Wednesday, April 23, 2008

More on Chairman Haldeman and Putnam Investments

Today's issue of the Daily Dartmouth ran a story charging that the Review's statements in our article entitled "Blowing the Whistle on Ed Haldeman" are false.

UPDATE: Trustee T.J Rodgers, in a letter today to the Daily Dartmouth, says that Peter Scannell is a mere head-line maker who is trying to embarrass Chairman Haldeman. Scannell was a source for the Review's article about Haldeman's alleged connection to improper trading at Putnam Investments.

The Review will follow up on the Haldeman story in its forthcoming issue, to be published at the end of next week.


Anonymous said...

If, as I expect, the source of your critical comments on Ed Haldeman is found out to be unreliable, I presume you'll have the courtesy to unequivocally apologize.

d '09 said...

First, observe the comment rules. Second, the case in Maryland is in discovery period so it will be years before we know who is telling the truth, Scannel or Haldeman.

DartDude said...

I don't know why A.S. and the other posters have not posted any mention of T.J. Rodgers' letter to the editors of The Daily Dartmouth:

Anonymous said...

As Christine already noted, Mr. William Schpero authored an article impugning the Review's journalistic ethics. I felt that before the official response next week was published, it was necessary to remind the D's readership that their "sources" that corroborate Haldeman's innocence all have a stake in Haldeman's future. Also, it seems that Schpero is involved in propaganda propagation due to the unusual segue into the Association of Alumni executive council elections next monday at the end of the article.

MOOSE123 said...

I agree with Ananymous 3:45. If you must publish something potentially scurrilous, confirm the reliablity of your source first. Otherwise, be prepared to accept the consequences.

d '09 said...

If people read the original article, they would know that the source is the same whistleblower who originally turned in Putnam.

Logical Fallacy said...

Dart '09: Just because he had credibility as a whistle blower in the past doesn't instantly lend him some sort of credibility in this matter. It is years later, he has previously expressed no reservations about Haldeman, and has obviously waited until it was politically expedient/damaging to release this information.

If he knew about this all along, why not blow the proverbial whistle earlier and to people that matter in the pursuit of justice? No, it's OBVIOUS that he should wait until he can report Haldeman to a college newspaper during an important alumni election Haldeman is indirectly connected to. Because the Dartmouth Review can definitely do as much as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or myriad ethics committees on Wall Street.

d '09 said...

I don't see where the logical fallacy lies. Was a affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent? The paper clearly printed the story as an allegation, not as a fact. They asked Haldeman for his side of the story and he didn't want to comment. It seems pretty within the limits to me.

d '09 said...

I obviously meant to say "Was I affirming...

Anonymous said...

CloseReader says:

I wanted to closely read the article and here summarize excerpts that might cause offense. This close reading indicates all are Scannell's allegations.

4th paragraph:
"The Dartmouth Review has received information that the scandal surrounding the Putnam class action lawsuit­­—involving market timing and fraud—allegedly continued under the watchful eye of Haldeman, the same man who is leading the controversial reforms at Dartmouth."

DR received info that MT scandal ALLEGEDLY continued under eye of CIO Haldeman.

Fifth paragraph:
"Peter Scannell, a resident of Weymouth, Massachusetts, recently contacted The Dartmouth Review about Haldeman’s alleged contemporaneous knowledge of Putnam’s market timing scandal."

DR says Scannell ALLEGED H had knowledge of MT (MT scandal).

9th paragraph
"As part of his ongoing investigation of Putnam, Scannell now alleges that Haldeman was aware or should have been aware of the market timing by mutual fund managers which, for a space of time, occurred under his command as the company’s CIO."


17th paragraph
"...Scannell alleges that Lasser, not pleased with the prospect of being ousted, made sure that Haldeman was exposed to what he, Lasser, knew."

Scannel ALLEGES that Lasser informed Haldeman of MT

20th paragraph
"Ferguson’s information about market timing, Scannell alleges, was shared with Ed Haldeman, and the activities continued to occur after Ferguson was removed from his post as Chief Information Officer."

Scannel ALLEGES info shared with Haldeman.

"Scannell alleges that these name changes occurred under the head of investments, Haldeman; certainly, Haldeman did not stop the name changes—changes which Scannell alleges were a “cover up.”"

Scannell ALLEGES name changes occurred under Haldeman and ALLEGES name changes are a cover up.

"Scannell alleges that Haldeman “certainly should have known all about the market timing and he did nothing to stop it.” Additionally, Scannell believes that Haldeman was, at the very least, aware of the changing of fund names, which Scannell refers to as a cover up. Furthermore, Scannell alleges that Haldeman’s efforts to reform Putnam occurred only after the SEC was impelled to investigate the scandal."


Interesting links:
Haldeman makes $50 million?

In this article, Haldeman takes blame for being too honest:

After re-reading the article again I was more impressed and concerned with its findings, though annoyed that it could be construed as mud-slinging during the alumni election and thus hurting the Parity side.

It comes down to "he said-he said", and whether the DR should report such allegations as allegations.

On the one hand, Haldeman is a Dartmouth man and lauded by diverse sources, though the instigator of the board packing plan: the DR should shy from publicizing rumors. As an accomplished individual, he demands some respect.

On the other hand, Scannell is the whistle blower who brought Putnam kicking and screaming to the public's and SEC's attention. His words deserve attention, however lowly a former employee he is: he's earned our respectful attention.

Rereading the article, the executives' blind eyes and favoritism to some clients to earn extra fees from MT is indicative of cronyism, and the Union's MT and alleged thuggery is upon reflection frightening.

These new allegations are definitely news, but certainly Scannell's sole allegation must be discounted and not treated as gospel, until backed up elsewhere.

Haldeman's reputation is on the line and he deserves a valiant defense and opportunity to respond. If he remains mum, then the DR should investigate Scannell on its own.

I'll say something else:
if Haldeman is implicated in any government inquiry as having turned a blind eye to MT in violation of fund rules or if he or his lawyer have conned us claiming he never knew about any Market Timing, then he should resign from Dartmouth's board.

Finally, The Dartmouth's article attempts to imply that the DR made allegations but in fact that was Scannell, and the DR published the fact that he made the allegations and Haldeman refused an opportunity to respond.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 5:03, you forgot to say "alleged" union thuggery. This Scannell guy is getting a lot of celebrity from his accusations, and we can't assume everything he says is true.

I doubt printing the word "alleged" before an injurious falsehood can necessarily save it from being defamatory.

Anonymous said...

The SEC Deputy Director of Enforcement Walter Riccardi
who Scannell fingered in the artlcle has suddenly resigned according to the WSJ. Hmnn.

Anonymous said...

So if Scannell's allegations are true, that SEC helped Putnam cover-up his whistle blowing, and now the SEC Deputy Director of Enforcement that Scannell identified in the Review as being involved suddenly resigns two days after the Review publishes Scannell's allegations - what in the world will Haldeman and his hired gun say in response. Sounds like this is just the tip of the iceberg. Very interesting

Anonymous said...

SEC to Lose Key Enforcement Official

WASHINGTON -- A senior enforcement official at the Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to leave by the summer, people familiar with the matter say, delivering a blow to the agency's enforcement program.

Walter Ricciardi, deputy director of enforcement, is looking to leave the agency for the private sector and has recused himself from cases.

"I love being a member of the staff and working ...