, in large part because of him personally.
Back in the day, you see, Verschleiser headed Bear’s mortgage-backed securities operations. Toward the end of his tenure, his particular specialty began with what at the time was the usual industry-wide practice, putting together gigantic packages of crappy subprime mortgages and dumping them on unsuspecting clients.
But Verschleiser reportedly went beyond that. According to a lawsuit later filed by a bond insurer called Ambac, Verschleiser also masterminded a kind of double-dipping scheme. What he would do is sell a bunch of toxic mortgages into a trust, which like all mortgage trusts had provisions written into their pooling and servicing agreements (PSAs) that required the original lenders to buy the loans back if they went into default.
So Verschleiser would sell bad mortgages back to the banks at a discount, but instead of passing the money back to the trust, he and other Bear execs allegedly pocketed the funds.
From the Atlantic story by reporter Teri Buhl:
The traders were essentially double-dipping -- getting paid twice on the deal. How was this possible? Once the security was sold, they didn't have a legal claim to get cash back from the bad loans -- that claim belonged to bond investors -- but they did so anyway and kept the money. Thus, Bear was cheating the investors they promised to have sold a safe product out of their cash. According to former Bear Stearns and EMC traders and analysts who spoke with The Atlantic, Nierenberg and Verschleiser were the decision-makers for the double dipping scheme.
Imagine giving someone a hundred bucks to buy a bushel of apples, but making a deal with him that he has to buy back any apples that turn out to have worms in them. That's what happened here: Bear sold the wormy apples back to the farmer, but instead of taking the money from those sales and passing it on to you, they simply kept the money, according to the suit.
How wormy were those apples? In one infamous email cited in the suit, a Bear exec colorfully described the content of the bonds they were selling:
Bear deal manager Nicolas Smith wrote an e-mail on August 11th, 2006 to Keith Lind, a Managing Director on the trading desk, referring to a particular bond, SACO 2006-8, as "SACK OF SHIT [2006-]8" and said, "I hope your [sic] making a lot of money off this trade."
So did Verschleiser himself know the mortgages were bad? Not only did he know it, he went so far as to tell his colleagues in writing that it was a waste of money to even bother performing due diligence on the bad bonds:
Jeffrey Verschleiser even said in an e-mail that he knew this was an issue. He wrote to his peer Mike Nierenberg in March 2006, "[we] are wasting way too much money on Bad Due Diligence." Yet a year later nothing had changed. In March 2007, Verschleiser wrote to Nierenberg again about the same due diligence firm, "[w]e are just burning money hiring them."
One of the ways that banks like Bear managed to convince investors to buy these bonds was by wrapping them in bond insurance through companies like Ambac, commonly known as “monoline” insurers. Investors who knew the bonds were insured were less worried about default.
Verschleiser, seeing that Bear had gotten firms like Ambac to insure its “sack of shit” bonds, saw here a new opportunity to make money. He first induced the monolines to insure the worthless bonds, then bet against the insurers! (Is it any wonder this guy ended up hired by Goldman, Sachs?) From the Atlantic story again:
Then in November 2007, Verschleiser wrote to his risk committee that he knew insurers for mortgage securities were going to have big financial problems. He suggested they multiply by ten times the short bet he'd just made against stocks like Ambac. These e-mails show Verschleiser's trading desk bragging to firm leadership that he made $55 million off shorting insurers' stock in just three weeks.
So in essence, Verschleiser was triple-dipping. First he was selling worthless “sacks of shit” to investors, representing them as good investments. Then, he kept the money from the return sales of the wormy apples. And then, on top of that, he made money by betting against the insurers he was sticking with these toxic assets.
We all know what happened from there. Bear, Stearns went under, thanks in large part to insane schemes like Verschleiser’s, and all of us were forced to pick up at least part of the tab as the Fed spent billions subsidizing Bear’s emergency takeover by JP Morgan Chase. In subsequent litigation, Chase has steadfastly refused to buy back the bad mortgages dumped on investors by the likes of Verschleiser, and has even fought tooth and nail to prevent the information in the Ambac suit from being made public.
Ambac went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2010 for a variety of reasons, some of which had nothing to do with its losses in deals like these. But certainly Ambac and other monoline insurers like MBIA suffered for having insured worthless mortgage bonds sold onto the market by the Verschleisers of the world. Ambac in its suit asserted that it paid out over $641 million in claims related to the bonds from the Bear deals.
With all of this, though, Verschleiser landed happily on his feet. He reportedly heads Goldman’s mortgage division now. And after cutting a mile-wide swath of losses through the American economy, helping destroy two venerable firms in Bear and Ambac, bilking the taxpayer for untold millions more (he is also named in a lawsuit filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency for allegedly speeding bad loans onto securitization before they defaulted), Verschleiser is now living the contented life of a proud family man, renting out a 94-room hotel for three days for his daughter’s Bat Mitzvah.
It’s certainly heartening that Verschleiser is spending this money on his daughter instead of, say, hiring a busload of Jamaican hookers to spend the weekend lounging with him in a hot tub full of Beluga caviar. People ought to give their children the best, I guess. But there’s this, too: at a time when one in four Americans has zero or negative net worth, renting a 94-room hotel for three days for a tweenager party might already be pushing the edge of the good taste/tact envelope. Even for the most honest millionaire in Aspen, it would seem a little gauche.
But for this burglarizing dickhead to do it? It’s breathtaking. I hope he at least invited his bankrupted investors to the pool party.
p.s. Since this blog was posted, I've received a number of letters all asking the same question -- how could it be possible that what Verschleiser did is not illegal? How is he not in jail?
The answer is that if the allegations in the Ambac suit are true, it certainly would seem to be illegal. Most notably, the pocketing of putback money almost has to be a form of theft or embezzlement.
The rest of Bear/Verschleiser's scheme, however, is also illegal, but in a more complicated way. If you read the complaint in the Ambac suit, what you see is a sort of extreme blueprint for how mortgage securitization worked in general during that period.
There is a veritable sea of fraudulent and corrupt practices one may gaze upon here, if the SEC were looking for something to target -- everything from withholding material facts from customers and ratings agencies, to threatening ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't overrate bonds, to lying in offering documents, to the manipulation of accounting procedures (this went on after the loans had moved onto Chase's books), etc. -- but the most flagrant violation in the suit involves the issue of due diligence, and here we do know a lot about Verschleiser's role.
It seems that when Bear did do due diligence in these deals, it very frequently overrode the firms they'd hired to do that due diligence, and put the loans in the deals anyway. In the third quarter of 2006, Bear overrode its due diligence firm an incredible 65% of the time, putting loans into their securitizations despite an outside firm finding red flags in the notes.
Even worse, Bear went out of its way to hide the evidence that it was knowingly ignoring due diligence. This is from the complaint:
Bear Stearns ignored the proposals made by the heads of its due diligence department in May 2005 to track the override decisions, and instead took the opposite tack, adopting an internal policy that directed its due diligence managers to delete the communications with its due diligence firms leading to its final loan purchase decisions, thereby eliminating the audit trail.
This is fraud because in its agreements with investors, Bear promised to conduct "due diligence," it promised to conduct "quality control" testing of the loan pools, it promised to "repurchase" defective loans, and it also promised to implement "seller monitoring," i.e. to prevent the securitization of loans from bad suppliers.
But it not only didn't do these things, it engaged the opposite behavior and knowingly covered up its fraud by deleting its communications.
Verschleiser was personally named in the evidence offered in the Ambac suit. In a letter to Ambac, Bear's RMBS Investor Relations managing director Cheryl Glory wrote that "Jeff will... provide you with the due diligence results of all three deals once complete."
But this is the same Jeff who we now have in writing saying this about those promised due diligence results: "We are wasting way too much money on Bad Due Diligence," and "We're just burning money hiring them."
It doesn't take a genius to deduce that Bear was not upholding its contractual obligations by delivering what it itself considered "bad due diligence" to Ambac. At the very least, this is actionable.
Verschleiser undermined due diligence in other ways. One good one was to demand that his due diligence people operate at speeds that made genuine due diligence impossible.
At one point during these deals, Verschleiser reamed out his immediate subordinate, co-head of mortgage finance Baron Silverstein, over the "problem" of the due diligence department taking too much time to do its work. Silverstein responded by issuing the following tirade to John Mongelluzzo, Bear's VP for Due Diligence, demanding that he not get in the way of Bear's insane goal of funding 500 mortgages a day:
I refuse to receive more emails from [Verchleiser] (or anyone else) questioning why we’re not funding loans every day. I’m holding each of you responsible for making sure we fund at least 500 each and every day… I was not happy when I saw the funding numbers and I knew NY would NOT BE HAPPY... I expect to see 500+ every day. I will do whatever is necessary to make sure you’re successful in meeting this objective.
Whenever any right-wing loon, or Bloombergite, tries to tell you the mortgage crisis was caused by the government forcing the poor banks to lend to broke black people, please direct them to this passage. The banks not only wanted to give out these loans, they wanted to give them out at the speed of light. They wanted to crank them out so fast that their own auditors literally couldn't read the writing on the loan applications. This was greed, not policy. Anybody who says anything else is high on something.
Anyway, given that much of Verschleiser's questionable behavior is in writing, his case sure seems court-ready. But for whatever reason, he has not been indicted.
One can almost understand a regulator not wanting to take on the whole circular securitization scheme -- Bear lends money to corrupt mortgage firm, mortgage firm makes bad loans, Bear packages bad loans and sells to investors, then takes the proceeds and creates more bad loans -- because it is so complex and difficult to prove.
But in this case there are simple issues of fraud and theft that could be taken on without having to prosecute broader crimes related to securitization. But prosecutors, apparently, just blew those off. In the current environment, regulators even miss the layups.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


106 Comments so far
Show AllI really don't believe in a God.
If we were to ascribe values to human like figures with higher powers, I would prefer Polytheism.
And Matt Taibbi would be pretty far up there in my Pantheon.
After forty years of corporations (and the politicians they own) legalizing financial fraud, Matt could easily write an article each week for the rest of his life with each article addressing a unique variation of legalized fraud that continues to undermine the "Main Street economy".
As Nomi Prins recently pointed out: "investment bankers today can engage in all of the legalized fraud that they could engage in ten yeras ago...nothing has changed".
I don't believe in One Big Heavenly Father God, but polytheism -- well, I could buy into those Greek gods who sit up there checking us all out and and shtupping with people and things for their own amusement and competition with each other. That would explain a whole lot of otherwise inexplicable goings on.
Well, the problem with the world is that the Big Guy on the 8th day, as he looked about his creation, he saw what a fine place Bora Bora turned out to be, and has been there on permanent sabbatical ever since - no doubt tasking himself with the ennumeration of fallen fowl to fill his idle hours. Leaving, of course, his old buddy Lucifer in control of worldly things...
I really, really like Taibbi, although he is, errr, more complex than I thought :-) Some of his books really surprised me. I know I'm being a twat but I don't really remember the titles :-( (Something about being embedded with troops in Iraq and spending a few nights in Abu Ghraib.) Anyway, as far as I can see, he's not a leftist, definitely not very radical, but I think his type of critique is actually a lot better because of this. I really like his point of view because I disagree with it but it's very consistent and nothing wrong with it morally (imo) and so it's a lot more interesting and inspiring; and his respect for traditional American institutional structures makes his critique much better, more detailed and more devastating. He's also very funny, really seems to like to learn stuff and explain it (and very well), writes very clearly, and seems pretty courageous. So while he would not be in my pantheon, I can always find new funny or insightful stuff in his books.
Time to Occupy Aspen!
Beat me to it! Occupy Hotel Gerome, it's a party!
If skiing was their goal, they didn't have any fun.
Aspen only has 72% of their runs open and only 60% of normal snow pack.
Thank you for ruining the Bat Mitzvah of some innocent child.
Trylon
your ignorance is showing
Be careful, Trylon-- you're going to put a hole in your cheek with that tongue!
Only in my most maudlin, romantic dreams can I even dimly imagine a world where acerbic scribblings like Taibbi's would have ripple effects penetrating the gold-plated bubble enclosing the bat mizvah of this Satan's spawn.
As far as the partying parties are concerned, Taibbi may as well be a solitary cricket stridulating in a windblown crevice upon the peak of Snowmass Mountain.
And don't forget that the girl's father ALREADY "ruined" her bat mitzvah by going to such outrageous expense.
Excessive privilege is child abuse.
Just look at Barbara Bush's children. ;)
My guess is this elaborate shindig is just her father's pathetic attempt to buy her love anyway.
The curse of spending the rest of her life knowing that her father is a slimeball who "earns" his living by swindling people is far worse than any itty bitty "injury" she might suffer because a few people show up to protest at her bat mitzvah.
"My guess is this elaborate shindig is just her father's pathetic attempt to buy her love anyway."
Why not? That's how he won her mother's love, after all.
Replying to myself, deliberately -- No child chooses its parents.
The next time a participant on Common Dreams pisses you off,
take it out upon a child who is precious to them. Justify this by
saying exactly how pissed off you are at the parent.
If the parent is really evil and has 4 children, hurt all 4 of them.
Or show some restraint and only harm 3 of them. We can rate
evil of the parent on a scale from 1 to 100, and scale harm to
their children similarly, and run product moment correlations.
Or we can use Chi Square. Whatever it takes to feel justified
in harming a child on a special day in its life. And if it happened
to YOUR child I would have posted the same observation.
Trying to jerk me around is a waste of people's time.
Trylon
Nevermind, you're doing a fine job jerking yourself around. The criticism was aimed at her father, not her. No children were harmed in the making of this article.
No matter which way I look at this, the (theoretical) suffering of this child (how is this event "ruined"? and why is it the fault of Taibbi or commenters here, and not her fucked up daddy for doing this kind of shit?) is not even comparable to the suffering directly caused just by his father's actions to probably thousands of kids. Maybe if I were a reincarnation of Jesus like you, I could be universally sorry for every child on Earth who has to face hard times unjustly, but I am not going to pretend that. I don't give a shit about her fucked up Bar Mitzvah. I would be pretty fucking happy in fact if this article had some effect on her and made her reevaluate her dad in the long run. Because, you know, this is exactly how poor children learn about their own social standing *every fucking day of their lives*. And it's not even a bad thing really. Life is difficult, some people are fucked up, and if one of your own parents belongs to those people, well, that's that. This is how you learn about reality, and what's fucked up here is his father and his actions, not Taibbi's exposing it.
Good post.
Trylon, how on Earth will this child be "harmed" by people's showing up to protest her father's criminality? Nobody's going to throw bricks at her. Do you really think sailing through a lavish Bat Mitzvah party financed by other people's suffering will be good for her? Taking action around this, or publicizing it is a gift to the daughter as much as an act of resistance to her creepy father.
She's 13, and a Woman now. Grow up, both of you...
What?!?!?! Do you really think little Princess Rachel (or whatever) will be reading Common Dreams? Do you think her family would let her anywhere near print or digital media before she's 40? This girl is so protected, she has no idea about the world outside her shiny materialistic bubble. Anyway, the party is more for the family and business connections than it is for her.
What's ruined here, Trylon - your fantasies? or are you inching toward an accusation of antisemitism? Better watch it - that one's so old it's got a beard 10 feet long.
There are no innocents in that circle.
tTrylon,
Sounds like a fantastic Bat Mitzvah to me. Because of Jeff and others like him, parents like me endure pay freezes (me) and lay-offs. My child, who had a very modest Bat Mitzvah, will next year likely go to either community college at first or live at home and go locally, because higher education is increasingly beyond the reach of the middle class (save for the exceptionally talented students who get scholarships).
If I lied on my taxes, I could easily be prosecuted, but he gets away with this???
And so many vote for representatives that favor continued or more deregulation and allow more of the same? This is the definition of insanity, no?
"... Jeffrey Verschleiser is one of the biggest assholes in the entire world!"
You mean, this piece of work is only an asshole?
How about a sociopathic criminal?
Yes, an "asshole" is somebody who cuts you off in traffic, not somebody whose life has been dedicated to legalizing fraud and engaging in every imaginable fraudulent activity and then some.
An uber-asshole?
Bottom-of-the-barrel scum.
The regulators don't act because this is the American economy. It is not an aberration or even extreme. It is the very essence of capitalism; therefore, it cannot violate the spirit of regulations designed to support capitalism.
And that is the true outrage and real tragedy of our diseased money culture.
And yes, its too bad a the Bat Mitzvah of a little girl who did nothing but turn 13 got tarnished in the mix. You could make the same argument about the Quincenera of a Mexican drug dealer's innocent daughter, but likely would not.
Another reason the regulators don't act is that it is highly likely that some of them were involved in some of these transactions.
Bingo!
I would say that tens of millions of Americans have a fairly direct stake in these various Wall Street schemes. Pension funds have been heavily involved with buying into some of these get-richer-quicker schemes, for instance.
They may not have been directly involved, but I wonder if they will be working for the same people that they (as regulators) failed to regulate when they leave their current regulator positions.
Yes, sheepherder, some are probably attending the celebration.
"The regulators don't act because this is the American economy".
That's it, in a nutshell. Obama said no banksters got arrested because they did nothing wrong. This is semi true because congress has done its best to make bankster criminal activity legal, but where the banksters did break the law Obama chooses to ignore it, as in the case of the fraudulent robo-signing of all those crooked mortgages.
When and where did Obama say no banksters got arrested because they did nothing wrong? Citation, please.
http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2011/12/president-obamas-view-of-fraud-from.html?m=1
Obama said that in an interview on the program "60 Minutes." Of course, he said it in his usual double-talking weasel-worded manner.
Kroft: One of the things that surprised me the most about this poll is that 42%, when asked who your policies favor the most, 42% said Wall Street. Only 35% said average Americans. My suspicion is some of that may have to do with the fact that there’s not been any prosecutions, criminal prosecutions, of people on Wall Street. And that the civil charges that have been brought have often resulted in what many people think have been slap on the wrists, fines. “Cost of doing business,” I think you called it in the Kansas speech. Are you disappointed by that?
Obama: Well, I think you’re absolutely right in your interpretation. And, you know, I can’t, as President of the United States, comment on the decisions about particular prosecutions. That’s the job of the Justice Department. And we keep those things separate, so that there’s no political influence on decisions made by professional prosecutors. I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal."
"And, you know, I can’t, as President of the United States, comment on the decisions about particular prosecutions. That’s the job of the Justice Department. And we keep those things separate, so that there’s no political influence on decisions made by professional prosecutors."
Interesting. He didn't seem to have any such reservations on commenting about Bradley Manning's charges.
"The regulators don't act because this is the American economy".
That's it, in a nutshell. Obama said no banksters got arrested because they did nothing wrong. This is semi true because congress has done its best to make bankster criminal activity legal, but where the banksters did break the law Obama chooses to ignore it, as in the case of the fraudulent robo-signing of all those crooked mortgages.
yea, according to Obomber, fraud is "unethical" but not illegal...thus no prosecutions...not even investigations.
She will be amply compensated in her life for this "inconvenience", don't worry about her. Unlike of course the probably thousands of children her daddy's fuckwittery put on the street.
As Brooks Adams wrote in 1913, "The modern capitalist looks upon life as a financial combat of a very specialized kind, regulated by a code which he understands and has indeed concocted, but which is recognized by no one else in the world. He conceives sovereign powers to be for sale. He may, he thinks, buy them; and if he buys them, he may use them as he pleases....He may sell his service to whom he pleases at what price may suit, and if by doing so he ruins men and cities, it is nothing to him. He is not responsible, for he is not a trustee for the public. He if he be restrained by legislation, that legislation is an outrage, to be annulled or eluded by any means that will not lead to the penitentiary." The law upholds his privileges, but "he is of all citizens the most lawless...and looks upon the evasion of a law devised for public protection, but inimical to him, as innocent or even meritorious."
Increasingly sophisticated propaganda has been designed to conflate that cultish "code" with public good, or, more accurately, with public necessity and inevitability. It is absurd, of course, and can't last. The mask is mostly off, but the malevolent and deadly institutions built on lies persist.
"...and looks upon the evasion of a law devised for public protection, but inimical to him, as innocent or even meritorious."
Two rule books: the definition of a reptile. Their brains are very different; if they cannot change or learn, the must be culled.
Oops.
I forgot to mention the biggest absurdity of all...the idea that *their* freedom to act, their use of power (within their "code", of course) is related to and proportional to *your* freedom, rather than inversely proportional. A reflection is not freedom, but they have convinced millions of people that it is.
This adds a bit more to the e-library book I'm reading: The Buyout of America by Josh Kosman. The Wall Street wheeler dealers have been so out of control that it is breath-taking. We would need to build more prisons (or legalize all drugs) in order to properly take care of America's financial vultures. I do not know if Kosman is right or wrong, but he thinks private equity firms will cause enough business collapses over the coming 3 years to ruin any chance of our economy righting itself for years.
"It’s certainly heartening that Verschleiser is spending this money on his daughter instead of, say, hiring a busload of Jamaican hookers to spend the weekend lounging with him in a hot tub full of Beluga caviar."
______________________
I respect Taibbi's reporting on financial issues; he knows the fetid and feculent bowels of the international plutocracy as well as Dante knew the infernal circles of Hell.
But I think that here, he is charitably or leniently imposing an either-or possibility that belies the grotesque character sketch impeccably delineated in the rest of the article.
I'm sure that Verschleiser need only put in a few ceremonial appearances at the bat mitzvah between extended stints in the hot tub.
Isn't the whole point of being a Verschleiser to "have it all"?
No wonder these assholes are telling the country to bend over and kiss their asses. If they can get away with stuff like this, it's bound to make them think they're better than everyone else.
Our law makers also are immune to insider trading laws, Martha Stewart went to prison over insider trading knowledge, but our congress practices trading knowledge all the time, why can they do this? It's immoral but not illegal, why? Easy, they make the laws!
verschleis is german for: wear; wear and tear, consumption, loss