Madoff Clawback Nightmare on Wall St,

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by stock777, Dec 23, 2008.

  1. tradersboredom

    tradersboredom Guest

    i'm beginning to think it isn't a ponzi scheme, rather he lost 50% assets in his portfolio.

    as investors withdraw cash, he had no cash to give to them.

    even the most conservative investment funds lost 25% in 2008.



     
    #11     Dec 23, 2008
  2. tradersboredom

    tradersboredom Guest

    there is not enough cash or liquidity in the market if all the investors wanted to cashout in the same day in a 50 billion dollar investment fund.

    the market is not that liquid.



     
    #12     Dec 23, 2008
  3. Oh yeah? That's how THEY explain it to us. It is NOT supposed to be just a welfare program. The funds are supposed to be separate from other government money...social security payments are not supposed to be just a handout from the government. I get a statement which states how much I've contributed to my SS "account" and what I should expect as far as social security payments after I retire.

    However, SS is solely based on money from current contributors ("investors") paying returns to those who contributed in the past, so they can collect their social security checks. There is no real investment return on money contributed to the social security program.

    That is exactly the definition of a Ponzi scheme. The only difference is that the SS Ponzi scheme was made legal by the government.
     
    #13     Dec 23, 2008
  4. tradersboredom, what imbecile were you before this nick?
     
    #14     Dec 23, 2008
  5. No it comes from english common law. You can't keep anything you don't own.

    It would be the same thing as if you bought a stolen car. You would have to give the car back and your're out the money.

    Those people were paid not with profits but with other peoples money.
     
    #15     Dec 23, 2008
  6. if that happens get ready for the second american civil war, which would be awesome, no more crazy american wars with other countries. just themselves :D



     
    #16     Dec 23, 2008
  7. ipatent

    ipatent

    Not true. The prevailing legal standard is that a "good faith purchaser for value" gets to keep what he bought, even if it was stolen property. (to be in good faith you must not have known or should have known of the fraud).

    The NY "clawback" provision seems to be an exception to this.
     
    #17     Dec 23, 2008
  8. tradersboredom

    tradersboredom Guest

    Social Security Program is well known to be pay as you go.

    All the money people pay is paid out.

    There is no investment fund.

    The gov't can just cancel the social security program cancel welfare programs cancel unemployment programs.

    everybody knows that social security is structured like "WELFARE". it's full disclosure.
    Gov't doesn't need to pay any social security. social security is communism


     
    #18     Dec 23, 2008
  9. There were no clawbacks for Enron, and will not be any for the Satyam fraud. Anyone who shorted these stocks or sold when then were high priced keep all of their profits.

    Why are they even being considered for the Madoff scandal?

    Were there any clawbacks 90 years ago after the Ponzi scandal?
     
    #19     Jan 8, 2009
  10. Gasbag Charlie had an interesting bit on CNBC...Carpenters Union Pension Fund invested with Madoff.
    Now if "Clawback" is truly an enforceable law/regulation, then the Carpenters Unions' Pension fund has to give back money, and some retirees all of a sudden got no income.
    The depth of this is astounding.
     
    #20     Jan 8, 2009