Any comments about Mr Madoff?
 

and his Ponzi scheme?

If it seems to good to be true, it usually is.

Any comments about Mr. Meoff and his porno scheme?

(That's Jack Meoff)

You just have to shake your head. How much worse can it get? 50 Billion in fraud? WTF? Were there any regulators at all? Or all they all surfing the web when they should be regulating?

They've all been spending too much time in the Cellar.

They're sorry, it won't happen again.

:D

I think it's funny that his name is Madoff. HA HA. He really 'made off' with their money, huh? This is why I chose to spend all my money on magazines and candy--no one can hurt me that way. I'm bullet proof.

At the risk of sounding like tw, the foxes have been regulating the henhouse for a while, and the hens have been thinking "Holy smokes! look at all the corn we've been getting! Much better than when that miserly Farmer Brown was looking after us." And as the nearby hens fell to the foxes the remaining hens just watched and said to themselves "It can't happen to me..."

Ahem...since we're all in here together right now...why the hummus quote? Of all the funny damn things I've said and you quote me on a salad bar issue? :lol:

:blush:

When someone wears your quote, that means you're going steady.

So foot's like, a dating Mormon?

YOU MEAN I'VE BEEN DUMPED?!

foot's given you the boot. (Did you see his sole?)

No. I don't approve the use of Ouija.

Just don't spit on my sole...

You're my wife now, Dave...

Shawnee there was something sweet and innocent about it and it makes me smile, I don't know why.

Was "drowning a fish" one of Jim's sock puppets?

He was a rather large contributor to some prominent D's - This info didn't come out till over the weekend. Then again this is probably fodder for another thread.

Link to recipients

I feel bad that I somehow find it more difficult to feel bad for the mainly ultra rich who lost boatloads of money in this. Although I hate how it is affecting "regular" people who also invested into some of the same things he had some money in and still more who are losing their jobs.

Well shucks.

hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus...

:)

So why fear what accurately describes a problem for about a decade now?

Problem in this particular example is information. Currently not clear is whether any regulations existed to enforce. SEC received numerous tips on this particular hedge fund. SEC has been starved for funds for over a decade. Even after Enron, the Congress tried to double the SEC budget and Harvey Pitts refused to accept the money. Not even known if the SEC investigators had sufficient knowledge or experience to see or understand this fraud. All we know is the SEC did investigate this hedge fund previously due to tips - and did nothing.

Did nothing because their people are not smart enough - have enough experience? Or did nothing because the fraud was legal? Well, one would think after LTCM and that massive emergency $billions bailout, then some regulation would exist. Nope.

Instead, the powers in power stifled regulation, refused to increase the SEC budget, and were promoting more deregulation as the solution to our economic ills. What we now know - those ills were created because finance people must be highly regulated. Even Enron accounting is alive and well.

:grinnylov

Dave's not here.

tw is Cheech?

Cheech is Cheech. And Tommy is Chong. All I wanted to be is the bong. Everyone loves the bong.

People are evil, money grubbing fuckwads, and most of them don't care much who gets screwed as long as they have plenty of cocaine and young bitches with flat bellies to snort it off of.

This dude Ponzi'ed *charitable endowments*, amongst other things. Did he care one fuck about anyone but himself? Nope.

If he had an ounce of decency, he'd slit his own throat.

Everybody seems to think me hopelessly pessimistic when I say "Its all about the money". Except that it *is* all about the money. Nothing else. Ever. At least, not for the people who are in the drivers seat. They're only there because there's something in it for them, some cream to be skimmed, some advantage to be had. No one does it because it is noble, or beneficial for the greater good.

Line the pockets, get out, live good, fuck everyone else.

That was the mission statement for all of the health care facilities I ever worked for. Weird, huh?

Elspode, I think you're a litttle harsh on humanity. There are quite a lot of people who are NOT like that. True, there are quite a few who are (which, incidentally is why I disagree with Radarian Libertarianism) but don't lose hope.

I read they let Madoff out on bail. Is that right? The only reason he should be out is so he can go take a long walk of a small ledge on a tall building. Jump, #$%@er!

It takes a lot of people who don't suck to make up for the relatively few who suck so incredibly heinously.

Absolutely. In an altruistic community, it only takes a few parasites to wreck it, just a couple of percent. Pricks. Gotta weed them out.

Take a read here
JPMorgan Exited Madoff-Linked Funds Last Fall

Have at 'em folks.

There is a belief that hedge fund investors are smarter than the average bear/wealthy enough to not be adversely affected by risk so they are not tightly regulated from the "protect the investor" vantage point. Most hedge funds have pretty hefty initial investment thresholds designed to filter out those not well-off enough to be able to absorb the risk.

In reality, most Ponzi schemes are pretty easy to spot given enough information. And there was enough information available to have led several prominent analysts to publicly question the accuracy of the fund's financial reports.

Hedge funds are risky in an all-or-nothing way. Many times its either a home run or a strikeout.

Hedge funds shouldn't be used as primary investment vehicles anyway. Their primary purpose is to hedge against risks that cannot be offset by diversification such as exchange-rate risk.

Are you investing to solve a problem in the economy or provide a company with a solution? If investing to advance mankind and society, then a profit is earned. If simply investing to make a fast profit, then the resulting losses were deserved. Others argue silly nonsense such as greed. A responsible investor instead sees real assets, services, or products.

Hedge funds that should be profitable invested in risk directly attached to existing real assets. Such funds also would be transparent to investors.

Part of Madoff's trick was to deny direct investment. Investments were made through feeder funds. The investor then (foolishly) thought that broker was a financial guru. In reality, that feeder fund was nothing more than a salesman whose profits were larger when recommending Madoff. They never bothered to learn what Madoff was doing. Why would they? So many actually believe brokers are more than a salesman. Why bother to actually do the work when how the sale is made is more important?

Do you invest in a feeder fund who in turn invests in Madoff who in turn invests in equities too far removed from actual assets? No wonder the ponzi scheme lived on so long. Victims were too busy realizing 'profits' rather than first looking at what the fund was actually investing to advance mankind, the economy, and society.

Buy shares of Intel and actually see your investment is doing something productive and therefore profitable. Invest in an agricultural future so that the farmer can hedge himself (survive) from catastrophic risks. Do investing in regulated markets that are forced to operate ethically. The meltdown is directly traceable investments promoted only by myths; assets based only in paper and sometimes even in secret, private deals.

Madoff simply used additional 'layers' to play that game. To take investments from those too far removed to actually see what they were investing in.

Read the JP Morgan article. How do you know a problem exists? One gives bank money to invest. The bank takes a 2% service fee. Then the bank invests in another fund which also takes a service fee. That is an investor all but asking for trouble. A broker (or bank) should be the only service fee. The bank even quickly pulled out their own money but never bothered to inform investors who were even paying a 2% service fee.

Such investors are all but asking to be taken - just like investors in Bernie Madoff who could only invest through feeder funds. Just like anyone who pays a financial adviser a service fee to invest in mutual funds which then take more service fees.

Madoff list: Celebs, athletes and ordinary people

I still say the dude should slit his own throat. He's scum.

I can't agree more. It is wild to think of the number of people who have gone from fame and fortune to destitute. It certainly has shades of the day of the crash in '39.

And I would have guessed it was Sheldon who wants to be sucked by Phelps....

Or the other way around.

Did anyone catch the hearings with Harry Markopolos? He's the man who tried, for YEARS, to get the SEC to do something about Madoff. He gave pretty scathing testimony about how inept they are earlier this week.

I hope we get some sensible regulations on business again. I have a feeling that a LOT of people will going to prison over the next few years, for fraud, or not doing their jobs (of providing oversight), or causing the collapse of the entire world economy.

That would be '29. But not really. '29 was a collapse of the entire market. This is just a case of a con man being unmasked by a market collapse.

And who the hell gives their entire fortune to one guy to invest? Didn't these knuckleheads ever hear of diversification? I feel bad for the people who lost their life savings to Madoff but they could have given at least some of it to... I dunno, Fidelity or T Rowe Price or any number of reputable investment firms.

Why didn't they? Because Madoff promised returns higher than those offered by reputable investment firms. Now why would any sane person think that Madoff is smarter than the entire portfolio investment brain trust at TRP/Fidelity/etc.?

Too bad P. T. Barnum or Ben Franklin aren't here to answer that question.

It has been noted here for years. During the Enron hearings, both Democrats and Republicans wanted to double the SEC budget. Harvey Pitts, the SEC Chairman refused the money. Even at the start of 2000s, the political agenda was to subvert oversight in the name of deregulation.

Previously, Clinton also tried to increase the SEC Budget. Congressional Republicans were united in their threat. If Clinton tried to increase SEC powers, then the political agenda would remove all SEC funding. Clinton backed down.

Some ask if this about philosophy. Reasons for outright fraud were apparent even in LTCM, Enron, and the mythical CA energy crisis. Even First Energy created the NorthEast blackout. Even First Energy violated a long list of operational requirements and was exonerated as lies about an obsolete grid, instead, were promoted. Even First Energy operated a nuclear reactor with a hole in its cap and other complications that could have taken out Toledo. Technical violations were all but encouraged by deregulation. Deregulation designed to eliminate oversight and responsibility to the product in the name of profits short term profits.

Madoff is only another example of what we encouraged and created at the highest levels of government. Engineers were even denied facts necessary to save the Columbia because managers were more interested in their politics and image rather than in technical facts. My god. The President even outrightly lied about Saddam's WMDs when facts said otherwise were even withheld. These are accidents? Hardly. We did not even hold him responsible. Why should SEC investigations of Madoff be anything different?

Those SEC investigators were only doing what we wanted the administration to impose on them. Least paid government employees were in the SEC. That political agenda was painfully obvious when Harvey Pitts testified before Congress and refused to take a budget increase. Where were you when the problem was so painfully obvious?

Government did what we wanted for the past 10 years. Where is the investigation of Morgan Stanley and other for manipulating oil prices? When do we prosecute others for intentionally creating the CA energy crisis? Why is Madoff any different? In those other cases, we considered these accidents? Even the State of Oklahoma had to embarrass the Federal government and file suit against Enron before the Feds would finally prosecute.

They didn't do what I wanted. I have wanted more regulation of business since Reagan started systematically deregulating everything in sight.

I'm shocked that no one here made a smart ass comment about how the federal government has been actively participating in and forcing a ponzi scheme on us all for YEARS.

You mean the one called Social Security?

Some people would not survive without SS and Medicare. Those are not schemes, they are successful programs. Is there some waste? Yes, but the whole health care industry is full of it. So you can't really blame Medicare...

Correction: they are rapidly failing programs. "Some people" need SS and Medicare, just like all social programs. It's when you try to pretend that everyone will receive reasonable and fair benefits when they retire that it becomes a Ponzi scheme. The money simply isn't there.

That's not true. The absolute worst case scenario for Social Security is that all of the beneficiaries split up all of the contributors' tax contributions. This could (depending on the ratio of workers to retired/disabled) be less than is currently promised, but will never be zero. It will never fail. And the rates/retirement ages/upper tax limits can be adjusted for the times.

A Ponzi scheme with only two levels, in which everyone (who doesn't die early) gets to be in the top level eventually, isn't really a Ponzi scheme.

Ok, I've not thought of it this way before, I recognize that there will be little to nothing when I retire and try to plan accordingly.

But for the sake of the argument, if they raise the age to say 80 and I die at 79 1/2 how much do I get?

You recognize incorrectly, then. As stated, there will definitely not be "nothing". The actual amount is dependant on many varibles, including the ratio of workers to retirees and the state of the economy (how much total salary there is to tax). It will probably be significant, but it is always good to plan to have more, if you can.It depends on whether you opted to enter the program early at a reduced payout.

SS is supposed to be enough to keep you out of the soup line. It'll probably do that but not much more. That's not really what its for.

So I now have PERS, and I paid into FICA since I was, I think, 16. I don't think I had to pay into that until I turned 16; I worked on a produce farm in the summers and they didn't take out any taxes until then. I've been in PERS instead for 7 + years.

Anyway, I hear that you can't get both. How does that work? I thought I heard of a guy who retired early and took a payout on PERS so he could still get SS. Of course he lost some PERS, but...

Anyone know anything about this?

I don't know exactly what PERS is, but if it's a state-run retirement program, then in general the rule is you can't take both. My mother-in-law is a teacher: in Illinois, teachers pay into the normal SS system. But in Texas, where she moved later in life, teachers pay into a special state retirement program. She cannot collect both. At this point, her teacher retirement payout will be much more than SS, so obviously she knows which one she's going to choose to take, but she has basically just lost those ten years or so that she was paying into SS.

Public Employee Retirement System.

There is a teacher's version, I know faculty has a bit different retirement than staff.

But I wonder about the retire early...actually I mean resign early, take a payout of PERS and collect SS. Is this legal? I mean, I paid into SS for a long time. It just seems one could get benefits from both.

I should probably find out, huh? :)

Yea, but not until you are old or your spouse/mother/father(if you are a minor dependent child) kicks in. Otherwise it is more like the governments life insurance policy, they keep your money and bet you can't make it to an age where you will be able to use it. And just think of all those who pay into it and get squat in the end because they never make it. Yea, the gobberment keeps that money.

Well, hopefully they actually give it to some old people, often to the spouse of the person who died.

And I believe people who don't need the money when they hit retirement age (Gates, Buffet, etc.) should be allowed to not take the money, so that money could be divided among the people who DO need it, but they aren't allowed to do that. If they were though, that would go a long way toward increasing benefits for those who do count on that money to survive.

That is just wrong. If you pay into both, you should receive a % amount for the years you paid in. 10 years worth wouldn't be much, but still, she paid in, she should be paid out.

Yes, thanks for the response.

I'm assuming you mean "wrong" from a moral standpoint? Because from a factual standpoint, I assure you it's true. It's called the Windfall Elimination Provision, and while they don't strictly calculate it as "one or the other," it's a pro-rated reduction of your SS benefits which depends on how many years you paid in, and what year you turn 62. In her case, the reduction amount is equal to (or greater than, I don't know her exact numbers anymore) the amount she would have received, so the end result is no SS payout.

If you pay into it you should get something out of it, regardless of what you make or how much money you have. It is not the fault of the people who pay in that the gobberment has screwed up the process.

I'm talking about from an ethical, moral standpoint. If you pay in, you should get something back, even if it's a very small amount. Otherwise, it's like stealing.

Agreed. I shall get screwed upon my retirement.

Always screwing the working folks...