Bernard Madoff is on his way to jail, having plead guilty to defrauding investors in a massive Ponzi scheme. While his victims thought they were investing with a legitimate manager, Madoff simply deposited clients’ money in a Chase Manhattan bank account and paid “returns” to earlier investors from the contributions of newer investors. The bulk of investors directly damaged by the failure of the scheme were banks, foundations, endowments, and trusts. Other investors include Kevin Bacon and Zsa Zsa Gabor.
Most investors didn’t invest with Bernie Madoff directly; usually, funds were invested through at least an additional layer, such as a wealth manager or two. The further someone is separated from their money, the harder it is to understand the investments. For example, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg relied upon a financial adviser named Gerald Breslauer, who invested his own money with Madoff in addition to his investors’.
Even though investors and their asset managers who decided to invest with Madoff are due some blame for investing without requiring concrete details of their investment, I do feel bad about their situation. Madoff was obviously a professional; he was able to convince otherwise smart people that he was running a legitimate operation. I’m confident that many of the middle-men who had access to Madoff and were investing on behalf of wealthy clients didn’t care about the existence of underlying investments as long as the quarterly statements showed growth, even if this growth was merely a work of fiction.
I feel bad for investors who found themselves as victims of this Ponzi scheme. In their position, I can understand putting faith in highly recommended money managers which reportedly search for the best investments balancing risk and reward for wealthy clients. Someone should have made sure there was an understanding of the underlying investments, but in theory, that is why wealthy clients pay asset managers.
Even early investors who managed to withdraw more than they invested, the only investors other than Bernard Madoff who made money in this Ponzi scheme, might deserve some pity if they weren’t complicit. But I do not believe any investor who withdrew more than they contributed should deserve any more restitution. The most judicial way to resolve the issue should be for every investor to receive back only their contribution, and to do so, anyone who withdrew more than they invested should be ordered to return their false profits back to others who were not able to withdraw as much as they invested.
This will reset the clock, providing no advantage for anyone. I would imagine that most of that money is gone, spent by Madoff, so I’m not sure how viable this plan would be.
What are your thoughts on Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme?
Consumerism Commentary readers: Please complete this readership survey for a chance to win a $50 Amazon.com gift card!
It may be true that everyone who invested with Bernard Madoff without knowing the extent of his scheme was a victim, but some investors have profited from Madoff’s plan. For example, assume an investor gave $1 million to be invested in Madoff’s fun in its earlier years. A few years later, but still early in the life of the pyramid scheme, the investor’s statement from Madoff might have valued the “investment” at $3 million. The investor decided he needed to cash out, collected the gain of $2 million, and left $1 million in the fund to earn more money.
A this point, there were enough new investors to pay for the occasional withdrawals of earlier investors. The gain of $2 million didn’t come from appreciation of an asset, simply deposits from new investors. Keep in mind I’m using fictional numbers here to illustrate the point. Let’s say that in March 2008, Madoff’s statement to this investor valued his portion of the fund at $5 million. This is still before investors discovered the fund was a pyramid scheme. Now, this $5 million is “lost.” The investor is considered a “victim” of Bernard Madoff, and victims are now filing with the Securities Investor Protection Corp. (SIPC) to get back the money they “lost” (up to $500,000).
Even though he didn’t know it scheme, this investor benefited from the pyramid scheme. He gave Madoff $1,000,000 and received $2,000,000 in return, without an underlying appreciation on an asset. This “victim” is actually came out ahead.
Lawyers are encouraging Madoff’s investors to do some math before filing a claim with SIPC.
“I had a call yesterday from a guy who said, ‘I’ve taken out more money then I originally put in, but I still had $1 million left with Madoff. Should I file a $1 million claim?’” said Steven Caruso, a New York attorney specializing in securities and investment fraud…
Jonathan Levitt, a New Jersey attorney who represents several former Madoff clients, said more than half of the victims who called his office looking for help have turned out to be people whose long-term profits exceeded their principal investment.
The courts can rule that investors who profited in the earlier days of the fund can be required to pay back these “profits.” But most, if not all, of these investors did nothing wrong other than not questioning the underlying investments of the fund and ignoring the secrecy shrouding Madoff’s investing techniques. These investors included public pension funds.
What would you do if you were an early investor who withdrew more than you invested and you believed you still had money invested in Bernard Madoff’s fund? Would you file a claim with the SIPC to receive as much $500,000 if your latest statement indicated you had more? Would you stay under the radar and not advertise to the SIPC that you profited from this mess?
Madoff ‘victims’ do math, realize they profited, David B. Caruso, Newsweek, January 8, 2009
Here is how a Ponzi scheme works. The individual running the scheme promises abnormally high returns over a short period of time to the initial investors. These investors provide the start-up capital, and the schemer will do whatever he likes with that money, either invest it, spend it, or let it sit in a bank. Subsequent investors brought into the scheme will provide money, some of which will go to the initial investors in the form of “returns.” Subsequent investors directly fund the returns of the previous investors.
This is surprisingly sustainable for a long period of time, despite an increasing amount of required new investment. If investors are persuaded to reinvest their “returns,” very little money is handed to the investors.
Bernard Madoff, in the news lately, allegedly operated a Ponzi scheme like this. Despite years of warnings provided to the SEC, he wasn’t arrested until recently. Many smart investors fell for the scheme and lost millions of dollars. More than half of the $14 billion (as of November 1, 2008) managed by one investment advisory, the Fairfield Greenwich Group, was invested in Madoff’s securities, and they stand to lose the entire investment.
According to FGG, the company performs due diligence on their investments, including evaluation of portfolio, investment performance, and financial risks. That’s the first category of due diligence listed on their website. Madoff’s investments did not include details on the holdings, so that should have been a sign to look elsewhere.
FGG might not be a victim, however. The New York Times describes how Fairfield executives benefited greatly from the relationship with Madoff and were not shy about their newly found wealth.
As an individual investor, the chances of getting caught up in a Ponzi scheme are low, particularly if you stick with well-known mutual funds, stocks, and bonds. If you are interested in private investment opportunities, know exactly what you are buying before you hand over any money.
FreeCreditReport.com is the heavily advertised company that offers “free” credit reports (if you sign up for a trial offer for their monitoring service with a monthly fee. They have huge billboards at Shea Stadium, where I will be tomorrow to see the (currently) first-placed Mets.
Keep in mind that the place to get truly free credit reports, three times per year (once from each bureau) as mandated by law is AnnualCreditReport.com. FreeCreditReport.com took clear advantage of the media surrounding the law when it was introduced a few years ago and convinced many people to sign up for “free” credit reports. Many customers feel deceived because they didn’t realize that they were at the wrong website and that they signed up to pay a monthly fee after a trial period.
Lately, FreeCreditReport.com has improved their disclosure, and the company is still a reminder that you should either read and understand all fine print before signing your name to anything or accept the consequences of ignorance.
Nevertheless, if you feel you were duped into signing up for FreeCreditReport.com’s Triple Advantage, you can still request refunds for what you’ve been charged. This is another reminder to check your bank and credit card statements at least once a month so charges like this don’t go unnoticed.
Here is Consumerism Commentary reader akk’s experience with getting refunds from FreeCreditReport.com.
I called this number to cancel my account and get a refund: 877-481-6826. First thing I did was ask for the name of the person I was talking to and her employee ID number. I told her that I wanted to cancel my account and get a full refund. The lady said that she would cancel my account but I could not get a refund.
She said that this automatic subscription is stated clearly on the web site, blah blah blah blah blah. I told her that I wasn’t going to stop until I got a full refund. She then offered me a one month refund. I told her that was great, but again, I am not going to stop until I get a full refund and I wanted to speak with her supervisor. She put me on hold to talk with her supervisor, then voila, I got a full refund.
For me, they weren’t that bad when I actually called. Just don’t let them try to convince you that you do not deserve a full refund. Just keep demanding a full refund and hopefully they will do it.
At this point, FreeCreditReport.com understands they’re in a tight spot and they want to improve their reputation. They may be more willing to provide refunds even if the company is not completely at fault in all cases. From a business perspective, it may be better to provide the refunds now than deal with angry consumer groups.
Here is the third part of the list of gas stations in New Jersey that are ripping off customers. For more information, see this first part and the second part.
The first part also contains a map of every gas station fined for violation of a variety of regulations.
This list begins with Morris County. [click to continue…]
Here is the second part of the list of gas stations in New Jersey that are ripping off customers. For more information, see this first part. The first part also contains a map of every gas station fined for violation of a variety of regulations.
This list begins with Essex County. [click to continue…]
If you buy gasoline in New Jersey, you may want to avoid the gas stations listed in this article. The New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs has fined 350 stations out of 1,025 total inspected during a recent three-day operation across the entire state. Most of the stations fined were guilty of innacurate pump calibration, providing customers with less gasoline (fewer gallons) than appear on the pump’s display.
Other violations include inaccurate octane ratings, missing registration, prices posted incorrectly and multiple price changes in a 24-hour period.
Here is a map of the stations cited and fined, and you can find out the violations for which each station on the map is guilty by zooming in and clicking on the marker. For a list of all stations in violation, read this full post.
If you believe you see a violation in New Jersey, call the Division of Consumer Affairs at (732) 815-4840.
Continue reading for the full list of gas stations in violation, grouped by county. [click to continue…]
Last year, a reader wrote into Consumerism Commentary with a story about how her elderly father was convinced to buy a variable annuity, locking away his money until after his likely passing. He had wanted to talk to a financial adviser, but found his way to Banc of America Investment Services.
Recently, Dateline took a look into Annuity University, seminars designed to teach brokers how to sell annuities to the elderly. Undercover, the Dateline producers infiltrated seminars and sales calls to show how the salesmen deceive would-be customers.
Dateline’s four-part special shows how these particular salesmen play down or intentionally ignore surrender fees, claim annuities are more liquid than CDs, and “puff up” their credentials by putting their photos on official-looking books and magazines and by creating recordings of fake radio shows.
Agents in these seminars are taught to treat the elderly like they are 12 years old and use scare tactics. They are instructed to tell clients that money is riskier in an FDIC-insured bank account than in an annuity product.
I firmly believe that any customer has the responsibility to research any financial product before purchase. Problems arise when seniors (or others) are trusting and when agents flat out lie. It’s difficult to make informed decisions if the information you receive is intentionally incorrect or misleading.
Not all annuity salesmen follow these tactics, of course. I would suggest being wary of any salesperson whose fiduciary interest is in their own commission from the sale. Not all annuity products are bad, either. Even Ben Stein is a big fan (with friends in the annuity business).
Please take the time to view the four-part Dateline presentation which uncovers the truth about Annuity University and some of its “graduates.”
Email this article
Print this article
