Am I the only one who doesn't feel that bad for Madoff's so-called victims? As far as I can tell, anyone with a modicum of financial sense would not leverage the family farm on investments with suspiciously high returns, and in fact, there are many people who did not. Bernie himself wonders how he got away with it for so long. Indeed. Perhaps because he assumed that the same impulses operating in him would be present in others, on a less active and criminal level?
The people howling the loudest for the blood of Madoff and his devoted yet inscrutable wife would generate more empathy from me if they also acknowledged their collusion in their downfall.... through willful ignorance and greed. I'm not talking about the little old lady in Dubuque who lost her house, but Madoff didn't take her type in the first place. And of course he should be in jail, along with many others who, however, managed to keep their CEO jobs due to the munificent support of american taxpayers. THAT howl you hear is moi.
@orangecatlover: 12% is not that much higher than 11%, which is the annual average historical return from the stock market. The returns were not suspiciously high--they were suspiciously consistent.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Madoff's victims thought they were getting accurate financial statements and made decisions accordingly. You no doubt do the same, but on a smaller level. Do you believe that your bank will always be able to produce your checking and savings account balances on demand? Then you're no smarter than the people who invested with Madoff--the federal government certified both him and your bank.
@la.donna.pietra:
You are correct, they were suspiciously consistent, but I fail to understand the qualification as far as investors are concerned. Whether they were suspiciously high or consistent, they were suspicious.
Yes, my bank produces my checking and savings on demand. I wouldn't have it any other way.
I don't know what you mean by "certification." Investments with Madoff were not federally insured, obviously. My money is. Any money you invest that is not federally insured is money YOU MUST BE PREPARED TO LOSE. The fact that they lost it in a scam is the reason Madoff is in jail, and the reason emotions are so high, understandably.
If you invest non-FDIC assets you better damn well be alert to anything suspicious.
@orangecatlover: Madoff didn't just have individual investors, there were charities and retirement funds who invested their money with him. If you listened to the people who gave victim impact statements, you would hear from people who gave what little money they had to a trusted financial adviser. You're assuming a level of financial understanding and skill that these people didn't have. Like la.donna.pietra said, the returns were strangely consistent, not high. So were GE's - should people have known that they were committing accounting fraud for years because they consistently met expectations in a time when the markets were consistently doing well?
@a magician named gob:
Again, strangely consistent not high (they were both) is the point.
Yes, I feel sorry for the people who listened to trusted financial advisors. Trusted financial advisors should be an oxymoron. But these people will be victimized again if they only focus on the demonizing of Madoff in place of recognizing that they can not count on uninsured investments being there tomorrow. You can only wager what you can afford to lose.
@la.donna.pietra: The actual statistics is that if you look at almost any ten year period, the average return is 11%. That means some years it's completely normal for the market return to be 5%, and some years 20% is normal. Getting 12% regularly would have sent off some major alarms in anyone who'd taken an intro to econ or intro to statistics class, but that is also assuming that the people investing have this sort of knowledge, which we cannot know. So I don't blame any of his victims, but I do think that some of the better educated ones should have been able look and realize it was probably a little off. More importantly, I wonder how no government agency picked up on these irregularities for so long, since there are agencies that monitor these sorts of ventures.
@orangecatlover: Well, there were actually quite a few of the "little old lady" types losing their homes down my way. A lot of people came to Madoff through word of mouth - their uncle referred them or their brother-in-law. It wasn't all just super-wealthy insiders.
I get what you are saying, of course. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the way finance works should know that consistent returns of eight to ten percent is not realistic. So in that way, I imagine the people were so blinded by the possibilities that they failed to look at this with a critical eye. So I get what you are saying. I do.
To me, were Bernie Madoff a midlevel drug dealer, his wife wouldn't get to keep $2.5M; that there is so much concern for her given what else is going on is sickening. It's like the years of fraud and subterfuge are continuing to pay dividends for her because her former lifestyle is framing what's considered humane or reasonable for her going forward. Imagine if she were to have to assume the lifestyle of any of Madoff's victims that lost their retirements and possibly their homes? Until she's entirely penniless, and rebuilding by her own sweat, she's worthy of nothing less than contempt.
I say take everything from her and let her write a book about how clueless she is. She'll surely get millions on such a deal, for her to keep any proceeds at this point is vile.
@jadelyce: Exactly. It pisses me off because in a drug dealing conspiracy, she would be high and dry. Everything they had was as a result of his fraud. For reals.
Speak for yourself, VF. I could give two shits about this woman or her husband. They are bad people, and I have no interest in trying to figure out why bad people do what they do. Unless they are serial killers, because they, on the other hand, are actually interesting.
Do I care that she's struggling in her "new" life as outcast? Not really, we're all adults and we all have to live with our decisions. Lucky her, she gets to live with her horrible decisions comfortably, not in jail, and with food on the table.
I don't know what to think of her myself, and I can't help but read whatever articles I find about her. The NYT had a piece a couple of months ago about her compared to the wives of Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky, and they seemed at a loss also. Maybe I just wonder what she's going to do about it. I don't know what I'd do if it were me--though I doubt I'd be that lacking in integrity in the first place--and maybe if I see what she does, I'd know. But one thing is for certain: I still feel sorrier for their victims than I ever will for any member of that misbegotten firm.
@greengrey: I'm trying to think of the last profile I read of a man who wasn't an athlete that listed his weight.
If it is just an innocuous descriptor, like hair color, I can think of a few synonyms off the top of my head: "Small," "slight," even "thin."
i'm really, really working hard to not make a snippy comment about the doctor who was listed in the ads for brassage being a chiropractor in reality. i wonder if the doctor in those hydroxycut ads is a chiropractor, too.
I'm actually a little ashamed to say this, but I had seriously considered buying one of these. Not because it would prevent cancer-- I just thought the massage function sounded nice.
08/04/09
The people howling the loudest for the blood of Madoff and his devoted yet inscrutable wife would generate more empathy from me if they also acknowledged their collusion in their downfall.... through willful ignorance and greed. I'm not talking about the little old lady in Dubuque who lost her house, but Madoff didn't take her type in the first place. And of course he should be in jail, along with many others who, however, managed to keep their CEO jobs due to the munificent support of american taxpayers. THAT howl you hear is moi.
08/04/09
Hindsight is always 20/20. Madoff's victims thought they were getting accurate financial statements and made decisions accordingly. You no doubt do the same, but on a smaller level. Do you believe that your bank will always be able to produce your checking and savings account balances on demand? Then you're no smarter than the people who invested with Madoff--the federal government certified both him and your bank.
08/04/09
You are correct, they were suspiciously consistent, but I fail to understand the qualification as far as investors are concerned. Whether they were suspiciously high or consistent, they were suspicious.
Yes, my bank produces my checking and savings on demand. I wouldn't have it any other way.
I don't know what you mean by "certification." Investments with Madoff were not federally insured, obviously. My money is. Any money you invest that is not federally insured is money YOU MUST BE PREPARED TO LOSE. The fact that they lost it in a scam is the reason Madoff is in jail, and the reason emotions are so high, understandably.
If you invest non-FDIC assets you better damn well be alert to anything suspicious.
08/04/09
08/04/09
Again, strangely consistent not high (they were both) is the point.
Yes, I feel sorry for the people who listened to trusted financial advisors. Trusted financial advisors should be an oxymoron. But these people will be victimized again if they only focus on the demonizing of Madoff in place of recognizing that they can not count on uninsured investments being there tomorrow. You can only wager what you can afford to lose.
08/05/09
08/05/09
I get what you are saying, of course. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the way finance works should know that consistent returns of eight to ten percent is not realistic. So in that way, I imagine the people were so blinded by the possibilities that they failed to look at this with a critical eye. So I get what you are saying. I do.
08/05/09
Well, as you may know, there was at least one financial expert in Boston who attempted to talk to the SEC. He was ignored.
08/04/09
I say take everything from her and let her write a book about how clueless she is. She'll surely get millions on such a deal, for her to keep any proceeds at this point is vile.
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
Speak for yourself, VF. I could give two shits about this woman or her husband. They are bad people, and I have no interest in trying to figure out why bad people do what they do. Unless they are serial killers, because they, on the other hand, are actually interesting.
Do I care that she's struggling in her "new" life as outcast? Not really, we're all adults and we all have to live with our decisions. Lucky her, she gets to live with her horrible decisions comfortably, not in jail, and with food on the table.
Poor thing.
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
If it is just an innocuous descriptor, like hair color, I can think of a few synonyms off the top of my head: "Small," "slight," even "thin."
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09
Yeah it couldn't hurt to have lumps sewn into all my clothes, BUT that still won't prevent cancer.
03/30/09
03/30/09
03/30/09