selven was one of several readers to send in the news that
Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison.
"Bernard Madoff's victims gasped and cheered when he was sentenced to 150 years in prison, but they walked away knowing little more about how he carried out the biggest robbery in Wall Street history. In one of the most dramatic courtroom conclusions to a corporate fraud case, the 71-year-old swindler was unemotional as he was berated by distraught investors during the 90-minute proceeding. Many former clients had hoped he would shed more light on his crime and explain why he victimized so many for so long. But he did not. Madoff called his crime 'an error of judgment' and his 'failure,' reiterating previous statements that he alone was responsible for the $65 billion investment fraud. His victims said they did not hear much new from Madoff in his five-minute statement. They also said they did not believe anything he said. As he handed down the maximum penalty allowed, US District Judge Denny Chin... [said], 'I simply do not get the sense that Mr. Madoff has done all that he could or told all that he knows.'"
Last thing to do (Score:5, Funny)
Last post!
-- Madoff
Re:Last thing to do (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Last thing to do (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Last thing to do (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
5 years hell. Now come all the appeals. Is he out on bail?
This is money we're talking about. That makes for a looong sentence.
Now if he'd killed someone, you'd be right.
Parent
No, he's not out on bail. (Score:5, Informative)
No. He's been in jail for months.
In the words of the New Yorker, on his bail hearing a few months back: "As soon as Sorkin finished asking that Madoff's bail be continued, Chin said curtly, "I don't need to hear from the government. It is my intention to remand Mr. Madoff." Immediate applause, quickly tamped down by the Judge. Moments later, two court officers approached Madoff, who stood silently and still, and then he moved his arms a little so that his hands were behind his back. And then there was a click."
That was Madoff's last moment of freedom for the rest of his life. Madoff is Federal inmate #61727-054 at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York City, NY. That's a maximum security facility. Here is Madoff's cell. [nydailynews.com]
MCC isn't a long-term facility, so the Bureau of Prisons will probably move him after a while.
Parent
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
What madoff did was 100x times worse than your average 7-11 robber.
Yeah, I said it. It's worse than even a violent crime. 7-11 is insured and gets their money back, the crime is far from victimless but there is typically just 1-2 victims and they recover.
Because of madoff, thousands will suffer through the last years of their lives living from social security check to check, will not have access to the medications they need or the mobility required to live a healthy senior life.
I have no pity for the man. 150 years wasn't enough. Sadly, he will die of old age before any possible recompense can be served.
Parent
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
That's basically what bugs me about it. What's the worth of a life sentence for someone who is 77?
Given the chance, would you not do what he did? Live in luxury for 30ish years of your life, then spend the last 2-3 in prison?
What bugs me even more is that he is now found guilty, we're happy about it, and that's the last we'll hear about it. Provisions to keep this from repeating? Oversight of financial markets? Bah, what for, we got the bad guy...
Parent
Now what about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now what about (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Now what about (Score:5, Informative)
OK, I found the answer (cite [msn.com]):
At the same time, hedge funds were facing an unprecedented run on redemptions from their own investors. That meant the hedge funds may have had to quickly extract cash from their Madoff positions to pay their own investors back.
"People didn't stop believing in Madoff. They just needed the money, and that started this spiral," said Stephen Breitstone of the law firm Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone, which is representing Madoff investors.
Parent
Re:Now what about (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Now what about (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what FDIC insurance is for. It would have cost less than $750 billion to pay FDIC on all those accounts, and that money would have gone to people who would be more likely to spend it and "kick-start the economy" from the ground up instead of hoarding it like the bankers.
Giving more money to bankers is throwing people to the wolves.
Parent
Re:Now what about (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Madoff is content (Score:5, Interesting)
You know why Bernie Madoff seems to be very complacent about the whole thing? Because his sons got off scot-free. Madoff is quite fine with sacrificing his freedom for the rest of his life... there are few things more [noble? gratifying?] than sacrificing yourself for your children.
I still believe it very unlikely that Bernie's sons didn't knowingly participate in this... or at least were aware of it. The whole way that the story broke... Madoff confessed to his son when he caught him trying to cover it up or something... then the sons convincing him to turn himself in...
I think Bernie is at least partly taking the fall for his sons. I only wish we could find out the whole truth.
Re:Madoff is content (Score:5, Informative)
I think Bernie is at least partly taking the fall for his sons. I only wish we could find out the whole truth.
It is very very obvious that the sons knew. The 5+ million dollar loans that each of them received from daddy just before the arrest (never to be repaid, obviously), the sham divorce proceedings that son Andrew and is wife went through right after daddy's arrest (only to be seen splurging on shopping together just days after), the mailing-out of jewellery and other untraceable assets to the sons and the families... That all is very obvious. (Less provable is of course the origin of the rest of their wealth... Tens of millions in real estate in Manhattan and Greenwich each, etc etc)
Parent
Re:Madoff is content (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, I have mod points assigned, and I was going to spend them, but I just have to respond.
FCI Loretto. I've been there, I've seen it. It may not be Camp Mead, but it's still pretty swanky for a prison. The deer living in that valley will actually eat from your hand, they're so used to people walking around not hurting them. Many of the inmates are bankers, lawyers, politicians or businessmen who got caught committing low violence high dollar crimes (like investment fraud), although there are also some high profile Mafia types.
Maybe no golf course, but it's hardly hell on Earth.
Parent
Sentance (Score:4, Funny)
With time off for good behavior, he could be out in 127.5 years.
They need to find the money now (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, it's impossible to get rid of $65 Billion without having something valuable to show for it. So far they've gathered the low 9 figures of $ from him, less than 1% of the money.
Re:They need to find the money now (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the $65bn never existed in the first place. The rest would have been handed out to customers who had withdrawn money in the past.
The $65bn is what his clients thought they had in their accounts with him, but a lot of that can be attributed to fictitious gains that he reported on their accounts.
Parent
Re:They need to find the money now (Score:5, Informative)
On paper he did, but that's just because he had overstated clients' gains from the get-go.
Here's what happens:
Investor A gives you $5 Bn.
Investor B gives you $10 Bn.
After 3 years, investor A pulls out -- you pay him $10 Bn in earnings & principal.
So now you have $0, but you owe Investor B $10 Bn plus earnings.
So what do you have left?
Madoff overstated earnings for a long time. This meant for every $1 Bn invested, he had to pay out some n*$1 Bn when that investor called. Eventually he had no money left to pay the investors.
In other words, that $65 Bn isn't squirreled away somewhere (well, I'm sure some of it is) -- it was used to pay off other investors who withdrew their earnings.
The money's not in the Swiss bank accounts. It's in Bob's yacht, and Bill's mansion in the hills. It's in Mary's diamond necklaces, and in Elizabeth's matching Ferraris.
Parent
Madoff is not the only one with greed (Score:5, Insightful)
How about all the clients who did everything they could to have the privilege of being Madoff's clients? I mean heck what were they thinking while they saw their accounts having unbelievable returns? They might as well take some responsibilities.
Tag "republicans" (Score:4, Insightful)
Where do I sign up? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fifty years of the most luxurious lifestyle imaginable, every financial dream at your dospaoals, walthy than the ealthiest kings - without all the hassle.
Followed by 2-5 years in prison and a quiet death?
I'll take it. Where do I sign up?
Real punishment would be making him work to pay something - ANYTHING- back. Not to the people he fleeced, who were almost as greedy, but to soceity as whole. Now taxpayers have to pay to house and feed this guy! Make him work as a waiter, or cold call salesman or some other crap drop until he drops dead. Every penny gets invested into a trust fund for children's education or some other noble cause.
Re:Good... although (Score:5, Insightful)
The message to would-be scammers is: don't get caught.
Parent
Re:Good... although (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure Madoff operated with that understanding (hey, he can't be stupid), yet still got caught in spite of that. I don't really think this sends any message anyone wasn't already aware of.
The message before today was, "and if you get caught, you get 3-10 years, then you're back out and you'll be rich."
A lot of people take these sorts of risks under the impression that, worst case, they spend a few years in jail, and they're fine with the prospect of trading a few years of their life in exchange for wealth far beyond their natural means.
Now the message is, "if you get caught, your life is ruined."
Parent
Re:Good... although (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you're old, and you've lived a full life, you can rest assured that your kids and your wife will still get to live a life of luxury, while you live a life of leisure in a state-run old age home. And you'll have plenty of influence to ensure you get a comfy life inside prison, since you can pay off anyone you need.
Parent
Re:Good... although (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good... although (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Good... although (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with your post completely but I don't think Madoff stashed most of that $65 billion in a Swiss bank account or anything else that might leave a paper trail. Since he was running a pyramid scheme, most of it probably when to pay off other investors.
Of course, he undoubtedly skimmed off a tidy sum for use by he and his spouse.
Parent
Re:Good... although (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, I was under the impression that by the nature of his ponzi scheme he had to keep it going because the moment he stopped everyone would realize what happened. I'm not sure how you just "walk away" from thousands of investors without giving them their money (and he couldn't, their money didn't really exist, hence the scam) and not raise any alarms.
Parent
Re:Good... although (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm saying the government can't find or account for most of the recent money, so they're saying look, look what a lavish life style he lived to divert attention from what they don't want to admit.
It couldn't have been a Ponzi scheme because he didn't pay it out. The math isn't there to account for it. But Ponzi scheme is the easiest thing to call it so that's what they're doing. And of course Madoff himself is caling it that. That he self describes something that no one understands and explains nothing about it should be clue one for everyone. But people prefer the spectacle to hearing that no one understands where the money is.
rd
Parent
Re:Good... although (Score:5, Informative)
It certainly was.
The whole point of a Ponzi scheme is Peter gives you $1000, Paul gives you $2000. You tell peter his $1000 is now worth $2000, you tell Paul his $2000 is worth $4000. Peter takes his money and you're left with $1000.
You now hope to Christ that Paul doesn't ask for his money before you can find someone else to give you at least $3000. Seeing as Paul has just seen his savings double in some absurdly small amount of time, then provided Paul has no reason to need the money quickly then you should be OK. As long as you've got more people joining your scheme than you have leaving, you're in business.
Parent
Re:Good... although (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
No, but maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
...it will send a message to investors.
Message? Entrusting all your money to one guy is a bad idea. It's the same message they should have received when people lost all their retirement at Enron. Yes, there were people who tried to diversify towards the end and got unfairly shut out; but they should have been diversifying all along.
The Madoff lesson is that you don't just diversify your investments, you diversify your managers. In other words, one manager who says the portfolio is diversified is not enough. You should be employing more than one manager. One of them should be YOU. You may find out that they aren't any better than you. In that case, perhaps you should simply cut them out entirely; although I'm not convinced there aren't at least some managers who are worth their fees. It's just that I've never actually met one. It's become a truism over the years that a basket of stocks meeting certain criteria will beat most managers. That's why index funds have become so popular.
Of course, this falls under the category of "good problems to have" since many in the US now have a negative or very small net worth.
Parent
Re:No, but maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
"You should be employing more than one manager. One of them should be YOU. "
And if you've read/watched "A Scanner Darkly", you should know that even YOU might not be fully trustworthy, and you should consider diversifying into multiple personalities to keep an eye on that sneaky...
Paranoia. It's the sign of a healthy, prosperous society!
Parent
Re:Tricky (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Tricky -- NOT (Score:4, Informative)
Madoff's going to spend his time in medium security or worse because of the length of his sentence. Madoff is not going to like prison one bit.
Parent
Re:Tricky -- NOT (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Tricky -- NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Tricky -- NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some sicknesses that socialized healthcare either will not cover or will not cover thoroughly enough to really cure.
Bullshit.
with socialized healthcare you get placed in "review hell" because A) the doctors get paid the same really no matter what they do
Also bullshit. In Ontario, doctors get paid per treatment/visit, more or less depending on what kind of treatment they do. No different than in the US.
and B) there are many other doctors/clinics.
I'm not even sure what the hell this has to do with anything.
If you say you need antibiotics for something, chances are in the US you can get them for whatever weak reason, with socialized healtcare if you have a non-common illness the answer will always be to wait longer.
Again, bullshit. If I need antibiotics for something, my doctor writes me a prescription for antibiotics, and I go get it filled. Of course, if I don't actually need antibiotics, my doctor doesn't have an incentive to feed me medication that I don't actually need. If you want to talk intelligently about universal or public health care, go learn something about the subject instead of repeating the lies you've been told. Here's an interesting fact for you. Of the top 40 or so countries in the world, the US has the most inefficient health care system. It's twice as inefficient as the next most inefficient health care system.
Universal public healthcare systems are operating right now, that are at least twice as efficient as the health care system in the US. Stop and think about that. This isn't theorizing about what a public health system might do, this is real actual performance in the real world. Of course, there are also many nations with fully private health care that are at least twice as efficient as your own system, which should be ringing bells in your head right about now. The problem isn't about public/private, the problem lies elsewhere. Many Americans will say that the discrepancy is caused by the "cheeseburger nation", but here in Canada we're just as obese as you are, and we do much better than you in terms of health care efficiency.
So what is the real problem? Why is it that in the US, you have absurdly high numbers of people with no coverage at all, and yet you spend more per person on health care than any other country? Follow the money....
Parent
Re:Tricky -- NOT (Score:5, Informative)
And how exactly do you know what you wrote about socialized care is true?
I am a disability pensioner in a country that has socialized medicine. Not only can my Doctor prescribe any drug on the list at any time,
he can specify virtually any treatment. There is no
input form anyone other than my own doctor in my treatment.
If you must make sweeping generalizations, try for a modicum of accuracy please.
Parent
Re:Tricky -- NOT (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some sicknesses that socialized healthcare either will not cover or will not cover thoroughly enough to really cure.
Name one.
In the U.K., under the NICE system, they set a price limit on every condition. If they can save a year of life for about $50,000, they will do it. If it costs more than that, NICE recommends against it, but if people complain about it, the government usually gives in and pays for it anyway. They try to avoid giving out $100,000 drugs that have minimal effectiveness, but they treat long-term conditions better than we do in the U.S.
The U.K. is the cheapest, stingiest system in Europe. Sweden probably has the best care in the world.
But even in the US you can usually get on so many programs and with the aid of various non-profits and a good story in the newspaper or TV news station get enough help to get the care you need.
I just spent several days on the phone over the last few months trying to help a friend of mine who lost his job and health insurance get on Medicaid, so I know something about what actually happens. The city welfare agency just delayed his application for months. He had one condition that required lifetime medication to save his life, so it was a serious business. I made half a dozen calls to those non-profits and got nowhere.
But don't take my word for it. Here's a story in the Wall Street Journal that demonstrates how you can die in the U.S. if you can't afford health care. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06339/743713-84.stm [post-gazette.com] The WSJ had a whole series like that. (This is for people who don't believe Michael Moore.)
Granted, you will probably be in debt till you die, but even if you are poor you can usually *get* the initial treatments
As the WSJ story shows, that's not true.
but with socialized healthcare you get placed in "review hell" because A) the doctors get paid the same really no matter what they do and B) there are many other doctors/clinics.
So how come the Mayo Clinic, where doctors are on salary and get paid the same whatever they do, has some of the best outcomes in the country?
If you say you need antibiotics for something, chances are in the US you can get them for whatever weak reason,
That's supposed to be a benefit? If you take antibiotics when you don't need them, you're growing antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which could kill you later.
with socialized healtcare if you have a non-common illness the answer will always be to wait longer.
Ridiculous. I just read an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in which French doctors described how they were treating cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome in their socialist system. Is that non-common enough for you? They were using canakinumab, which will probably cost tens of thousands of dollars per year.
Parent
Re:Tricky -- NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
There were at least two people who took their own lives directly because of their losses from his theft:
These men are equally as dead as any two other murder victims, and were apparently in no trouble or danger prior to Madoff's criminal activity.
And just in case you want to blame the victims, consider the phrase "danger to society" doesn't necessarily mean "physical danger". Compare what he did to a mugger pointing a gun at you, but not shooting you: you might lose $200 bucks from your wallet, you might have crapped your pants, but you're still alive, and still have a job. Causing the collapse of hundreds of businesses, the unemployment of thousands, the destruction of retirement funds of tens of thousands of people -- I'd say he ranks right up there with any weapon of mass destruction in terms of the damage done to our society. "Danger to society" isn't exclusively the province of the barrel of a gun.
Prison is exactly the right place for him to spend the next 150 years. My only complaint is that he didn't start serving it when he began his fraud, which federal investigators place about 1975. He got to live too many good years outside of the gray bars.
Parent
Re:Tricky -- NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
punishment
Function: noun
1 : the act of punishing
2 : a penalty (as a fine or imprisonment) inflicted on an
offender through the judicial and esp. criminal process
He's not going to prison because he's currently a danger to anyone. He's going to prison because The People decided he should be punished for his misdeeds. The People have decided that probation is just not enough punishment for destroying the pensions of thousands--maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of victims. Maybe he didn't physically assault these people--but he didn't just rob them of money, he robbed many of these people of YEARS of their hard work... Remember, some people have to get along by trading their, blood, sweat and tears; ultimately trading time for currency. When you annihilate someone's retirement account, I think an argument could be made that you're literally stealing time from their lives. Isn't that what murderers do, if more suddenly or brutally?
And before you try to use a reasoning of "setting an example" that is not justice.
The way I see it, prisons have two primary services to society: Deterrence before the act, and reformation after sentencing. You're welcome to argue their effectiveness in either of these roles (rather dismal, IMO)--but that's not the point. The point is, laws are useless unless they're backed by a set of mean and nasty, pointy teeth when it's appropriate. So what if it is "setting an example"? Maybe the prior examples just weren't harsh enough to dissuade ol' Bernie? Perhaps this might deter the next douche who starts on the path of stealing 65-70 billion, and contributing in no small part to a globally upset economy?
Parent
Re:DOOOOOOPED! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure you're aware of how the world of high-finance works. There have been hedge funds handling over $10B with FIVE employees. Seriously.
I think it's very likely that there were others in-the-know. But they probably worked out a plea to provide documentation to nail the case against Madoff, which is why they won't be prosecuted. Or Madoff is looking for redemption after perpetrating this fraud, and decided to shoulder the rap for everyone else involved. I think the last option is the most likely, and I think that his sons were who he was protecting.
But it doesn't really matter, does it? These were the extremely wealthy who were conned. As long as someone gets hanged (or imprisoned forever) we don't care. Hell, look at the swindling by Enron execs... that directly affected the retirement savings of millions of people, and in the end, we didn't really care.
As far as the general public is concerned, it's not a big deal when the wealthy steal from the wealthy. That's business by another name. And it's not a big deal when the wealthy steal from the poor -- that's business as usual. All we really care about is when the poor steal from the wealthy, because we always look down on those poorer than us, we like to imagine ourselves as wealthy, and so when the poor steal, it's an affront to our ideals.
Anyway, I'm rambling a bit... so I'll just sum up by saying: Yes, others were likely involved. Yes, he took the fall. But no one cares, as long as there's a spectacle.
Parent
Re:DOOOOOOPED! You Are So Wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
Excuse me, but...
I lost my job over this when my employer tanked because of Madoff's scam, and I never had a dime invested with him. This has affected all kinds of people!
Parent
Re:DOOOOOOPED! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure. The extremely wealthy. And, also, charities. What do you think of stealing $15 million from The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity? Maybe $24 mill from New York University or $3 million from Bard College bothers you? I wonder what United Association Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 267 in Syracuse thinks about your blanket characterization which indicates that their loss (still under calculation) doesn't matter.
(For reference, the victim list [wsj.net].)
Parent
Re:Now here's an inconvenient truth: (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several sites I no longer bother opening links for:
digg
facebook
televisa
foxnews
Parent
Re:Self delusion is a powerful force (Score:5, Informative)
He ran NASDAQ for fuck's sake. That takes some serious economic knowledge as well as some heavy connections. That kind of background, he knew what he was doing. Ponzi schemes are not hard to spot if you know what to look for. He knew. He knew the bottom would drop out someday, and just bet that it would happen after he croaked. He lost.
Parent