- Joined
- 23 April 2008
- Posts
- 1,865
- Reactions
- 654
Jono, you are very trusting of Madoff's integrity.
Krusty is on the money.
Jono, you are very trusting of Madoff's integrity.hasnt all his assets been seized already?? I'm pretty sure he has nothing left... its all gonna get sold and get paid back to the people who invested in him.
I reckon that somebody who was able to pull off a scam like that for so many years would have some big cash stash in the Caymans or the Bahamas or Swiss bank account.
Probably in a fake name or relative's name. I don't believe his wife will be living in poverty now either.
So now we know the reasons why he did it ........
“Bernie had a very small penis,” she wrote. “Not only was it on the short side, it was small in circumference. That he was now pointing it out to me was telling. It clearly caused him great angst."
Prosecutors say half of Bernie Madoff's investors lost nothing in Ponzi scheme...........
Because they withdrew more from their accounts than they contributed.
WTF.....?
You don't believe this is possible?
Bernard Madoff's investment firm had a "diversion-filled office environment" featuring a culture of "sexual deviance" and drug use, says a lawsuit filed Tuesday against companies that dealt with the Ponzi-scheme mastermind.
According to the suit, employees described "wild office parties sans spouses" featuring topless entertainers serving as waitresses, and sexual encounters on "their boss' sofa.
Prosecutors say half of Bernie Madoff's investors lost nothing in Ponzi scheme...........
Because they withdrew more from their accounts than they contributed.
WTF.....?
Read more here;
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/09/23/2009-09-23_50_of_madoff_investors_lost_nothing.html
I can see the logic in that statement.
What they are saying is if an investor invested a $1M lump sum and over 20 years received income of over $1M from Bernie then they have got their money back - that's only 5% p.a. and Bernie was offering and paying 10-12% p.a.
Doesn't mean Bernie should be treated any different though.
And cold comfort to investors.
Provided you didn't reinvest the funds.
With a ponzi scheme it is the last ones in that get stung the hardest.
That's true, you would wonder why the prosecution, of all people, would make a statement like that.
What point does it serve? To make Bernie look less guilty?
Yeah a bit bizarre. Also even if they had got the original investment amount back via dividend payments during the years you still lost the amount in the fund which is your money!
And any dividend payments would have had tax paid on them as well.
Yeah a bit bizarre. Also even if they had got the original investment amount back via dividend payments during the years you still lost the amount in the fund which is your money!
And any dividend payments would have had tax paid on them as well.
Well not really.. that money in the fund is other peoples money that have been given to you as 'dividends'. So really the amount in the fund is not your money, its a fictitious number they have simply made up over the years.
Well not really.. that money in the fund is other peoples money that have been given to you as 'dividends'. So really the amount in the fund is not your money, its a fictitious number they have simply made up over the years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?