Comments on: Madoffs Victims

By: MorticiaA

MorticiaA — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:54:53 +0000

Why would he bilk his own family foundation (unless the foundation is another family member’s).

Just wonderin’….

By: Bob A

Bob A — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:44:27 +0000

It seems a little silly to spend much time on this one guy, this one fund…

WHEN THE ENTIRE AMERICAN FINANCIAL SYSTEM WAS ONE BIG PONZI SCHEME

In interesting, but insignificant, sideshow.

No?

By: Mark E Hoffer

Mark E Hoffer — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:26:05 +0000

mark Says:

December 15th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I think we need to start a pool on whether this is the biggest scam arising from the hedge bubble that will come to light.

I put the over at $100 billion and I’m taking the over.

mark,

you’ve already won, see TARP..

By: debreuil

debreuil — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:31:25 +0000

To put it a little less harshly.. : )

If that sweet old couple had pulled their money out last year, and now was asked to give back the (unreasonable and criminal) profits they had made in the fund, they would have a lawyer handy in about 30 seconds. Suddenly the ‘unfair loss at the hands of a criminal’ would become ‘profit earned in good faith that rewarded our risk’. The weepy couple would be shrill and righteous. It is the same transaction, so you can’t have it both ways. If you deserve your profits, you deserve your losses.

We can still feel sorry for them, they are human and they lost some money, whatever. Personally I’d rather feel sorry for people that never had any money (…and if they weren’t all so damn happy I would).

By: debreuil

debreuil — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:20:31 +0000

Why did these people have so much in one spot? Because the returns were the best there, simple as that. When you bet on the horse that pays the most, you aren’t the victim if it loses. In this case they were the participants in fact, and some may end up in jail too.

High return == high risk, and high *always* means you can lose everything. That is a lot different than getting raped walking home, sorry.

By: joeblo

joeblo — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:44:52 +0000

Why did I have the strange idea that SIPC didn’t protect in the case of fraud?
Why did the SIPC ask the court for coverage?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_bi_ge/wall_street_arrest;_ylt=AuN9laGjHNhwAmoSOu2Yjc8DW7oF

I guess these people are special and all, since they’re in the news paper, but will $500k each really do much for them? Are they planning on some other way to game the system and get even more?

By: leftback

leftback — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:16:04 +0000

I guess the “smart money” wasn’t so smart this time… I think this was a ring, the feeder funds are going to be crucified by the forensic accountants.

By: the0ther

the0ther — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:03:39 +0000

agree with what going broke said above. and let me add a HAHAHAHA.

is it a law of nature that more money equals more stupidity?

i don’t believe in any meritocracy at all anymore. these people who lost their money are supposedly in their positions of power because of their merit? yeah right.

By: Bruce N Tennessee

Bruce N Tennessee — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:28:31 +0000

a little off topic, but what is the reason for the massive decrease in foreign purchases last month? Do these numbers fluctuate this much, or is this evidence of severe foreign contraction?

http://briefing.com/Investor/Public/Calendars/EconomicCalendar.htm

Net Foreign Purchases

By: going broke

going broke — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:22:53 +0000

I think they need to bring back public hangings… many would think twice before ruining families.

And what’s this, he’s out on $10M bail? His bail should be equal or above what he swindled!

He’ll die of old age before he goes to the slammer.