Boo hoo, Millionairs get bailout of 500,000 EACH

[Fire1]

from SIPC (much like FDIC). I don't mean to sound like a 'hater' but I'm sorry, anybody who reaps 10 and 20% returns, even from a swindler, for 28, 30 or 35 years, has done exceedingly well financially over the years and now cry that they're broke and I can't find the sympathy. Supposedly intelligent people put all of their eggs in one basket and had no idea of the product stocks they were buying, for decades! I say, welcome to the world of the 'working' class! Too bad, that argument against Obama's capital gains tax is moot, now isn't it! HA!

[gravity]

1. It isn't much if you lost a billion dollars

[elleng]

2. First, Who's saying they're CRYING,

and second, agreed, WRONG to not diversify, and third, recognize that everyone has regular obligations, and these folks now have to reassess their lives.

NO ROOM here for 'hatred.'

[Fire1]

6. Just watched a couple on cnbc money. Also, interviews on 20/20.

They are 'crying' to quote atty Sonn, in NY, who is representing many of madoff's investors. Personally, it was more like bitchin, from my perspective.

[Medusa]

16. They were positively bitchy about demanding their money back

they seemed to think that they were somehow more entitled than the others who lost far more than they did to get their money back and all of it--right now. They weren't very sympathetic charactes at all were they?

So who pays me back the $$$ I've lost out of my 401K this year? They ought to be glad they're getting anything back--i'm not.

[Statistical]

3. Also if they reaped 12% gain for 20 years as part of a ponzi they can expect a lawsuit

Law is clear. Even if you are unwilling participant if you "gain" from a ponzi and later investors lose they can sue your for the loses.

Since ponzi pays earlier investors with later investors money the earliest investors (20 years ago) are going to be on the hook for some HUGE lawsuits.

Now IF they kept the money in the scam and never cashed out they are fine. They didn't profit BUT if say 10 years ago they cashed out a lot because they had "doubled their money" and they used that money for a new house (which promptly lost value) paid for their kids to go to college and put rest in stock market (which promptly lost half it's value) they are still liable for the $$$ they don't have.

What happened to it/how it was spent after the Ponzi doesn't matter. Only the fact that they gained from the ponzi and later investors lost.

It is going to take lawyers a decade and millions in lawyer fees to figure it all out.

[DemoTex]

4. Who knows what they have stashed offshore.

If we did we would really weep.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elleng]

7. Basically agree,

but won't call anyone 'disgusting;' 'misinformed,' better.

[Fire1]

8. Trusting , my ass! And who are you to call people 'disgusting?'

I, along with many many democrats have contributed to worthy causes consistently over the years and invested wisely, I might add. If you consider a 'criminal's reputation stellar, you're just as greedy and stupid as they are!

[wellst0nev0ter]

9. So We Can Buy Indulgences Now?

They invested in Madoff because they initially thought he was involved in insider trading:

"I am shocked, as I know you are, by this fraud," Merkin wrote. "As one of the largest investors in our fund, I have also suffered major losses from this catastrophe." Analyst Henry Blodget wrote on his blog Friday that some savvy investors figured Madoff was up to something because his returns were so high. "Many Wall Streeters suspected the wrong rigged game, though: they thought it was insider trading, not a Ponzi scheme," Blodget wrote. "And here's the best part: That's why they invested with him." Madoff issued sparse paper reports to his investors, claimed his portfolio only lost money in five of the last 156 months and used an obscure accounting firm in Rockland County as his auditor.

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2008/12/13/2008-12-13_few_questioned_bernard_madoffs_moneymaki.html

[Fire1]

11. Bingo!

Now, where is the bailout for the people who were scammed into buying houses that were waaaaaay over priced???????????????

[Medusa]

17. I think they were very foolish and very greedy.

This couple profiled on CNBC tonight chose not to heed one of the most basic tenants of investment:don't put all your eggs in one basket. They moved dollars from sound investments to the Madoff funds b/c they were making tons more money (so they thought) from Madoff. As a result, they lost (so they say) almost everything. Sure they had every right to be angry and upset but oh boy the entitlement on these two--do they really think that they are hurting more than anyone else? Sure seemed like it.

[pa28]

10. The SIPC may be able to fund claims for that much.

But likely they will need additional assistance from the taxpayers. (!)

This is unfortunate for the victims but I don't want to subsidize their losses. Most of us, including me, have losses of our own to contend with. Raise your hand if you feel like sending some of your extra tax dollars to make Madoff's victims whole again beyond the $500,000 they may recover from the SIPC. Anybody?

Notice in this article a victim's attorney quoted here, already talking about making a case to the government for something that sounds to me like a full bailout "If we're bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, maybe these individuals should be bailed out too."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121802718.html

There are some influential individuals and institutions here who are going to make a case and call in some favors for a taxpayer bailout. Maybe they'll succeed.

[Fire1]

14. Another good point! Where is the bailout for those who really

need it??? I'm not bailing out some poor rich fucker, I don't care WHAT he/she contributed to and IF THAT happens, I'm done with this government.

[Zynx]

12. This is not a taxpayer funded organization. That's not to say taxpayer money might not be used

to make people whole, but as of right now there is no "bailout".

[Trekologer]

13. That's the purpose of the SIPC

And it is just like the FDIC. The average depositor in a bank doesn't have the time and/or the skill to analyse the books of a bank and determine if their deposit is safe in it. The FDIC protects depositors. The banking regulations (in theory) protect the FDIC. Same goes for the SIPC. Its funded by brokerage houses and protects investors from the brokerage going bust and taking an investors' assets with them. Its not to cover losses to principal but losses of the actual assets (ie you own x shares of company A, you'll get x shares of company A, up to the limit). Just like with the FDIC, the SEC and related regulations should have protected the SIPC. It clearly has not. Heads should roll over this (and the other financial failures) but blaming the investors isn't the answer.

[Fire1]

15. That's one of thre main predicaments, from what I understand

The investors don't know what they invested in, they don't know what stocks they had but continued to pay cap gains tax!!!!! wtf????

[gravity]

18. They were given fake statements

They thought they knew what they invested in, but it was the brokerage was crooked.

[Fire1]

19. I'm more inclined to believe the investors as well as gov't agencies

attributed these returns to insider trading and because the amount of returns, the investors certainly weren't going to blow the whistle.

[Fire1]

20. And I call that, greed.