MojoMan Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 This guy http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/30/ex-c...ar-behind-bars/ describes what life could be like for BM. In the interview, he calls BM an "economic terrorist." I recall that I used a similar concept with the AIG @s$hole types last year. I say we should proscecute the big-time financial do-badders for domestic terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 There was no way humanly possible to suspect the fraud, and no due diligence by any civilian could have uncovered it. This is not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 i dont disagree with you that the sipc will give back some money. its alot less than you think too. this is my question.....why is one group considered a victim of foul play while the other shouldve known better and f them? They are both considered victims of foul play but the common public perception is that the ones caught by Madoff were rich drones investing vast sums while the foreclosed were victims of people not unlike the people scammed by Madoff. In other words, the rich are always evil and the poor are always victims. All a crock of poo but that's the perception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 If the financial world, the government and all the regulators were all fooled my Madoff it's not possible for a private citizen to have suspected fraud. The first part of this sentence is true. The second part is not. And, I feel AWFUL for those who were taken ... but to say that there weren't a whole host of red flags (which I've discussed here before) is not a genuine statement. People got blinded by greed, which happens a lot. Both BM and his investors...which is sad...because this whole situation has not ended well for any of them. And, I'm not a fan of seeing things end badly for people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Complete dumba$$ question: Did Madoff actually do any investing or did he just pay returns out of a bank account funded by new investments? Reports indicate that Madoff didn't actually do any actual trades for his investment management clients in like 13 years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Who should get more sympathy? The people who lost their retirement because they didn't properly investigate Madoff and what he was doing? Or the people who lost their retirement because Obama favored unions over bond holders who by law should have had a greater claim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 some Finance guy ripped off some people, is that it? what's the short version,what's the fraud....1st i've ever heard of it A guy was very well respected in the finance community and pulled the wool over the eyes of the regulators and his investors for approximately 20 years. Clients thought they had $65 billion invested with him. (I believe) the courts have been able to find less than 20% of that amount, and have only been able to actually get their hands on 2% of the total amount as of yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I say we should proscecute the big-time financial do-badders for domestic terrorism. That would be an interesting legal argument... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 As a quick aside, I would have figured the sentence differently than the judge did. Muck's Formula = (Maximum Sentence) * (% of investor accounts that are not recovered) ...so, if Madoff helps the government find 5% of the money, he gets 7.5 years off his total...and, if he helps them find 90%, then he may get to leave prison before he dies...that way, he's motivated to help the investors ... AND ... he gets the same proporion of "worst case scenario" as his investors... If they lose 98% of their money, then he should serve 98% of the maximum sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I hope this is not a stupid question.... How do they determine how much money to give back to the investors? If there waqs enough money to give all the money back is that what would happen? There is no way of knowing what that investor would have done with the money if it was not given to Madoff. They might have gambled it away - they might have put it in the bank and made daily interest. They might have been stupid and invested in some other scam thing and lost it all. I guess it comes back down to why do people get bailed out? If I bought a used car and got scammed I don't get anything back - I chalk it up to being stupid and learning. I feel sympathy for these people but where do you draw the line??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) I hope this is not a stupid question.... How do they determine how much money to give back to the investors? If there waqs enough money to give all the money back is that what would happen? There is no way of knowing what that investor would have done with the money if it was not given to Madoff. They might have gambled it away - they might have put it in the bank and made daily interest. They might have been stupid and invested in some other scam thing and lost it all. I guess it comes back down to why do people get bailed out? If I bought a used car and got scammed I don't get anything back - I chalk it up to being stupid and learning. I feel sympathy for these people but where do you draw the line??? i believe you can only recoup your initial investment. which most people will never see again. most of the money is gone. also read that the sipc is considering feeder funds as one customer!!! which means every person who invested with madoff thru a feeder fund will split 500k for that specific feeder fund. some of these people lost millions. sipc insurance is up to 500k. Edited June 30, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 i believe you can only recoup your initial investment. which most people will never see again. most of the money is gone. also read that the sipc is considering feeder funds as one customer!!! which means every person who invested with madoff thru a feeder fund will split 500k for that specific feeder fund. some of these people lost millions. sipc insurance is up to 500k. Thanks for the reply but that makes me wonder a bit more. You say they could recoup the initial investment - I know they won't but if they could why should they? Other people who did the proper due diligence may have lost money. They don't get bailed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) Thanks for the reply but that makes me wonder a bit more. You say they could recoup the initial investment - I know they won't but if they could why should they? Other people who did the proper due diligence may have lost money. They don't get bailed out. the other kicker is if you cashed out within the past few years, you could still be on the hook. its called a clawback. The law allows the trustee, in his pursuit of maximizing assets for the claimants, to “claw back” any payments that Madoff may have made. Because this was a Ponzi scheme, we know that the money of new investors was used to pay off prior investors. Prior investors may have received two types of payments: first, re-payment of their principal; second, payment of supposed profits or investment gains, which we now know were completely fabricated. The law allows the trustee to “claw back” both types of payments. Edited June 30, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 IIRC, there is like a 5 (or 7?) year statute of limitations on claw-backs, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 How many years does the SEC get for completely falling down on their job? What are these people getting paid for again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 How many years does the SEC get for completely falling down on their job? What are these people getting paid for again? Since I'm subject to the SEC, I'm not answering this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 but to say that there weren't a whole host of red flags (which I've discussed here before) is not a genuine statement. Can you link to your discussion of this? I'd like to read (and forward) it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Can you link to your discussion of this? I'd like to read (and forward) it. I would not mind at all if you used the search feature for your own purposes. You have a PM... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I don't understand how everyone didn't know Madoff was evil from the beginning. Was I the only one that saw the horns on the Jew? We should've thrown him down the well long ago when he was born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.