SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The coming US dollar crisis

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: RockyBalboa who wrote (16314)1/14/2009 7:30:20 PM
From: carranza22 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 71454
 
I'm going to briefly summarize what a whistleblower is said to have told the SEC in 1999 and 2005:

1.- the fee basis was funky. undisclosed commissions rather than standard juicy hedge fund 2/20; Madoff left about 4% on the table. why?

2. the investors putting up the moolah didn't know Madoff was managing the money. the hedge funds investing in Madoff were prohibited from mentioning him. why? no questions get asked, that's why, including questions concerning a funky full o' holes investment strategy;

3. the counterparty risk for the two entities he used for his hedges, Merrill and UBS, was too high;

4. the writer says he heard from two funds of funds that Madoff subsidized bad months. if true, what better evidence of collusion or wilfull ignorance. or of a clean up of a Ponzi scheme to prevent redemptions;

5. no outside performance audits. ever.

6. going back 14 1/2 years, using a fund of funds numbers, the writer calculates that Madoff's returns were positive 96% of the time. this is the figure that does it for me. no way this can happen.

I've left a lot out because I don't understand it.

Madoff must be a real piece of work.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext