|
|
EXCERPT There were several things that alerted some in the hedge-fund industry that an investment with Madoff may not have been as safe as it initially appeared. Aksia LLC, which researches hedge funds and advises institutions about investing in the industry, said that it never recommended that clients put money in some of the "feeder funds" that allocated their capital to Madoff. On the surface, these feeder funds looked like institutional-quality vehicles, but there were "a host of red flags," Aksia Chief Executive Jim Vos and colleague Jake Walthour wrote in a letter to clients after the Madoff scandal erupted last week.
The funds were marketed as using a "split-strike conversion" investment strategy that is "remarkably" simple, but the returns it purportedly generated could not be replicated by Aksia's quantitative analyst, Vos and Walthour wrote.
The Madoff funds supposedly traded in the Standard & Poor's 100 index options market, but that market is relatively small and may not have been able to handle trading by vehicles with roughly $13 billion in assets, they said. The feeder funds had almost all their assets custodied with Madoff Securities, the brokerage unit of Madoff's firm.
Aksia checked into the auditor of Madoff Securities and discovered it was a firm called Friehling & Horowitz, which had three employees -- one of whom was 78 years old and another was a secretary. The firm's office in upstate New York was 13 feet by 18 feet.
Madoff's Web site claimed the firm was technologically-advanced, but it sent paper confirmations of trades via US mail at the end of each day, rather than providing electronic access to this important information.
Paper copies provide a hedge-fund manager with the end-of-the-day ability to manufacture trade tickets that confirm the investment results.
Wow... is that an impact printer?