Source:http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/ponzi_scheme_wrap_up.php |
When Sudipta Sen, CMD of Sharada Investments was arrested on Tuesday, April 23rd along with two of his accomplices from a picturesque resort in Sonemarg, near Srinagar in Kashmir; he appeared relaxed as if silently echoing his apprehension expressed a few weeks ago that like Jesus Christ , he’s a small guy with a humble background fighting a system controlled by the rich & the elite and just like him he too will be crucified one day. Sen is charged of running a Ponzi scheme whereby he uses multi-level-marketing model to rake in deposits from lakhs of small investors across Bengal, Jharkhand, Assam and Orissa. Sharada would promise exceptionally high returns to entice customers initially and then pay them back using fresh deposits from new customers. The money was not invested in real businesses that earn returns . Instead close to 30-40% were disbursed to agents and the rest was deposited in the bank or siphoned off to support the luxurious lifestyle of Sen and his organization.
In short ,
Sharada was running a Ponzi scheme which
is characterized mainly by the following principles.
In a Ponzi scheme,
1. Typically exceptionally high returns
are promised to the poor investors. For
the latter, wealth by itself is a reward for survival in an economy marked by high unemployment and inflation.
2. Initially high returns to old deposits are
paid from the amount deposited by new entrants till the time new depositors
stop entering when the scheme collapses as the payout becomes more than the
deposits.
3. Money is not invested in legitimate
businesses that earn fair returns since such returns typically are less than
that promised by the scheme and also because the promoters don’t have the expertise
to run such businesses.
Charles Ponzi, who has given his surname to such fraudulent schemes, said something similar to Sen . In 1920, when Charles Ponzi was charged with fraud and grand larceny in Boston he said that all of his troubles came from the fact that the wealthy were trying to punish him for giving the "little guys" the opportunity to make a high rate of return. Chrales Ponzi had enticed investors in Boston in 1919 by promising 100% returns in 90 days through a grand scheme by which he would use the opportunity of arbitrage in the prices of international postal coupons among several countries. It was obvious that Charles Ponzi didn’t use the deposits from thousands of small investors ( it is reported he once collected one million dollar in three hours flat, in 1919) to buy coupons at low value in Spain and sell them at high rates in USof A; not because of his ignorance that such actions at a large scale would reduce the price difference but because he’d put the money in the banks that earned only 5% interest to enable him siphon the profit off for buying property and leading a luxurious life.
Robert
Schiller in his research paper , “From
Efficient market theory to Behavioural finance,”( Journal of Economic
Persepctives, volume 17, no 1, winter 2003, pp 84-105, published by Cowells
foundation of Yale University) argues in favour of “feedback theory” in his seminal paper stating that when
speculating prices go up creating success for initial investors, word-of-mouth
enthusiasm picks up leading to spiraling upward of such prices until the
feedback is disrupted. A Ponzi scheme, according to Schiller is one such
real-time experiment where positive feedback from initial success is
transmitted swiftly through social network of friends and relatives as well as
through communication media to hook new
depositors. Schiller even goes further back to 1630s to demonstrate his feedback theory . In
1630s, in Netherlands there was a huge
speculative bubble in Tulip Flower bulbs , known famously as “Tulipmania” ,
that had occurred precisely due to the
feedback mechanism in place till the rich started selling Tulip at 100% profit
instead of buying further Tulip bulbs
and a negative feedback was created taking the prices spirally downward and the
event finally crashed.
The initial
success and subsequent inevitable downfall of Ponzi schemes are typically characterized by the highly
amplified feedback, positive in the first case and negative in the latter.
Numerous Ponzi schemes have dotted the world since
Charles Ponzi made them famous. Such
schemes hide behind not-for-profit
organisations, portfolio managers, innovative farming techniques, stock-trading
firms etc. Among the most scandalous
ones are the following .
Bernie
Madoff , once the Chairman of NASDAQ, ran a Ponzi scheme that defrauded
investors of 18 Billion US dollars (Rs. 99,000 crores) . Madoff ran his
“wealth-management” business for 17
years among the elite and the wealthy (minimum deposit in his scheme was $20
million (Rs. 110 crores) , paying old clients off from new deposits in the
Chase Manhattan Bank. Madoff could do this by manipulating the stock-trading
software whereby he backdated trades and created false trade receipts
after calculating returns of the
clients. Madoff was arrested in December’2008 based on a complaint by his son
and is now serving 150 years in prison.
In 1992,
Damara Bertges and Hans Gunther Spachtholz founded the European Kings Club, a
"non-profit" association that rallied against big European banks and
promised to help the "little guys." They defrauded 94000 Swiss and
German investors of $1billion (Rs.5500 crores) after running the scheme for two
years. In that scheme, investors bought a club share for 1400 Swiss Francs (Rs.
80,000) and were assured returns of 200
francs (Rs.11,400) every month ,
effectively doubling the investment in 14 months. The positive feedback was so strong
here that even during the trial there were loud cheers for the scamsters who finally
served 7 years of prison terms.
Wang Fengyou of Yelishen Tianxi Ltd introduced
an ingenious scheme in China in the year 1999 to defraud 1 million investors of
$2 billion (Rs.11000 crores) . In this scheme, investors were asked to engage
in “ant-farming.” The investors were given a box of ants against $1500
(Rs.82,500) deposit . To these ants,
every morning as well as in every
evening , investors had to feed sugar
& honey and every 3-5 days , they had to feed egg yolk & cake. But they were prohibited
from opening the box. After 10 weeks the workers of Yelishen would take back
the ant-boxes for grounding up the ants and converting them into aphrodisiacs
to be sold across 80000 pharmacies
across China. For their farming effort, the investors were paid $2000 (Rs.
110,000) after 14 months, a 33% return. Wang’s scheme collapsed in Dec’2007
when he couldn’t pay his depositors and he
was arrested . And , yes the aphrodisiacs worked because they were found
to be laced with Sildenafil (the chief ingredient of Viagra).
Sergei Mavrodi,
a Russian scamster, in the early ‘90s found a company called MMM, which offered
a platform to investors to buy or sell Mavros (unit of currency of MMM with
Marvodi’s pictures). Mavrodi would call it a rebellion against the slavery of
institutional banks & employers. MMM’s schemes were for helping small people
with money. Investors have to join in with a minimum deposit to help others by
buying Mavros and their money in real-time would be paid to old investors who
needed help and were selling off Mavros. The price of Mavro would be decided
twice in a week by Mavrodi himself. MMM defrauded 2 million investors of $1.5
billion ( Rs.8250 crores) before Mavrodi, a member of Duma, the Russian
Parliament, was arrested in 2003 .
Mavrodi served prison for5 years and surprise of surprises, he has surfaced in
India and running MMM India as brazenly as Sen.
Closer home
in Pakistan, the story of Double Shah had gained prominence. Shah, a science
teacher, on his return from Dubai in 2005 promised to double his investors’ money in flat
7 days through some stock-program he said he’d learned in Dubai. Later he
extended the period of doubling to 90 days. Double Shah was arrested in 2007
before he had raked in Rs. 4400 crores from 30000 investors. Shah died in
prison in Nov’2012 .
In
conclusion, Ponzi schemes have never disappeared in the world and they tend to
appear & resurface in areas marked either by
unemployment, lack of regulations or
change in socialist regimes. Post the break-up of erstwhile USSR, hundreds of
Ponzi scamsters, besides the Mafia, had sprung up in Russia to entice gullible people with a “get-rich-quick” philosophy.
Even Albania, a European country to the
north-west of Greece, after the fall of
East-European socialist regime, experienced similar Ponzi schemes. It went to
such a disastrous extent that 2 out of 3 Albanians were investors in one of
several such fraudulent schemes and the total amount involved was more that 50%
of the country’s GDP. When the schemes collapsed in January’1997 there were
such huge protests, violence as well as riots that the-then Albanian
government had collapsed.
Sudipta
Sen’s extent of fraud is still not clear. Initial estimates say that he’d have
defrauded nearly 4-6 lakh of customers
of Rs.1200 crores. Investigations would reveal the actual truth. But the
concern is to the wide spread of number of such schemes floated by dubious
promoters who public display their closeness to the authorities. Since the
business model of all such schemes are the same, it is irrelevant if they have
not yet defaulted. Because inevitably they will. If they are not investigated
and stopped right now, the schemes will continue to carry forth large number of
unsuspecting investors till the schemes collapse under its own weight of heavy
redemption. If total number of such schemes are taken, the number may touch, by
an estimate, nearly a crore of investors
defrauded by approximately Rs.20000 crores
.
The uncanny
similarity of Sen’s modus operandi to that
of other scamsters suggest the same process of
hobnobbing with government officials of
a state for publicity. Further, Bengal happens to be a state that had just
seen an end to 3 decades of communist rule and is marked by large scale
unemployment. Maybe the government
should be concerned about its medium-term survival since hundreds of
Ponzi schemes are operating in the rural hinterland with such brazenness and some with official patronage that in the final analysis,
the existing investors should stop further losses, lodge complaints and hope to
get some money back from the authorities, if the latter decide in their wisdom to immediately stop
the functioning of similar schemes. New investors have to necessarily be extra careful about
parking their own money in schemes that have the 3 characteristics described
earlier. Am repeating that below.
Any scheme
that offers very high Returns, which robs Peter to pay Paul and has no legitimate business operation should ring
alarm bells and should be avoided at all costs. Even a whiff of positive feedback from friends/agents bragging about initial successes should only trigger an alarm but not a
day-dream to get rich quick.