These are my links for December 31st:
- FT.com / Companies / Financial Services - Money flows out of hedge funds at record rate - Hedge funds are sinking too
In my forecast for 2008 I predicted that both private equity and hedge funds would have a torrid time
I was right
- FT.com / Companies / Financial Services - KKR arm breaches $1 NYSE stock rule - Private equity begins to sink
- Madoff Spotlight Turns to Role of Offshore Funds - NYTimes.com - I know the havens claim they're innocent on this issue
My answer is simple: Madoff abused US regulation, without doubt. And they didn't notice, without doubt. But that does not mean that offshore abuse suddenly becomes acceptable.
I suspect there's a very high chance some of his funds are offshore.
I also suspect that it will become apparent that the due diligence was so poor because much of this was done in an environment where very few questions were asked.
That's what happens offshore
- Close tax havens and make super-rich pay for the crunch, says UK's biggest union | - The theme of 2009 is gathering steam
- FT.com / Companies / Financial Services - Auditors urge rethink on pension calculations - Yet more evidence that share based pension saying is mad:
"Auditors are pressing companies to reconsider how they calculate their pension liabilities and urging them to use formulas that could give rise to much larger reported deficits than would be the case if they stayed with the current approach."
The Green New Deal promotes investment in long term infrastructure to provide the fundamental economic underpinning of the inter-generational contract that pensions really are
- FT.com / UK - Crisis wipes £65bn from pensions - Proof as to why we should not place our hopes on shares - which, when all is said and done, are just second hand bits of paper, the economic benefit of which to the company that gives them their name expired long ago in most cases
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“I also suspect that it will become apparent that the due diligence was so poor because much of this was done in an environment where very few questions were asked. ”
As discussed before this is rubbish, have you worked offshore recently? to compare opening an oshore account to opening an offshore account.
Onshore:
Need proof of identidy (such as Drivers licence, student ID)
Proof of address (utility bill)
Offshore:
An original financial reference addressed to the Bank indicating a satisfactory relationship of over 3 years, and quoting approximate average balances maintained over the past 6 months.
For overseas residents, an original character reference addressed to the Bank from a Law or an Accounting firm indicating a satisfactory relationship of over 3 years.
Details regarding the purpose of the account.
Details regarding the nature and dollar volume of anticipated transactions through the account including the source of funding/wealth of initial and subsequent deposits.
A notarised legible copy of the passport photo page with clear details of full name, date of birth, nationality, signature, photo and expiration date AND driver’s licence (with photo showing).
Completed and signed Bank mandates.
Confirmation of physical address; example, copy of current utility bill with clear details of permanent address.
So it appears we ask far more questions offshore than onshore, hell we even performed retrospective Due Dilligence on all our clients as well, something UK and US banks refused as hte claimed it would be too expensive.
Creg
So what? If many in tax havens turn a blind eye to tax evasion knowing who is doing it makes no difference.
Bluster all you like: filling in the forms has not stopped the abuse
Richard
“FT.com / UK – Crisis wipes £65bn from pensions – Proof as to why we should not place our hopes on shares – which, when all is said and done, are just second hand bits of paper, the economic benefit of which to the company that gives them their name expired long ago in most cases”
Richard – what a fascinating comment! The final phrase indicates an Agenda you have not spelt out. Care to enlighten us?
Creg
Start here:
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_PublicationDetail.aspx?PID=131
Richard