When did Madoff go from legit to Ponzi?

One of the big questions that one hopes investigators will dig up an answer for over the next few weeks was when Bernie Madoff’s investment strategy made the switch from legitimate to Ponzi scheme. It seems highly improbable that he meant for it to be a scam from the beginning. There just wasn’t anything in it for him. He was already a pretty wealthy and successful brokerage-house chief. Why endanger that?

No, the progression probably went like this: At first Madoff’s investment strategy—whatever the heck it was—actually did deliver smoothly positive returns. At some point those returns became less reliable, but Madoff opted to keep reporting them as smooth and use good months to make up for bad ones. (Hey, it worked for Jack Welch.) That went okay for a while, but then the market turned against him in a big way and, Nick Leeson-style, he doubled down in attempt to recoup the losses. That didn’t work. But unlike Leeson, Madoff was the boss of the whole operation, so he could keep it going for a few more years as a Ponzi scheme.

When did this switch from return-smoothing to Ponzidom occur? I’m guessing it was sometime around 2001. That’s when Madoff was the subject of a couple of skeptical articles, in the MAR/Hedge newsletter and in Barron’s. He thus had extra incentive to prove those who questioned his unnaturally reliable performance wrong, at precisely the time when, as he told MAR/Hedge, his strategy was least likely to work. From MAR/Hedge:

[T]he split-strike conversion strategy is designed to work best in bull markets and, Madoff points out, until recently “we’ve really been in a bull market since ’82, so this is a good period to do this kind of stuff.”

That was in the spring of 2001, in the early stages of a bear market that would last almost two more years. After that, it’s possible Madoff never again came close to having as much money in his accounts as he said he did, but kept fooling himself that he could somehow earn the money back. This year’s bear market destroyed all hope of that.

It’s a theory, anyway. Or at least a guess.

Related Topics: Wall Street & Markets
  • Latest on Business

    LM Otero / AP

    Senate Approves Hike in Airline Security Fees

    (WASHINGTON) — A Democratic-controlled Senate panel Tuesday approved a $2.50 increase in airline security fees that would double the per-passenger fee for those taking nonstop flights.

    Why Greece Isn't Leaving the Eurozone YetSlate

    Associated Press

    Stocks Rally Further in Run-up to EU Summit

    MOSCOW — Global stocks enjoyed one of their best days in weeks on Tuesday ahead of a summit of European leaders that’s expected to be dominated by calls to boost economic growth.

    Europe remains the focus of attention across all financial markets in the run-up to the June 17 Greek election that could go a long way to determining the country’s membership of the euro as well as the future of the single currency zone.

  • banzai7

    Going “legit” and going “ponzi” are two very relative terms on Wall Street.

  • Andy from MA

    Justin, maybe you’ll interact with me on this. If you could extrapolate on your theory, please help me understand why he would move to the Ponzi scheme. Is it about his personal ego, his loss of wealth, or was just out to mislead.

    Perhaps people who work in the finacial industrial are just without any ethos…

  • Justin Fox

    @Andy from MA: He never should have reported anything but his actual returns in the first place. That was his original sin. But I do think there was probably some point where he went from believing that he could recoup the money to knowing he couldn’t. We all go through that in much smaller ways in our lives—we make a commitment, realize we can’t keep it, and then either admit that we can’t or dig ourselves in deeper. I sort of did that over the weekend with the conflicting commitments of finishing an article and doing a bunch of stuff with my family. (Which I of course resolved by giving can’t-fail split-strike-conversion investment products to all parties concerned.)

  • bryanfromhouston

    The sad thing about this Ponzi scheme is this is probably not only indicative of the bankruptcy of several Wall Street firms in financial terms. It begs the question of whether some in the country’s elite have gone completely morally bankrupt as well.

  • dumdedumdum

    Justin, you should have asked Madoff to do his disappearing quarter trick. That’s how you get him started!

  • alephblog

    You might want to consider another possibility. If he was really following the strategy that he claimed to be, his returns would rely less on the direction of the market, and more on the level of implied volatility. That would have made things tough during the “Great Moderation,” 2003-2006. He got more money as time went along, so if he was following this strategy, the amount of excess rents relative to funds got smaller over time. Even with higher implied volatility 2007-2008, he was probably too far behind the eight ball to come back, and the panic of his shareholders, many of whom needed money, drew on the funds disproportionately, and it was over.

    All that said, I’m not sure it wasn’t a pure fraud from the start; no one really knew what was going on except Madoff. Hopefully someone will get the full story from Madoff, and write it out for the rest of us.

  • http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/ pacificgatepost

    MADOFF IS NOT SO UNIQUE – OVERSIGHT MAY NOT BE ENOUGH

    The corruption trench is deep and wide, much requires cleaning-up on Wall Street…

    http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-madoff-really-anomaly.html

blog comments powered by Disqus