Bernie Madoff's Son Found Dead

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by Range Rover, Dec 11, 2010.

  1. Jem, were the bullets over the counter?
     
    #151     Dec 19, 2010
  2. If Picard is successful with even a small percentage of his suits, madoff victims will actually make money over all.
     
    #152     Dec 19, 2010
  3. I'll bite. How do you figure?
     
    #153     Dec 19, 2010

  4. 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/
     
    #154     Dec 20, 2010
  5. BMIS did not deal in bullets, and the hedge didn't trade much at all.
     
    #155     Dec 20, 2010
  6. Pekelo

    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....
     
    #156     Dec 20, 2010
  7. 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.



     
    #157     Dec 20, 2010
  8. CET

    CET

    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.
     
    #158     Dec 20, 2010
  9. 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.
     
    #159     Dec 20, 2010
  10. Pekelo

    Pekelo

    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.
     
    #160     Dec 20, 2010