WWTBAM Bored

I've been curious about this since a Boston-area investor first claimed his losses from Madoff's scam to be one amount, then later said that was what Madoff claimed he had in his account and his (the investor's) actual investment lost was a lower but still substantial amount. I haven't been able to find the information anywhere, though.

My question: The loss total that has been reported has varied from $50B to $65B. Is that amount the total of what Madoff claimed was in the accounts or is it the actual amount that investors gave him? I'm sure the latter is still a large number, given the wealth and number of his investors.

Not that it matters much, other than to my idle curiosity. A crook is a crook. He just brought grand theft to a higher level. Is there such a category as magnificent theft?

gsabc wrote:I've been curious about this since a Boston-area investor first claimed his losses from Madoff's scam to be one amount, then later said that was what Madoff claimed he had in his account and his (the investor's) actual investment lost was a lower but still substantial amount. I haven't been able to find the information anywhere, though.

My question: The loss total that has been reported has varied from $50B to $65B. Is that amount the total of what Madoff claimed was in the accounts or is it the actual amount that investors gave him? I'm sure the latter is still a large number, given the wealth and number of his investors.

Not that it matters much, other than to my idle curiosity. A crook is a crook. He just brought grand theft to a higher level. Is there such a category as magnificent theft?

On Nightline last night, the higher number was gleaned from Made-Off's investor statements. The amount invested was lower, only $14B. A mere trifle in these days of trillion dollar bail-outs.

This is what forensic accountants to. They will need to recreate a paper trail and despite Madoff's guilty plea, he is not cooperating with investigators.

The trickiest issue that will arise is what to do with people who exited early from the scheme, receiving a check they thought represented their initial investments plus a substantial rate of return. In fact, they received the cash deposited by later investors, since there were no returns.

Do those who were left holding the bag have a claim against the assets of these folks, who through no fault of their own (?), cashed out early. After all, this is where most of the money is ...

bazodee wrote:This is what forensic accountants to. They will need to recreate a paper trail and despite Madoff's guilty plea, he is not cooperating with investigators.

The trickiest issue that will arise is what to do with people who exited early from the scheme, receiving a check they thought represented their initial investments plus a substantial rate of return. In fact, they received the cash deposited by later investors, since there were no returns.

Do those who were left holding the bag have a claim against the assets of these folks, who through no fault of their own (?), cashed out early. After all, this is where most of the money is ...

This is indeed a real problem-- that people who already cashed out might have to kick something back in, because otherwise they could be said to have 'benefited' from the fraud. An even worse problem-- suppose you were someone who partially cashed out (say, your took out a portion of your invested principal, or, you somehow managed to collect 'dividends' over the years but let your original base investment amount sit with him): whatever remains of the original investment that you left with him is pretty likely to be a loss, but you might have to kick in some or all of the partial distributions or 'dividends' that you collected over the years. And to make it even more complicated, how about if you cashed out, then opened up a new 'investment' with him, and maybe even cashed THAT out and then invested again?-- as I am sure must have happened with someone.

Oh what a tangled web...