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: tejek who wrote (174313)	12/29/2008 4:08:47 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

plus the real problem with Madoff is I'll bet they figure out that he was NOT a Ponzi scheme until sometime in this decade. His prior returns in the roaring bull market were probably accurate. thats the way it usually goes. He was chair of NASD when the Nasdaq indices were around 200 pts. All he every saw was a bull in that until 2001. Just like Bill Miller, one strategy returned colossal results until the government takes so many wrong turns we are back in the 70s. But by the time they recognize this its too late. Why would Madoff have STARTED OUT with a Ponzi scheme? There was no reason for it. No, I think he had a big name a big fund and a big image/ego, and he made a few bad bets and wiped himself out. Probably this decade sometime.

To: tejek who wrote (174313)	12/29/2008 4:11:17 PM
From: Think4Yourself	Respond to of 306849

You both have excellent arguments. Ugly problem. Madoff knew what he was doing, and did it intentionally. He is no better than a##holes like Jeff Skilling or Bernie Ebbers. Take their body organs, blood, and plasma right now, and give them to people who need them. Let those clowns do some small good for humanity.

To: tejek who wrote (174313)	12/29/2008 5:00:21 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Because in a Ponzi scheme, old investors are paid from new investor's principal. So the damages are intentionally asymmetric. Case law has hashed this out, most recently in the Sam Israel/Bayou Investment Fund case.

To: tejek who wrote (174313)	12/29/2008 5:05:38 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

How do you know who is tipped off about it being a Ponzi scheme? If investing in a Ponzi scheme is risk free, other than being the final bag holders, you should expect to see lots of Ponzi schemes being run, with lots of difficult to prove "insider" transactions. At least that is what I would expect to see develop.

To: tejek who wrote (174313)	12/29/2008 5:16:57 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Perhaps another way to consider it is wrt to state laws on possession of stolen property. The people cashed out early in a Ponzi scheme are in some sense in possession of stolen money. State laws vary as to how this is treated (amount can change the crime from misdemeanor to felony, and laws also vary widely on the effect of knowledge about the property being stolen). For some states, simply getting too good of a deal seems to be indication that you have reason to think the property is stolen. In that case, plenty of these Madoff investors had reason to think so as well.