Comments on: The tough questions after Madoff http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/30/the-tough-questions-after-madoff/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: TWM http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/30/the-tough-questions-after-madoff/#comment-17930 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:54:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4241#comment-17930 If congress really wants to confront the real problem, they should hold hearings in front of a big mirror.

]]>
By: Anubis http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/30/the-tough-questions-after-madoff/#comment-17781 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:54:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4241#comment-17781 Correction, Rob is correct about Washington long term commitments.

]]>
By: Anubis http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/30/the-tough-questions-after-madoff/#comment-17778 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:00:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4241#comment-17778 Don is correct, no one has a long term commitment to any thing in Washington except the “Status Quo” and the “Quid” that comes with it. Reelection campaign contributions(legal bribes).

]]>
By: gd http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/30/the-tough-questions-after-madoff/#comment-17708 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:11:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4241#comment-17708 Or issue IOU’s like California. Investing principles in USA is a joke. Poor Chinese owning so much worthless US treasuries.

]]>
By: Anubis http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/30/the-tough-questions-after-madoff/#comment-17706 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:58:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4241#comment-17706 The government finance of debt through Treasuries and Social Security are ponzi schemes. Albeit legal ones. If only Bernie could have printed money like the FED.

]]>
By: Don http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/30/the-tough-questions-after-madoff/#comment-17704 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:10:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4241#comment-17704 I read that in this case there was about $170 billion in principal investments while Bernie’s fraud charge involves $13 billion. I’m under the impression that many of the existing account holders expecting $65 billion in value have nothing. If so, the disbursements have offset most of the original inflows. $13 billion is a big deal representing about 8 percent of the principal investments.

I’m not apologizing for Bernie Madoff. But consider how much money people lost recently in other investments. Think about the decline in market values after the dot-com disaster. How many people in the investment industry have bought and sold equities at fair value? Nobody knows because our perception of value is volatile and subjective. Sales people will sell garbage if they are compensated accordingly.

Obviously the man committed a crime and deserves to be in jail. But I sometimes feel that way about others in the industry. The S&P fluctuates wildly up and down within a given month. Bad things happen in the world and prices go up. Nothing happens in the world and prices go down. It just seems highly artificial and manipulated. So to me Bernie Madoff represents larger entrenched problems affecting the entire industry.

I bought my first stock when I was still in my teens. But now I can’t stand the stock market. I hate everything about it. There’s no rational behavior to it. Even here on Reuters I routinely read statements like, “Market await retail sales for signs of hope.” It’s like somebody wants to pump the markets higher with improved retail sales numbers, which will later be reported as declining, later reported as sharply higher.

Bernie Madoff just doesn’t seem that bad to me – not in the total scheme of things. Sure he’s a crook. I can’t argue about him going to jail. But I guess this was a hedge fund supposedly held by sophisticated investors. Plus all of those people in the process – the administrators, accountants, sales people – they were totally in the dark, right? Madoff was the only person handling the bank accounts? Even the banks weren’t involved in the bank accounts, I suppose.

]]>
By: Rob http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/30/the-tough-questions-after-madoff/#comment-17700 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:48:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4241#comment-17700 The greatest danger inherent in this panel is not that it isn’t ‘bipartisan’ enough, or even that the people who make it up have some sort of personal or idealogical axe to grind. The greatest concern should be time.

What made the Glass-Steagall proceedings effective was that the depression in question lasted nearly 10 years. The focus was constant and the problem ever-present. Witht he short attention span of the government process these days, the committee may run out of political will to make significant change. In short, those irresponsible parties that got us into this mess could be just running out the clock on comprehensive reform for transparency and legitimate rating systems for finacial instruments.

]]>
By: gd http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/30/the-tough-questions-after-madoff/#comment-17686 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:42:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4241#comment-17686 Bernie offered a plan old ponzi scheme. By the end of all this we will hear about the DEBT PONZI SCHEME. quite simply bankers leverage companies with debt to pay share holders inflated returns. These increasing yeilds increased underlying assest prices (artificially) and more debt was taken on to once again increase returns to shareholders. Bernie gets 150 years and the bankers get bailed out. Sounds like a scapegoat to me. Regulators could stop this from happening again by stopping companies paying returns to shareholders with anything but real profits! Not like the ones the banks have been reporting lately

]]>
By: Nazz http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/30/the-tough-questions-after-madoff/#comment-17671 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:43:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4241#comment-17671 I don’t think ANY discussion of the causes of our current economic crisis (the new depression if you will) is complete without looking at the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act.

Although the Fed adamantly denies any causation between incentives for predatory lending practices inherent in the CRA (so loved by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the predatory lending practices that led to the sub-prime frenzy, the subsequent securitizing of those loans, and the credit default swaps (so loved by AIG), I for one am not convinced.

Would love to learn the author’s thoughts on the CRA the debate on it’s role in our economy.

]]>
By: James http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/30/the-tough-questions-after-madoff/#comment-17669 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:09:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=4241#comment-17669 Wow, I sure hope they put people on this commission that actually know something about the industry. The last thing we need is yet another politician that has never even run a lemonade stand.

]]>