Bernie goes to jail..but should he go alone?

[Tom]

Bernie Madoff got his today…..but what about the rest of his "gang?"

The SEC is just as guilty as Bernie is….they knew al about his scam and did nothing!

The head of the SEC deserves the same sentence Bernie got, and everyone else working there deserves to get fired. The SEC should be disbanded due to it being worthless.



And Bernie made off with 64 billion dollars, or as UpChuck Schumer calls it, chump-change. Compare that to how much Obummer has stolen from us so far…..who really deserves to go to jail?

[Show Me the Wire]

He needs the money to pay,er I mean donate to Obama and the dems for a presidential pardon or a commutation of the sentence.

sorry for the thread drift, but I couldn't resist.

[JustRalph]

Wayne Rogers on Fox News the other Day..........

" Bernie Madoff killed more Jews than Hitler"

[OTM Al]

That's pretty tasteless in quite a few ways.

[Rookies]

Well, it is Fox, the cartoon network.

But since your asking, feel free to throw in Cheney as a bunk bed mate ! :lol:

[ArlJim78]

i just don't get why this was swept away so easily. i'm guessing its a cover-up.
if the money wasn't invested, where did it go?
and there is no way, NO WAY, that he acted alone. it stinks to high heaven.

[DJofSD]

Bernie Madoff got his today…..but what about the rest of his "gang?"

The SEC is just as guilty as Bernie is….they knew al about his scam and did nothing!

The head of the SEC deserves the same sentence Bernie got, and everyone else working there deserves to get fired. The SEC should be disbanded due to it being worthless.



And Bernie made off with 64 billion dollars, or as UpChuck Schumer calls it, chump-change. Compare that to how much Obummer has stolen from us so far…..who really deserves to go to jail?
And the investigation should start with the judge that accepted his plea of guilty. He should have rejected it and entered a plea of not guilty so it would go to trail.

[hcap]

Wayne Rogers on Fox News the other Day..........

" Bernie Madoff killed more Jews than Hitler" How does Pa put up with you? :lol:

[OTM Al]

i just don't get why this was swept away so easily. i'm guessing its a cover-up.
if the money wasn't invested, where did it go?
and there is no way, NO WAY, that he acted alone. it stinks to high heaven.

Given that they only way these people are going to get any of their money back is through civil suits, which are much easier to put through after a criminal conviction, I would say the judge did a great job getting it resolved so quickly rather than dragging it out for years while what money he had gets eaten up in legal fees and hidden away.

[DanG]

Can someone explain to me how a “Ponzi scheme” is any different then the way a “legal” insurance company operates?

Sorry; but I despise paying insurance so it was a good chance to fire a shell over their bow.

Many years ago at a Ragozin seminar Len Friedman was discussing the use of ‘insurance in gambling. He went on to say; “All insurance is a bad bet when viewed over the life of the average policy”…He was 110% correct imo.

BTW: No offense if you sell insurance; but I would like a percentage back on the all the wasted premiums I’ve paid in over the years.

End of rant.

[Tom]

Considering AIG, there is no difference. :mad::bang:

[OTM Al]

Can someone explain to me how a “Ponzi scheme” is any different then the way a “legal” insurance company operates?

Sorry; but I despise paying insurance so it was a good chance to fire a shell over their bow.

Many years ago at a Ragozin seminar Len Friedman was discussing the use of ‘insurance in gambling. He went on to say; “All insurance is a bad bet when viewed over the life of the average policy”…He was 110% correct imo.

BTW: No offense if you sell insurance; but I would like a percentage back on the all the wasted premiums I’ve paid in over the years.

End of rant.

Its quite different really. Insurance is no different than gambling, except you are gambling that something bad will happen to you. So if you buy insurance, either way you are going to be a loser, out money or ill, though maybe not as big a loser if you get ill without it. Funds paid to the insurer are supposed to be invested in safe activities, AIG nonwithstanding. Regardless, it is generally the money of the healthy majority that pay for the sick. Unlike the Ponzi scheme however, policies are written in such a way as to attract only a subset of the population so that overall the firm should remain profitable, or at least expect to break even. Thus, unlike a Ponzi scheme they won't take just anyone's money, which would be disaterous for the firm, and which should allow all those with a claim to be paid off appropriately. A Ponzi scheme can never pay off the promised amounts because the last suckers in are always left holding the bag.

[DanG]

Its quite different really. Insurance is no different than gambling, except you are gambling that something bad will happen to you. So if you buy insurance, either way you are going to be a loser, out money or ill, though maybe not as big a loser if you get ill without it.
True Al in one sense;

But some Ponzi scheme’s don’t start out as nefarious acts. Some begin with typical investment parameters and spiral into the Madoff express. Insurance starts / operates and finishes as a losing investment and if a catastrophe does hit; let the bankruptcy courts decide the fate of policy holders.

[OTM Al]

No, the Ponzi scheme always starts with what you call a nefarious act. They are by nature created to cheat the investor from day one. And they always collapse eventually because there is a finite number of potential suckers. Madoff is no exception. The only thing remarkable about his was that he was able to maintain it for so long.

[jballscalls]

i think madoff's wife and kids should have to give back any money they have from him. This guys stole from Sandy Koufax for pete's sake!

[DanG]

No, the Ponzi scheme always starts with what you call a nefarious act. They are by nature created to cheat the investor from day one. And they always collapse eventually because there is a finite number of potential suckers. Madoff is no exception. The only thing remarkable about his was that he was able to maintain it for so long.
Come on Al;

Let me take a shot at Insurance without shooting holes in my illogical post! :D

[DJofSD]

True Al in one sense;

But some Ponzi scheme’s don’t start out as nefarious acts. Some begin with typical investment parameters and spiral into the Madoff express. Insurance starts / operates and finishes as a losing investment and if a catastrophe does hit; let the bankruptcy courts decide the fate of policy holders.
Dan, I never consider insurance as an investment. If you will, it's a necessary evil used to provide a degree of protection for yourself or your family. As the expression goes 'ya pays your money and ya takes your chances'. If you don't pay for the coverage you're taking the chance of having to take a large financial loss.

The difference between some Ponzi scheme's is who is operating them: if is a government program like Social Security then the government says it's OK -- trust me -- but if it is not the government then you have some protection under the law (but not much).

[ArlJim78]

Given that they only way these people are going to get any of their money back is through civil suits, which are much easier to put through after a criminal conviction, I would say the judge did a great job getting it resolved so quickly rather than dragging it out for years while what money he had gets eaten up in legal fees and hidden away.
well thats a good point as far as the people who got taken. do you think the civil suits will expose any of more of the operation? or others that might have been involved? I just feel that their are others with unclean hands that need to be exposed.

[OTM Al]

well thats a good point as far as the people who got taken. do you think the civil suits will expose any of more of the operation? or others that might have been involved? I just feel that their are others with unclean hands that need to be exposed.

We can hope so. There is no way that the judge could let him plea down his sentence for the info, and I don't think he was going to talk anyway. Remember too a civil jury does not have to pass a unanimous verdict, so only the majority would need to be convinced about any accomplices. I can see a big class action suit here and hope all will come forward, though I fear many may be too embarassed.

[DJofSD]

We can hope so. There is no way that the judge could let him plea down his sentence for the info, and I don't think he was going to talk anyway. Remember too a civil jury does not have to pass a unanimous verdict, so only the majority would need to be convinced about any accomplices. I can see a big class action suit here and hope all will come forward, though I fear many may be too embarassed.
Let's be clear: you will not get the same discovery as a criminal trial. If you want to flush out the corrupt government officials and politicians you will need a criminal trial.

[Bubba X]

True Al in one sense;

But some Ponzi scheme’s don’t start out as nefarious acts. Some begin with typical investment parameters and spiral into the Madoff express. Insurance starts / operates and finishes as a losing investment and if a catastrophe does hit; let the bankruptcy courts decide the fate of policy holders.

But insurance is not, and never is, an "investment." Aside from estate planning where insurance can be used to minimize estate taxes, the only reason insurance exists is to transfer a risk you do not want to assume.

"Wasted premiums paid" is in the eye of the beholder, really. If you worked hard all your life and own say, a $500,000 home, you can choose to not insure damage to or total loss of your house and assume that risk yourself. If you are healthy, you can choose not to have health insurance and assume the risk of sickness, injury or disability.

For certain, however, you cannot buy insurance at the time your house is on fire nor at the time you are in the emergency room after being hit and injured by an unisured driver.

As for bankrupt insurance companies, you can limit, and even altogether avoid being impacted by this by limiting your carrier choices to insurers rated as "Admitted" in your state and eschewing insurance companies which are "Non-Admitted." . Admitted insurance companies are more closely regulated by your State and pay into a guarantee fund which, in the event of Admitted insurer insolvency, guarantee payment of claims up to an amount specified by law (usually between $500,000 and $1,000,000, depending on the State). Generally, Non-Admitted insurer insovency results in far less, or no, such protection.

The biggest consideration in evaluating a prospective policy is very often whether the insurer is Admitted or Non-Admitted.

Anyhow, insurance isn't meant to create wealth. Protect it, yes. But not create it. So it's not an investment, at least imo.

[JustRalph]

interesting guy Mr. Ponzi

this guy was considered a hero by some and was still receiving envelopes full of money, while in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi

[DJofSD]

interesting guy Mr. Ponzi

this guy was considered a hero by some and was still receiving envelopes full of money, while in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi
I believe there was a program on the History channel a few months back about him and the scam.