I think it’s possible, although I have doubts. As an Optionable shareholder it's not a comfortable feeling. I’m reminded of the freeze frame at the end of the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid". The two outlaws are holed up in a doorway, about to attempt to shoot their way out. Unfortunately for them, the entire Bolivian Army is waiting outside. The odds are so heavily stacked against them, and the outcome is so obvious that the director must have figured that the audience didn’t actually need to see the carnage to understand what happens next. Two banditos? Two? Against the whole Army? And y’know, my amigos, I’m thinking that this is pretty much how the Government and the Bank of Montreal are looking at this case too. They’re seeing Kevin ‘Butch’ Cassidy (who has a previous criminal record) and David ‘Sundance’ Lee as BANK ROBBERS and they’re seeing themselves as the Army. They certainly have more spreadsheets and emails than the Bolivian Army had bullets. (Also, in this version of the story David “Sundance” Lee has taken a plea.)*
But are they right?
For one thing, I’ve yet to see the Bank of Montreal (BMO) own up to the fact that they hired David Lee, and they are responsible for his actions. BMO may now want to see Lee as a criminal, but he is a criminal who was on their payroll. His crimes were committed in the performance of the job that they paid him to do. David Lee was a fully vested agent of the Bank of Montreal when he showed up at Kevin Cassidy's door. There was no difference between orders from Lee and orders from BMO – they were one and the same entity.
So far BMO has been successful in getting people to only look at the Lee and Cassidy partnership as it appeared in 2007, after Lee’s crimes had been exposed as well as Cassidy’s criminal past. But in order to understand what really happened here, I think you need to look at David Lee as Kevin Cassidy saw him in 2003. Landing the Bank of Montreal’s account was a huge win for Cassidy’s small startup brokerage. Rather than looking at the significance of the BMO account as 'proof' that Cassidy must have been a partner to Lee's deception (as the Government and BMO claim) - I think it is just as likely that Cassidy must have provided the best customer service to BMO as was humanly possible, and that he followed the Bank's instructions honestly, ethically and to the letter.
When BMO tells us that they had an Independent Price Verification process (IPV) and that Cassidy ‘fully knew’ what it was, that just doesn't ring true. Was there an IPV contract? Was there an IPV process guide with rules that participating brokerages agreed to follow? No, there were no such things, because the IPV process was an in-house BMO process that Kevin Cassidy had no role in. The process that Kevin Cassidy followed was the instructions that Lee, as a fully vested agent of the Bank gave him. [see Side Note below]
Now, what exactly is it that Lee, as an agent of BMO told Cassidy to do? I’m going to have to go with the accusations in the Government’s Complaint here, and say that most likely Lee sent Cassidy some numbers to verify (marks) and that as long as the brokers at Optionable who had been placing trades for Lee thought the numbers (marks) looked reasonable, (looked similar to the numbers Lee had been making trades through Optionable at) Cassidy sent them back to BMO unchanged. The Government has proof that Lee and Cassidy did communicate to eliminate any typos in Cassidy’s report. But even the Government admits that Cassidy did change one or two of the values (marks) in at least some of the reports they presented as evidence – and in that sense, even though the numbers came from Lee the reports were still independent of Lee.
So, that’s how I see the “overt actions” in the Government’s complaint being true and Cassidy still being innocent. It’s not the strongest theory in the world, but I think it is plausible. Lee was a rogue trader who was deceiving his employer. Kevin Cassidy was running a brokerage which wanted BMO’s business. Lee as an agent of BMO instructed Cassidy to perform certain perfectly legal tasks, (as far as I know it is perfectly legal to review numbers for reasonableness and then to pass them on for further analysis by Bank experts) and these tasks were not in contradiction to any other documented set of instructions from any other member of BMO. Basically, Kevin Cassidy and other members of Optionable acted in good faith, and that good faith was taken advantage of by a criminal employed by BMO.
Disclaimer: I own shares of Optionable. The statements in the blog are my own opinion based on the information currently available.
[Side Note: BMO had an internal Independent Price Verification (IPV) process. The process was meant to keep its Trader's honest. BMO accuses Cassidy of Fraud, because Cassidy's company Optionable was frequently the sole source of data used in the verification. BMO admits that the reason Optionable's data was the sole source was because David Lee insisted on it. I am confused as to why BMO thinks this is proof that Cassidy participated in Lee's scheme. To me it looks like proof that David Lee was calling the shots within the BMO department that was supposed to be policing him. Why in the world did BMO allow Lee to choose the source of verification data? Lee had so much influence over the IPV process that he even got the department to CONTINUE using Optionable AFTER other people at BMO started to complain about the valuations Optionable was providing. At Lee's insistence, BMO started using a brand new valuation service from Optionable (which was still in beta test development) rather than adding an additional valuation service. Why was Lee given this much leeway to run the IPV process Lee's way?
* In its Motion to Dismiss, Defense estimated the volume of electronic data collected by the Government to be approximately:
+ 1.5 Million Excel pages
+ 100,000 word processing documents
+ 150,000 non-transcribed audio recordings
+ 375,000 emails
No comments:
Post a Comment