Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 407

Revealed: Madoff so close to embezzling Australian investors

  •   Anon
  •   12 May 2021
  • 4
  •      
  •   

Editor's note: Firstlinks has never published an article anonymously before, but while we cannot reveal the source of this piece, it is known to us and we consider it impeccable.

In debating whether to publish, we felt encouraged by the decision by Peter Singer and colleagues as reported in The Conversation:

"Philosophers Peter SingerJeff McMahan, and Francesca Minerva have announced a new academic outlet, the Journal of Controversial Ideas, as an “open access, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary journal specifically created to promote free inquiry on controversial topics,” it will give authors the option to publish their work under a pseudonym “in order to protect themselves from threats to their careers or physical safety.”"

In the same spirit, confident in the source, we are publishing this informative piece without implicating anyone.

***

In 2007 Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent hedge fund came perilously close to being distributed by a major Australian wealth manager. Sensible minds (just) prevailed and the distribution deal was aborted. A year later the largest hedge fund fraud of all time, a US$65 billion Ponzi scheme, was exposed.

This article, which for obvious reasons must remain anonymous, is a reminder that financial institutions, just like retail investors, are vulnerable to fraud. Financial institutions have their own set of agency issues and behavioural biases which need to be managed.

Distribution of the funds of external managers

In the finance industry, distribution is king. The logic is that it doesn’t matter how good your product is, if it doesn’t sell, it's not worth having. Even if you argue that money will eventually find its way to quality investment products, there is a shorter-term imperative that demands businesses maximise their short-term return on equity.

Look at the CEOs of most wealth managers. Many come from a distribution rather than a specialist background such as investments. This is not a bad outcome by any measure: an all-round suite of skills is required for a CEO to succeed and a successful grounding in distribution provides many of those skills.

It is common for wealth managers to distribute externally managed funds. This practice has existed for decades and can take many forms. A simple contractual arrangement is known as a third-party distribution arrangement while a more integrated relationship could be described as a partnership model. Another model is the white label approach, commonly used for global sectors, whereby a wealth manager outsources the asset management of their own branded product to an external manager.

Third-party distribution decisions bring different payoff profiles to wealth managers compared with the outcomes realised by retail or institutional investors. Performance will impact the asset-raising prospects for the wealth manager while directly impacting performance outcomes for end investors. Non-success of a third-party distribution arrangement represents an opportunity cost more than any significant financial cost.

Fiduciary responsibility and fraud ... enter Madoff

It is only in the case of a fraud that both wealth managers and investors experience extreme pain. For wealth managers, their brand may be irreparably damaged and there is an issue of compensation. For investors, there is a performance write-off and reputational damage if the investor is an institution, such as a super fund.

There are many agency issues and behavioural biases which exist in wealth management. The agency issue centres on the degree to which staff view themselves as fiduciaries or renters of the company’s brand and scale. Some of the behavioural biases include confirmation bias (tendency to ignore contrary information to their view), herd mentality (blindly follow and copy others), and a framing bias (where the narrative may distract from the facts).

So how does Bernie Madoff come into this story?

One of many tactics used by Madoff was to allow other firms to distribute his hedge fund through select third-party relationships. This added further credibility to his name: investors take comfort from the assumed due diligence undertaken by the distributor.

A major Australian wealth manager came perilously close to entering a distribution arrangement with a respected US-based third-party distributor. The major attraction: access to Madoff’s hedge fund which had enviable performance, a legendary reputation and limited capacity, some of which this distributor had exclusively reserved.

What a coup to be able to partner with this group! It could really make someone’s career.

The business case was straightforward: exclusive access to a legendary hedge fund and an attractive distribution fee.

How to garner business case support?

Here's where big institution politics came into play. At the time there was an unofficial ideological power struggle between distribution and investments. The business case was selectively shared with ‘friendlies’ before being distributed to the broad executive group. There was significant momentum behind the business case by the time key questions were asked regarding the investment integrity of the underlying investment managers.

One investment executive engaged an independent consultant to provide an initial investment opinion on the suite of funds offered by the US third party distributor, including Madoff’s.

Madoff never cooperated with the due diligence processes of any investor but he had many established strategies to attract clients, including:

  • access to exclusive IP (intellectual property) which couldn’t be shared
  • his previous career successes, where Madoff had been heavily involved in broking and software
  • connections and implicit endorsement from the sheer weight of investors and capital invested in the fund, and
  • exclusive distribution rights, as others were ready to take your spot.

The consultant report raised concerns that something didn’t feel right, but without full due diligence access it would have been near impossible to claim that such a large and famous hedge fund manager was a fraud.

A fine balance tilted the right way

The decision was finely balanced, but it was decided to not proceed. I’ll never know to what degree the decision was political or objective. All I can say is that I am forever glad the right decision was made and that Madoff’s Ponzi scheme never managed to defraud Australian investors.

What’s fascinating is that no one did anything wrong. It is healthy for employees to propose new business ideas. The processes worked, and the agency issues and behavioural biases were managed.

Just.

 

This article is published anonymously but from an exemplary source as a warning that even when dealing with the biggest names in the industry for what looks like a sure profit, great care and due diligence are required. 

 

4 Comments
Sulieman Ravell
May 15, 2021

I seem to recall that one of the fund of hedge funds distributed in Australia already had exposure to Madoff but was only 1-2% of the overall exposure

Patrick Bennett
May 12, 2021

Not a happy ending for those who lost money with Madoff, but an amusing read none the less.
Institutions managing other people's money should decide whether they are primarily investment businesses or distribution businesses. In my experience, not much good ever came out of allowing the marketing people to have a say in what investments should be offered to clients. Too little understanding of risk and too much lure of bonuses based on sales. Memories of Challenger High Yield, Basis Capital, BT's TMT Fund, various agri-schemes, Macquarie's Geared REIT fund, CDOs, etc. leap to mind. All had big red flags and all were sold with great enthusiasm by naive distribution teams. When senior management is stacked towards distribution, as is usually the case because they are perceived as being the revenue generators, risk is down played and that is when things do not end well.

Graham Hand
May 12, 2021

Please note that some comments are coming in speculating who was behind this, and since they are guesses with some indiscriminate and unrelated remarks, we are not publishing them.

Warren Bird
May 12, 2021

Well, the existing process at the time might have 'worked', but hopefully that organisation learned to add a requirement from then on. If the principal of the fund being investigated would not co-operate with due diligence, then that should be an automatic 'no go'.

I remember exiting an investment that we acquired as part of the several take-overs by Colonial First State back in 1998. It was held in one of the portfolios we now had management of. We didn't quite understand what was backing the security, so we approached the issuer to enquire about the due diligence they'd done on the pool of assets. "Due diligence, we didn't need to do DD on that, they were put together by someone reputable" was the response (or close to that - it was 23 years ago).

We sold out immediately and that security defaulted with little capital return a few months later. Phew, but testament to the importance of DD at every point.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

No easy way to make money

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Superannuation

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Planning

How to avoid inheritance fights

Inspired by the papal conclave, this explores how families can avoid post-death drama through honest conversations, better planning, and trial runs - so there are no surprises when it really matters.

Superannuation

Super contribution splitting

Super contribution splitting allows couples to divide before-tax contributions to super between spouses, maximizing savings. It’s not for everyone, but in the right circumstances, it can be a smart strategy worth exploring.

Economy

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

The US economy faces an unprecedented clash in leadership styles, but the President and Fed Chair could both take a lesson from the other. Not least because the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

Gold

Credit cuts, rising risks, and the case for gold

Shares trade at steep valuations despite higher risks of a recession. Amid doubts that a 60/40 portfolio can still provide enough protection through times of market stress, gold's record shines bright.

Investment strategies

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

While Chris Bloomstan doesn't have the track record of his hero, it's impressive nonetheless. And he's recently warned that today has uncanny resemblances to the 1990s tech bubble and US returns are likely to be disappointing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.