Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (174307)	12/29/2008 3:54:47 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Respond to of 306849

It was a pyramid scheme if the only losers are the ones holding the bag at the end. That's essentially what he was doing. I don't know anything about the fund so I don't know if there was any indication to the donors as to what was actually happening. But, anything that good is usually phony.

To: neolib who wrote (174307)	12/29/2008 4:01:04 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 306849

I've heard this before. I don't get how that's fair. Why not? It is a protection to encourage people not to play with Ponzi schemes. If such a law didn't exist, then the only problem with a Ponzi scheme is being one of the suckers still holding at the end. This leaves the early players on the hook as well. But if you didn't know it was a Ponzi scheme.....invested your money for 5 years and then decided to withdraw the money so you could buy a summer home with the profits, why should you be penalized ten years hence because it turns out it was a Ponzi scheme?