Madoff ran an "Affinity Fraud". That is, he created an illusion that he was letting his fellow Jews in on an inside deal. This has transpired among other trust groups, but nothing on this scale. Recall that Mr. Ponzi worked inside a very parochial Italian ghetto in Boston.
I’d say he didn’t start the scheme with the intention of really running it, and it became a monster with a life of its own. He probably started it because he was terribly arrogant and desperately needed to “seem” like a success (maybe impress his father in law, differentiate himself from that father he’d looked down upon… who knows)…. He posed like the incredible trader he was not. He was full of himself and a bit of a megalomaniac. At some point he probably even began believing his own bs and thinking he was someone … What is mind blowing is the SEC officials and the supposedly financially literate institutional investors that have him money. Sad sad sad story overall, although quite frankly I felt little sympathy for most of the victims interviewed. Surprising that the SEC, JP Morgan, Walter Noel, Sonia Kohn and all those others were never held responsible.
I agree w/ you, but do we have to take into account that he was not a nobody. It was really hard for SEC to investigate him. He was the former president of Nasdaq, with numerous appearances at congressional committees giving advice on regulation (it is too bad the movie did not show more of that), advisor to the SEC. How do you begin to doubt somebody w/such credentials? Not easy...
I have yet to watch the series but I wonder if there was any reference to his tenure at the SEC? If I recall correctly, he was a Chairman for a few years in the early 1990s. Perhaps future Netflix productions should address the emergence of high-frequency trading firms in the 2000s. A secretive cabal of the money making machines, owned by probably equally illustrious characters.
Thanks, very interesting take. I suppose we should also ask why no one in the media (and the documentary producer) hasn't explored these issues. Are all of us in this capitalist system also somehow complicit? We don't dare to ask whether the capitalist system is ultimately driven by greed, or at least by people who are indifferent to its social effects on society.
An interesting question will be if any form of Tobin tax is introduced for any form of "trading". In meantime we can watch if any SDGs will be addressed by the market mechanisms.
“ His legitimate business generated huge income; surely more than enough to buy the three properties. So he did not need the Ponzi scheme to be rich.” Didn’t the show say that the “ investment counseling “ unit on the 17th floor transferred hundreds of millions to the dealer operation on the 19th? Edit. See Episode 3 @ 24 min. The 19th floor received transfers from the 17th floor of $800,000,000 during the 2000s.
Perhaps it was money laundering and not a Ponzi scheme. Legally, if you call something a Ponzi scheme it means that every transaction was a fraud. So there's no real investigation into transactions.
I don't believe in too much greed or too much need for love or any of that because I don't believe Madoff (or anyone else) would be able to become what he were without an ability to keep stuff like that under control.
It was a Ponzi. He took in 19b and made no investments. This, according to the show. The pattern of illegality started as far back as 1962 when he was basically running an unlicensed mutual fund and needed to be bailed out by his father in law. The amounts were small ( $30,000 ), but the pattern of lawlessness was there.
A man wants to impress the world around him how smart he is? Doesn't feel outrageously strange ...
Question to those who understand more than I: Madoff didn't put many of the billions and billions invested into his own pocket. He used some of the money later invested to pay earlier investors. How then do we get to a loss of 65 bn? Or are we mostly counting those people that invested 10m and expected, seven years or so later to have 20m, as losers to the tune of 10m? (plus the original money not given back to them as well as some normal return on those first 10m)
Yes, that's my understanding too. $65b was the total if every claim were paid off, i.e. both those that were paid off (because of course there were many such claims), and those that were not (i.e. people who lost money). But the govt was able to claw back some of the money from those who were paid off to give to those who lost. So the losers were to some extent compensated.
Those 19 bn, they were paid out (in excess of their initial investments and returns) to those wo withdrew their money in time?
I mean, the 19 bn should be divided among the timely des-investors' profits, Madoff's own profits/theft (effectively zero, see Branko's text) and losses in trading (must be negligible as well as he traded so little, in my understanding). Or have I overlooked anything?
No, all was lost. When it collapsed he had only 300-400 million and even on the last day he was writing checks to insiders from that. Irving Picard, the lawyer who headed the liquidation, actually recovered 14 billion from everyone who actually took payment from Madoff and redistributed it. Attorney’s fees were 1 billion.
Madoff ran an "Affinity Fraud". That is, he created an illusion that he was letting his fellow Jews in on an inside deal. This has transpired among other trust groups, but nothing on this scale. Recall that Mr. Ponzi worked inside a very parochial Italian ghetto in Boston.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/madoff-jewish-affinity-fraud/460446/
I’d say he didn’t start the scheme with the intention of really running it, and it became a monster with a life of its own. He probably started it because he was terribly arrogant and desperately needed to “seem” like a success (maybe impress his father in law, differentiate himself from that father he’d looked down upon… who knows)…. He posed like the incredible trader he was not. He was full of himself and a bit of a megalomaniac. At some point he probably even began believing his own bs and thinking he was someone … What is mind blowing is the SEC officials and the supposedly financially literate institutional investors that have him money. Sad sad sad story overall, although quite frankly I felt little sympathy for most of the victims interviewed. Surprising that the SEC, JP Morgan, Walter Noel, Sonia Kohn and all those others were never held responsible.
I guess greed has a very short memory.
I agree w/ you, but do we have to take into account that he was not a nobody. It was really hard for SEC to investigate him. He was the former president of Nasdaq, with numerous appearances at congressional committees giving advice on regulation (it is too bad the movie did not show more of that), advisor to the SEC. How do you begin to doubt somebody w/such credentials? Not easy...
I have yet to watch the series but I wonder if there was any reference to his tenure at the SEC? If I recall correctly, he was a Chairman for a few years in the early 1990s. Perhaps future Netflix productions should address the emergence of high-frequency trading firms in the 2000s. A secretive cabal of the money making machines, owned by probably equally illustrious characters.
Thanks, very interesting take. I suppose we should also ask why no one in the media (and the documentary producer) hasn't explored these issues. Are all of us in this capitalist system also somehow complicit? We don't dare to ask whether the capitalist system is ultimately driven by greed, or at least by people who are indifferent to its social effects on society.
An interesting question will be if any form of Tobin tax is introduced for any form of "trading". In meantime we can watch if any SDGs will be addressed by the market mechanisms.
“ His legitimate business generated huge income; surely more than enough to buy the three properties. So he did not need the Ponzi scheme to be rich.” Didn’t the show say that the “ investment counseling “ unit on the 17th floor transferred hundreds of millions to the dealer operation on the 19th? Edit. See Episode 3 @ 24 min. The 19th floor received transfers from the 17th floor of $800,000,000 during the 2000s.
Perhaps it was money laundering and not a Ponzi scheme. Legally, if you call something a Ponzi scheme it means that every transaction was a fraud. So there's no real investigation into transactions.
I don't believe in too much greed or too much need for love or any of that because I don't believe Madoff (or anyone else) would be able to become what he were without an ability to keep stuff like that under control.
It was a Ponzi. He took in 19b and made no investments. This, according to the show. The pattern of illegality started as far back as 1962 when he was basically running an unlicensed mutual fund and needed to be bailed out by his father in law. The amounts were small ( $30,000 ), but the pattern of lawlessness was there.
A man wants to impress the world around him how smart he is? Doesn't feel outrageously strange ...
Question to those who understand more than I: Madoff didn't put many of the billions and billions invested into his own pocket. He used some of the money later invested to pay earlier investors. How then do we get to a loss of 65 bn? Or are we mostly counting those people that invested 10m and expected, seven years or so later to have 20m, as losers to the tune of 10m? (plus the original money not given back to them as well as some normal return on those first 10m)
He actually took in around 19billion. The run up from there to 64B was false profits reported to his clients.
Yes, that's my understanding too. $65b was the total if every claim were paid off, i.e. both those that were paid off (because of course there were many such claims), and those that were not (i.e. people who lost money). But the govt was able to claw back some of the money from those who were paid off to give to those who lost. So the losers were to some extent compensated.
Thanks Eric!
Those 19 bn, they were paid out (in excess of their initial investments and returns) to those wo withdrew their money in time?
I mean, the 19 bn should be divided among the timely des-investors' profits, Madoff's own profits/theft (effectively zero, see Branko's text) and losses in trading (must be negligible as well as he traded so little, in my understanding). Or have I overlooked anything?
No, all was lost. When it collapsed he had only 300-400 million and even on the last day he was writing checks to insiders from that. Irving Picard, the lawyer who headed the liquidation, actually recovered 14 billion from everyone who actually took payment from Madoff and redistributed it. Attorney’s fees were 1 billion.
The money that's gone must be attributable to one of those three channels?
Terrific. Why is the obvious so ignored? I suspect the producers did not want to note the hands that feed them,