That’s easy: By the time Trump was selling pardons, Madoff had no money to buy one.
Right, because he’s not actually consistent. If he were consistent, then all anyone would have to do to beat the market would be to buy and sell the same things that Buffet does. And if everyone did that, and it worked, then the market would rise, and Buffet wouldn’t be beating it any more.
Anyone who understands finance knows this. If there were people investing big bucks in Madoff who thought he was legitimate, all that shows is that there’s a lot of money held (somehow) by people who don’t understand finance. Which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
This is complete and utter BS. Investment banks with the best lawyers out there don’t puke up billions of dollars in profits unless forced to. There are plenty of articles from when he was arrested to present making the case that the major funds and ibanks turned a blind eye to the unrealistic and steady returns that his fund brought. And they have recovered about 70 cents on the dollar.
From Bloomberg:
The Herculean effort to recover cash for the victims through litigation in bankruptcy court has so far repaid nearly 70% of valid claims – a far better outcome than many expected when the fraud was fresh. Even so, the process has dragged on, creating uncertainty for many and a blizzard of paperwork for others. It has been overseen by New York lawyer Irving Picard, the trustee for Madoff’s company in court. He recovered the funds by suing hundreds of customers who withdrew more money from their accounts than they deposited, spending profits that existed only on paper.
Hundreds argued they were victimized a second time by that system. To them, they were spending money they had every right to believe was theirs. Ultimately that’s not how the courts saw it, and hundreds of former Madoff customers sued by Picard have reached settlements to help pay victims who didn’t withdraw their principal. Picard has recovered more than $14 billion, much of it from large early investors who reaped billions from Madoff’s fraud, as well as from banks that effectively did business with a con man and allowed his scheme to continue.
Heh,heh,heh. Good one!
More on Madoff from my favorite legal humorist. Some of his cites are pretty good too.
Need a source for that claim.
Harry Markopolos concluded that Madoff was either front running or running a Ponzi scheme. I’m not aware of any basis for saying that Madoff investors made that same assumption.
That’s a self-defeating point. Whether consistent or not, the fact is that Buffet beat the market by a big margin and over a long period of time. By your logic, everyone should be buying and selling whatever Buffet does. Lack of consistency doesn’t explain that.
I think the answer is that 1) although Buffet had a very long run, by the time he rose to national prominence his best years were behind him, and 2) he’s currently in a position that no one can copy, since for the most part he’s too big to just buy and sell things on the open market, and many of his deals involve contracted arrangements with other companies (e.g. his Goldman Sachs bailout), which the average investor can’t replicate.
But beyond that, the important point to remember is that while Buffet did not have as consistent returns as Madoff, his returns were also a lot better. In fact, Madoff’s returns were not much better than the market (if at all), and the only striking thing about them was their consistency. Essentially, Buffet and Madoff both beat the market, but in different ways, Buffet in long term returns and Madoff in consistency. (Madoff’s supposed split-strike investing approach would explicitly sacrifice higher returns in the interests of consistency.) But the bottom line is that it is both Buffet and Madoff ostensibly beat the market in one way or another, and beating the market is not “too good to be true” on the face of it, in either case.
You are mistaken.
It appears that you believe that the investors who paid back the profits did so because they were judged to be somehow complicit in the scheme, but this is incorrect. The basis for the disgorgement was the fact that no matter how unwitting they may have been, the bottom line is that the “profits” they received was not actually profits on their investments but rather money stolen from other people. If you steal from Joe and give the money to Bob, then Bob needs to return the money even if he had no idea that you had stolen it.
I hope you find a way to meet your needs.
You jumped on another poster who was relaying some bits of information he or she had read in the past. I also remember reading similar things. I did a quick google search on the matter and came up with confirmation that such things were indeed discussed in the past. If you want to jump around and shout “I need proof!”, then you be you.
No need to be so sensitive.
I did not “jump on” anyone. Someone made an assertion based on “an article or perhaps a post here some years ago”, and I expressed a contrary opinion.
You should be able to deal with that.
Bernie Madoff is dead
No, no, no, no, he’s outside, looking in
He’ll rip off all your cash
Pay someone else from the same stash
A complete and total ass
Bernie Madoff
Meh.
(1) You misquote me. You attributed a quote to me as something I didn’t say but quoted from a linked source.
(2) You then “ask” that you need a source for that mis-attributed quote. 
I did a search and found discussion relating to investors investing because they thought Madoff was cheating to show that another poster’s recollections were based on reality. There really was discussion of investors investing in Madoff because they thought he was cheating.
It certainly doesn’t seem like it was worth the bother to try and contribute to the discussion. Is that sensitive of me? or merely the reality that no good deed goes unpunished?
I was quoting from your post. My apologies if it came off as a direct quote from you.
I wasn’t asking for anything. I was just saying that quoting some random guy saying the same thing is not adding anything. (More below.)
But I wasn’t disputing whether or not there was discussion of it. I was disputing whether the assertion was valid. I had expressed my opinion that this was unlikely, regardless of whatever prior discussion there may have been.
Think it’s very odd someone would think his death should not be a news item.
Okay. I will definitely not take into consideration what some random guy says.