Bernie Madoff's Son Found Dead

Quote from jem:

In the late nineties through 2001 some day trading firms were able to purchase bullets.

I always wondered how they could be purchased so cheaply. It just did not make sense that someone would give up control a thousand shares of stock and deep itm put for 10 bucks to daytraders who made money almost everyday.

But, I am pretty sure madoff was one the bullet dealers so now I get it... they were giving up fictional stock and options and no one was auditing their accounts properly.
More...

Jem, were the bullets over the counter?
 
Quote from Jasonthehorse:

If Picard is successful with even a small percentage of his suits, madoff victims will actually make money over all.
More...

I'll bite. How do you figure?
 
Quote from flytiger:

I'll bite. How do you figure?
More...


I don't really want to get into the details, but here is some more info for you---- Ask yourself, if the investors get back more than they put in, what was the scam? you give $1.00, you sue me and get back $1.65-- sounds like a winner to me....Over 10 billion of the lost 20 has been recovered.... Easily

Picard's moves are raising the possibility that Madoff investors could get all of their money back and then some. In fact, if Picard is successful in all of his cases, investors in the what has been called the largest financial fraud in history could walk away with a 65% profit. That is in large part due to the efforts of Picard and his team of lawyers, and the peculiarities of the fraud. Here's why:
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/12/07/will-madoffs-investors-break-even/
 
Quote from Jasonthehorse:

investors in the what has been called the largest financial fraud in history could walk away with a 65% profit.
More...


Hate to break it to you, but the 3rd grade math just doesn't add up that way. The extra money HAS TO come from somewhere. In a Ponzi it comes from the latecomers for the early investors.

Now you could say that if the profits weren't spent, most of it could be recovered from the early investors (let's say 80%), but saying the possibility of a 65% profit is just plain silly....

Oh yes, and in your non-explanation you "didn't want to get into the details", because that would be some funky math for sure....

After reading the link:

"The reason is that Picard is suing the banks for above and beyond what they got in fees for working with Madoff. Picard says the banks should have to pay damages for their support of Bernie. "

So somebody is getting screwed (banks), it might just not be the individual investors. Unless the knowledge of the crime or negligence can be proven (a big if) by the banks, suing for damages seems immoral to me...

It is basicly rewarding stupidity....
 
I agree. No one should recover more than their initial investment and no entity should be liable for claw backs greater than their total fraudulent gains. If there is belief an investor was aware, or should of been aware, of the fraud that should be pursued criminally.



Quote from Pekelo:

Hate to break it to you, but the 3rd grade math just doesn't add up that way. The extra money HAS TO come from somewhere. In a Ponzi it comes from the latecomers for the early investors.

Now you could say that if the profits weren't spent, most of it could be recovered from the early investors (let's say 80%), but saying the possibility of a 65% profit is just plain silly....

Oh yes, and in your non-explanation you "didn't want to get into the details", because that would be some funky math for sure....

After reading the link:

"The reason is that Picard is suing the banks for above and beyond what they got in fees for working with Madoff. Picard says the banks should have to pay damages for their support of Bernie. "

So somebody is getting screwed (banks), it might just not be the individual investors. Unless the knowledge of the crime or negligence can be proven (a big if) by the banks, suing for damages seems immoral to me...

It is basicly rewarding stupidity....
More...
 
Picard appears to be doing a good job recovering money. Does anyone know what he is getting paid for his efforts? If he gets 50% or more back I doubt the victims will complain if he is getting a nice cut of what he recovers. Clearly this question is somewhat off topic, but it would be interesting to know.
 
Quote from Jasonthehorse:

I don't really want to get into the details, but here is some more info for you---- Ask yourself, if the investors get back more than they put in, what was the scam? you give $1.00, you sue me and get back $1.65-- sounds like a winner to me....Over 10 billion of the lost 20 has been recovered.... Easily

Picard's moves are raising the possibility that Madoff investors could get all of their money back and then some. In fact, if Picard is successful in all of his cases, investors in the what has been called the largest financial fraud in history could walk away with a 65% profit. That is in large part due to the efforts of Picard and his team of lawyers, and the peculiarities of the fraud. Here's why:
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/12/07/will-madoffs-investors-break-even/
More...

The government doesn't tell us everything, but I"ll tell you that even though it is publicized that the fraud was 50bb, it was much higher. 7bb sounds grand, but I don't think dark side interests in Europe will be so giving. Ever see a mob movie where they give the money back? Didn't think so.
 
Quote from flytiger:

I"ll tell you that even though it is publicized that the fraud was 50bb, it was much higher
More...

Actually, it was much lower. Currently I think we are around 20 b. You can only count money what investors sent to the fund for investing, as real money and value lost. Everything else was paid from that, and whatever their accounting showed NEVER existed in the first place.

So just because Bernie said he had 40-50 b under management doesn't make it a 40 b fraud. At least by my 3rd grade math/accounting skill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top