Talk:Madoff investment scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portrait[edit]

Rather than the 'mug shot' which is expected to look 'suspicious', a portrait of Madoff at his most disarmingly gregarious & confidence inspiring, would serve better to educate readers about the nature of a 'con-man', or perhaps both, side-by-side. --Wikidity (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Bongiorno[edit]

The original reason I took it out was b/c of WP:UNDUE (her salary and her husband's profession, not really relevant to illegal activities). Furtive Admirer then stuck it back in with the justification of:

ann the personal secretary has been given perks to keep her mouth shut. there is an article http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52J4IF20090320 an eyewitness discusses how everyone was overpaid. besides, you deleted the footnoted source.

The footnote and the source there do not say that explicitly so to include it on those grounds is WP:OR (her husband has a low pay job and yet she has this much money, she must be crooked). Soxwon (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with her husband's salary being taken out. But her lifestyle seems quite ntoable and is covered in the article. I agree that it needs to be clarified that someone who worked there made the accusations. But I think the coverage is substantial and the material should be included. In other words a tweak to clarify seems far better to me than removing the content and citation. Thanks for iniating the discussion Sox. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is my personal opinion, not fact. i didn't write it. reuters thought it was a significant FACT. complain to them.

Furtive admirer (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Your inclusion clearly had a motive behind it that constituted WP:SYN. Soxwon (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC

You spend an inordinate amount of time examining me. why not examine annette? bloomberg has, and their news organization thinks her assets are pretty significant to disclose, not filler. you should also.

Furtive admirer (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I had to undo my edit b/c of 3RR, I still feel that the fact her husband is an electrician, and the fact that she took a honyemoon are unimportant and should be removed. (And for the record I don't spend that much time editing articles you do). Soxwon (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the final edit looks fine. the husband is out. the assets are in and the footnote link to bloomberg explains the rest.

Furtive admirer (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Government nvestigations outside of the US[edit]

Other governments are looking into fraud connected with Madoff as well. I added a link to today's Guardian article, but we really need a full section to cover these. Flatterworld (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article[edit]

This article should be called the "Madoff Ponzi Scheme Scandal" 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Securities Investor Protection Corporation aka SIPC[edit]

Where is the mention of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation? Here is what the Wikipedia article says:

SIPC it is not a government agency; rather, it is a membership corporation funded by its members.
SIPC serves two primary roles in the event that a broker-dealer fails. First, SIPC acts to organize the distribution of customer cash and securities to investors. Second, to the extent a customer's cash and/or securities are unavailable, SIPC provides insurance coverage up to $500,000 of the customer's net equity balance, including up to $100,000 in cash.

Over and over, the victims of Madoff or the news media tell us, they lost everything. Not quite. While half a million dollars is not much when the victims thought they had many millions, it is a lot of money to many of us, and there might even be twice that for couples who had separate accounts. I am as outraged as anybody by the failure of the Securities and Exchange Commission to detect the fraud, when many times they were told that something was fishy. Can we have the SIPC material added to this article? --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Madoff page was split. the SIPC is on Recovery of funds from the Madoff investment scandal‎ page. There is a link at the bottom of the main page, Bernard Madoff at "See also:" The reader has to be a detective, unfortunately!
Furtive admirer (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Securities Investor Protection Corporation aka SIPC is certainly not prominent anywhere in the several articles on this Ponzi scheme. The Recovery of funds from the Madoff investment scandal‎ page does not mention it in the lead paragraph. I have seen one victim on TV who has received his $500,000 check from the SIPC. More information should be here on Wikipedia, but I don't have time to dig at it. Perhaps other editors can help.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cut[edit]

Why this cut[1]? If the sources are accurately reflected, I don't see the harm. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking WP:IINFO and He admitted his day of reckoning was inevitable and the poet laureate really don't seem encyclopedic. The other information I'll put back. Soxwon (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right on the poet laureate. But as for day of reckoning, I am not so sure. He did admit that, and it seems an important point that belongs in the article. On another subject, why is this a "mid importance" crime article? This has to be the biggest economic crime of our era. I'm going to take the liberty of changing to high Top. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lede[edit]

I don't know, it seemed like the lede was trying to cover too much ground, I trimmed it down to the bare essentials. Thoughts? Soxwon (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand this change[2], as it actually made the lead paragraph longer. I assume that is the edit you are referring to. The previous version is preferable, as well as briefer. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you're joking right? Did you notice the second paragraph is about a fourth of what it was before... Soxwon (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. I was referring to the first or "lead" paragraph, but I see you meant the lead section. It is definitely shorter, but I think the previous first paragraph summarized the issues better, even though the second paragraph was a mess and you fixed it very well. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links are a mess again[edit]

The references are a mess again. Please, use citation templates, and use ref IDs for duplicate links. We have bare URLs stretching across two columns and on top of other text. The links are becoming unreadable. In an article with this many links, formatting matters. --John Nagle (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had this cleaned up, but people got sloppy again. There are many long URLs without proper templates. I changed the reflist back to single-column format to avoid text on top of text. Please help clean up the reflist. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Foxton[edit]

Rendering error in citation.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should be clearer: In William Foxton subsection there is a rendering error. Please someone fix it. I cannot due to an unusually small cranial volume, (a disorder synonymous with village idiocy).--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ecphora (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of sentencing[edit]

This is variously said to be on 16/6/2009 and 29/6/2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.192.180 (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Actual sentencing time seems to be 10 a.m., local time, on 29/6/2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.117.81 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Current' template[edit]

Ive removed, per current template documentation and a discussion of a similar situation on my take page[3]. Evidently this template is only used in situations in which swarms of editors are editing an article, but that does not seem to be the case here anymore. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations the sons knew about the fraud[edit]

Regarding the statement that Madoff was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on December 11, 2008, on a criminal charge of securities fraud, and that the previous day, he had told his sons that his business was "a giant Ponzi scheme" please see for purposes of information and discussion the entries dated July 24-26 in the Talk page of the Wikipedia article on Bernard Madoff "Allegations the sons knew about the fraud". Stefanson (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further details about who else was involved should be available shortly. See Madoff Aide Holds Key to People Involved in Scam. DePascali was arrested, pled guilty, and is talking to prosecutors to get his sentence reduced. --John Nagle (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DiPascali going down[edit]

"Ex-Madoff CFO DiPascali to Be Charged, Plead Guilty, U.S. Says" [4]. He apparently cut a plea deal and will talk. More information on Monday after the arraignment. Expect more activity on this story. --John Nagle (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we know how the scam worked. The statement to which DiPascali pled guilty [5] has detailed information about the mechanics of the scam. Definitely worth a read.
DiPascali was in charge of the forgery operation which created phony statements and trades. The key to this was the fact that there's enough volatility in the market that, with perfect historical information, one can construct a pattern of trades which would, had they been actually executed, produce the yields indicated. Adjusting the phony trade dates by just a few days, and using prices within the trading range for the best days, was sufficient to make the numbers appear to work. Madoff's operation generated transaction confirmations for the fake trades and sent them to clients. The statements thus looked reasonable.
Towards the end, as the cash ran out, they just started stealing without being subtle about it. But for at least 25 years, quite plausible statements came out. That's why almost nobody suspected. --John Nagle (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Heck of a document. Like you said "Definitely worth a read." --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with link cleanup[edit]

This article needs help with link cleanup. Please try to convert plain links to citation templates, and use link names to eliminate duplicates. I had to convert the reflist back to one-column format because all the long URLs were rendering as text on top of text. (Wikipedia's multi-column reflist thing has the usual CSS problems with multi-column tables. We can switch back after link cleanup.) Try to use links that aren't behind a paywall. Use Webcitation when necessary.

We may also be able to remove some of the earlier, more speculative references as hard information comes in from confessions, legal documents, and audits. --John Nagle (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Less than half of Madoff investors lost money" - not[edit]

We have a new addition to the article saying that "less than half of Madoff investors lost money". That's from the New York Daily News, though; they're a tabloid and not big on financial details. The financial press has a more detailed analysis. That number includes only direct Madoff customers, not the ones who bought in through "feeder funds". The "feeder funds" are being counted as one Madoff investor each, but each one represents some number of smaller investors. Bloomberg reports that 60 of the 83 feeder funds invested in Madoff have put in claims. [6]. The top 10 Madoff investors were all funds of one kind or another. Those 10 clients alone claim $20 billion in losses. [7] Give this a few days; I expect more published analysis as the business press crunches the data. --John Nagle (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size of fraud[edit]

More information about the size of the fraud is now coming in from the chief counsel for the Madoff trustee: "Asked how much real money went into the whole scheme, Sheehan told Safer, "I'd say about $36 billion. And about 18 of it went out before the collapse. And 18 of it is just missing. And that $18 billion is what we're trying to get back.".[8]. That article is a good read. The trustee's office is going after Madoff's wife, Madoff's sons, and some of Madoff's customers, especially Jeffry Picower ("in terms of the monies that he took out, but the records with regard to the relationship, the manipulation and backdating of trades, he had to know, or someone knew it was false") and Stanley Chais. --John Nagle (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picower dead[edit]

Jeffry Picower was just found dead at the bottom of his Palm Beach swimming pool. Unknown yet whether this was murder, suicide, or accident.[9] --John Nagle (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yachts[edit]

Some yachts have been sold for £1.2 million, but this will not go far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.138 (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud in layman's terms[edit]

This fraud is detailed and sophisticated. Many reader would like to understand the scheme in more layman's terms. For example, Charles Ponzi article explained the fraud to any reader. My 2 cents... All4peace (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fraud was really simple - it was a straight Ponzi scheme. Money coming in went to pay fake returns. The complexity was all in the sales pitch and the marketing for the scam. --John Nagle (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other victims[edit]

Stonybrook and the Simons Foundation seem to have lost about $5,000,000 each to Madoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See James Harris Simons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.71.46 (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bernie Madoff scandal"[edit]

This seems to be missing a redirect from Bernie Madoff scandal. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real but inactive?[edit]

"he hadn't actually traded since the mid-1990s"

"Madoff's brokerage operation was very real"

Please explain how the brokerage operation is real if it doesn't broker?--Wp500 (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Called by the Market Oracle?[edit]

Not really. The author is Mike Shedlock writing at the Market Oracle, which is not the same.

I think it should be corrected to "called by Mike Shedlock"

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be corrected. I pointed it out on the Discussion page to be polite.

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Red Flags section in the Purported Strategy section does not work[edit]

I tried to fix it but can't get it. (I don't know why; I've never had a problem linking to another part of Wikipedia before.) Maybe somebody else could fix this?

Thank you Gatorinvancouver (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading[edit]

"The sale of the 'calls' is designed to increase the rate of return, while allowing upward movement of the stock portfolio to the strike price of the 'calls'. The 'puts', funded in large part by the sales of the 'calls', limit the portfolio's downside."

And I corrected it - perhaps somewhere else - (the article and associated entries, suffer from a lot of fragmentation IMO).

I even put in a link to the Investopedia. Again, maybe somewhere else.

In any case, as it stands it is wrong and / or incomplete.

Check out "collar" at the Investopedia:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/collar.asp

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you are referring to is not cited, although it may well have been part of Madoff's sales pitch. However...one thing is pretty clear: his pitch was misleading...so what are you objecting to? If we are quoting what he said, and he is known to have misled people...isn't that the point?  Frank  |  talk  20:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying.

I am suggesting however that a careful analysis of the definition of a collar and the present wording in WP is not compatible.

I haven't got the time, or inclination (hey I'm almost 70) at this stage in my life to prove what anybody can see for themselves.

All the best and the article is too long anyway.

Maybe you could devote your considerable talents to reformulating the actual entry?

That would be great, I'm sure.

Following Frank's deletion of my edit the present version of Purported Strategy reads as follows:

"The sale of the 'calls' is designed to increase the rate of return, while allowing upward movement of the stock portfolio to the strike price of the 'calls'. The 'puts', funded in large part by the sales of the 'calls', limit the portfolio's downside.""

"allowing upward movement of the stock portfolio to the strike price of the 'calls'."

As it stands this is total nonsense.

Furthermore, why mention the limit of the downside and not mention the limit to the potential gains? At best, this is incomplete, at worst it is wrong.

Moreover, why eliminate the relevant comment (relevant with respect to the alleged strategy) by Markopolos about the impossibility simply because there is a section called Red Flags where Markopolos' role is treated in more detail? I suggest, to analyse the "strategy" it IS relevant to quote Markopolos as saying that there weren't enough options around.

Why then not eliminate the section completely since we all know by now that Madoff was a fraud and liar? ( I am only half facetious.)

I repeat:

As it stands the section Purported Strategy is, at best, incomplete and at worst meaningless and/or wrong.

Personally, I do not wish to edit anymore just to have it deleted without the courtesy of a discussion first. Gatorinvancouver (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are trying to edit is also contained in the source(s) cited, that is one thing. If you are expressing your own opinion, that is another. And if you are repeating content that exists elsewhere in the article, that is also another thing. We need to be able to WP:CITE information from reliable sources. These are pillars of how Wikipedia works; a discussion beforehand is not necessary.  Frank  |  talk  01:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Tangled Webs won a Pulitzer Prize. Is that reliable enough as a source?

With all due respect, as somebody editing financial articles you seem to know very little about the markets.

""allowing upward movement of the stock portfolio to the strike price of the 'calls'."

The alleged portfolio contained both OEX (later Madoff claimed he used a "basket of equities" as proxies) The OEX and the Calls have their own dynamic, with the latter losing its time premium steadily. "Allowing upward movement of the stock portfolio" is nonsense as it includes Calls, Puts the OEX and/or the "basket of equities".

I know it because I have been trading for decades and decades ago I obtained the necessary qualifications to be an independent market maker in options (though I have never worked as such) at the Montreal Exchange.

Do I also need a reliable reference to assert that there is a sunset at the end of the day or is my life experience ("original research") good enough?

The reference to the Investopedia, which you eliminated made clear the fact that the strategy would also limit gains and could also lead to losses. Hence the name "collar".

Do you find that irrelevant?

Do you think Investopedia is not a reliable source? (I suggest, if so you haven't done much reading there.)

Why do you think it is relevant to cite the possible gains and not the possible losses, or at least the limitation of gains?

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read and understand WP:CITE. This isn't about my personal opinion about a source or about you; it is about how Wikipedia works. Your own personal qualifications regarding how options work are, in fact, not relevant to writing the article, except to the extent that they help you understand and reference the source material accurately. On the other hand, if you are saying "Investopedia says X and therefore what Madoff said was bogus and I am qualified to draw that conclusion", that is original research and is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.
I am not suggesting you are wrong, nor am I trying to distort this (or any) article. What I am trying to do is have it conform to our policies - nothing more, nothing less. If a source doesn't say it, and it's not clear to a reader, then it needs to be changed or removed.
If you find a section as it is currently written to be misleading, I encourage you to propose (or add) text which is neither misleading NOR unreferenced.  Frank  |  talk  17:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"a discussion beforehand is not necessary"

Even when you distort the article?

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For an analysis of the purported strategy, see the Markopolis 2005 filing with the SEC, "The World's Largest Hedge Fund is a Fraud".[10], page 5, item 7. There, Markopolis, who actually understands the subject and reported the problem to the SEC years in advance of the collapse, describes the purported strategy, and why it couldn't possibly generate the claimed returns. Try to work with that source. --John Nagle (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank:

"On the other hand, if you are saying "Investopedia says X and therefore what Madoff said was bogus and I am qualified to draw that conclusion", that is original research and is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article."

Analysis is original research? To draw conclusions is not analysis?

And I did not say:

""Investopedia says X and therefore what Madoff said was bogus and I am qualified to draw that conclusion"

I linked to Investiopedia so that people can see a DEFINITION of collar. Anybody with the capacity to reason can therefore conclude that Madoff was lying, something we by NOW know and knowledgeable people should have known (and some probably did). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatorinvancouver (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I give up.

But why do you KEEP ignoring my point about the section - in its present form - being wrong and/or misleading?

John Nagle:

I am aware of the article you mentioned and it (and the process at the SEC) is analysed in great detail in Tangled Webs. Quoting Markopolos (even though he is treated at great detail in the section Red Flags) in this section was to show that the claimed strategy was impossible. And indeed Madoff changed his story during the investigation claiming that he stopped using options.

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote yourself above: I know it because I have been trading for decades and decades ago I obtained the necessary qualifications to be an independent market maker in options (though I have never worked as such) at the Montreal Exchange. Using that as justification for an edit is essentially original research. You furthermore wrote anybody with the capacity to reason can therefore conclude that Madoff was lying... - which may or may not be true, but is beside the point. We are NOT here to analyze. We are NOT here to provide original research. We are here to report what is written elsewhere in reliable sources with a neutral point of view.  Frank  |  talk  00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You are grossly distorting what I said. I mentioned this after you had first insisted on deleting it because it was treated at length further on in the article. As a matter of fact you did this right in the section where I asked for help with an internal link. How constructive is that? Then you went on about "original research" that all so curious criterion of WP: Any first year's college term paper is "original research" cutting and pasting "respectable sources". Anyway, I digress. You have the last word in the edit of this article (for the time being). Happy? If so, it still is not accurate and since you deleted the parts I wrote (and linked to) to explain "the purported strategy" in more detail, is it not WP etiquette to rewrite a correct version of the article? I'm kind of curious about your answer but I'm kind of getting a bit tired of what I conceive to be going in circles leading to Godot's Nowhere/Nobody. So have fun. I still think WP is one of the best things ever invented and will continue to support it. But maybe, editing here is not my cup of tea. Love and Peace (told y'a I was almost 70).Gatorinvancouver (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

     "We are here to report what is written elsewhere in reliable sources with a neutral point  of view."

If you only did Frank, if you only did.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not distortion - gross or otherwise - to quote your own words. You are welcome to continue editing - whether or not you do so is your own choice - but keep in mind that this is a collaborative project. There's no harm - and, indeed, great benefit - in finding out how things work before (or even while) trying to make contributions.
Please understand - I am not disputing what you're saying with regard to his strategy, nor am I saying the article is perfect as it is. However, please do keep in mind that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This is an important concept.
Finally, regarding your seemingly attacking comment at the end ("if you only did Frank, if you only did"), I invite you to show me where I've missed the mark on that concept. I'm not perfect, any more than the next editor...if there is work to be cleaned up, let me know.  Frank  |  talk  02:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You "missed the mark" dear Frank when you didn't replace what you broke.

And in my ears you are sounding a lot like a bureaucrat obsessed with form ( I'm not saying this is not important) and short of substance.

So please, dear Frank, do rewrite the paragraph you deleted.

That's what I'm suggesting.

Please do read the above comments again objectively.

Regards.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our interpretations differ. When I removed your edits, I did not break anything but rather followed established policy. It is not incumbent upon me to fix what you "broke", to use your wording. I rather think of it as collaboration, rather than "break" and "fix", but that may be semantics. The bottom line is that if you put content in that doesn't meet guidelines - even if the previous content is, as you say, inaccurate, it is not up to me to both remove your edit and fix the perceived problem.  Frank  |  talk  03:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only said I'm suggesting. Gee. P.S. You still don't mind the inaccuracy of the article as it presently is, which I have clearly demonstrated several times, do you? Gatorinvancouver (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to make something perfect does not automatically indicate agreement with its current content. I don't "own" this article; neither does anyone. Again - this is a collaborative effort. If you feel it is inaccurate, please feel free to improve it with citations from reliable sources.  Frank  |  talk  03:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You were wrong about my edit as far as I can tell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Gatorinvancouver (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC) And please do tell Frank: Why do you continue to give instructions instead of actually writing something people visiting the WP will read? (It won't be the discussion pages they want to read unless they are people who want to edit the article, or "boss" others around.) Gatorinvancouver (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to view my contribution history to find out what I've been up to lately. I have no control over what people will read, and therefore essentially avoid any thought about that. I focus instead on improving the encyclopedia; realistically speaking, I do stick to topics that are of interest to me, but I make no claim as to whether or not others will read it.  Frank  |  talk  04:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish affinity fraud / Religion in Maddof's box.[edit]

I'm just a lowly IP, but having Maddof's religion and '(Jewish) affinity fraud' in the box at the top troubles me. I'm not saying that it is an unreasonable thing to have, as quite a few sources in the article have indicated that Madoff did use his his 'Jewishness' and general ties in the Jewish community to raise money. That, by itself, makes it very useful to have the 'affinity fraud' portion of the box, although it might not be as necessary to identify exactly whom was being targeted. Consequently, further identifying Maddof's religion as Judaism makes sense, since it explains why he targeted the Jewish community in particular.

However, I am worried that without a greater amount of context in the box, someone reading the article would see those two items at the top and from that conclude that this is a anti-Semitic article. The reason for this is that the term 'affinity fraud' is not well known and someone reading this might conclude that the box is simply 'blaming Jews/Judaism' for fraud. That's particularly true because of the addition of Maddof's religion, which seems a bit unnecessary to highlight in the box like that. So essentially, I'd just like for a bit more clarification in the box, so that someone reading it wouldn't come to the wrong impressions or, at least, to have Maddof's religion not be highlighted there.

Having said that, I do realize that it isn't too hard for people to simply Ctrl+f 'Jew' in the article or simply click the link on affinity fraud to realize and understand exactly why those terms are there. A such, I'll leave it up to some other editor to conclude whether these concerns are reasonable or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.43.36 (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "(Jewish) Affinity fraud" from the infobox. He is known for the Ponzi scheme - 1st, last, and always. Any affinity fraud was just a part of the Ponzi scheme. Frankly, I'm skeptical that the term "affinity fraud" applies to most Ponzi schemes. Ultimately the Ponzi scheme has to take money from whomever has it - from anybody - no discrimination here. Of course the easiest money to take is from whomever it knows best first, from its closest contacts, so we can say it "looks like" an affinity fraud. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Smallbones. Might I suggest removing his religion from the box as well then? It serves no role whatsoever if the affinity fraud is removed from the box and could potentially be misconstrued as anti-Semitic; any interested reader can find out he's Jewish at the relevant portion of the article where the issue comes up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.43.36 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Madoff investment scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Madoff investment scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the Madoff Investment Securities (MADF) accounts and clients? Who took them over?[edit]

What happened to the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (MADF) accounts and clients? Normally, some institution comes in and takes these over. Which investment house got them? Did they pay anything for them? (they would have been worth something). If so, how much? Did very many, if any, of the brokers or other employees make the transition as well? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call it Wall Street Journal culpability? Or media support of Madoff?[edit]

Not sure how to describe this aspect of the topic, but I think the article should consider how the financial press helped Madoff get away with his scam for so many years. Perhaps there should be a single list of Madoff's media appearances over the years? The one that just came to my attention was actually a secondhand citation in the book "Panic" by Michael Lewis, where on page 190 we have the appearance of "a market veteran, Bernard L. Madoff" in a reprint of a WSJ article (or editorial?) from 24 February 1999. (Amusingly enough, Madoff is explaining why dot com stocks are too risky for him.) I'm sure that such press coverage had been exceedingly helpful to Madoff in getting more suckers for his Ponzi scheme. In defense of Michael Lewis, let me note that his book was published just after the scandal had been exposed. I had actually come to Wikipedia today to check those dates, but I guess the publication process was too far along to pull the Wall Street Journal interview at that point. Still, the larger point is that Madoff was NOT invisible in 1999, even if his scam remained hidden until 2008. Shanen (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC) story[reply]

Thorp[edit]

There are articles[1] indicating that Edward O. Thorp figured out that Madoff was a fraud in 1991. Should this be in the article? Gah4 (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Card Sharp Who Cottoned Onto Madoff's Fraud In 1991". www.forbes.com. Forbes. Retrieved 29 November 2017.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Madoff investment scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered in 1999, brought to SEC in 2000, 2001, 2005[edit]

Thanks for the heads up Jasper Deng. The issue is that it is absolutely wrong to say it was "discovered in 2008". I may have expanded too much in my first edit, but this falsehood can not stand as the first thing said in this article.

Perhaps drop some of the extras I added throughout the article, and keep a clean change in the opening paragraph, something like:

The Madoff investment scandal was a major case of stock and securities fraud. The fraud was first discovered in 1999 by portfolio manager Harry Markopolos, who alerted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2000, 2001, and 2005, complete with supporting documents.[1] The SEC did not act until December 2008, when the adult sons of Bernard Madoff notified the SEC of their father’s fraud. Madoff, the former NASDAQ Chairman and founder of the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, admitted that the wealth management arm of his business was an elaborate Ponzi scheme.

Shorter? Longer? Just not the lie that it was "discovered in 2008".Jmg38 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As well as I know (mostly from PBS shows) the SEC did act, but somehow didn't find anything. I only noticed recently, from this article, that Madoff was the head of NASDAQ, which might have helped convince the SEC that nothing was wrong. I any case, the whole thing makes the SEC look pretty bad. I thought that the SEC sent inspectors a few times to check on things. Gah4 (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Tofel, Richard J. (March 8, 2010). "Shadowing a Swindler; Early on, he figured out what Bernard Madoff was up to". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 9, 2019.

Journalistic comma stuffing has its limits[edit]

In December of that year, Bernie Madoff, the former NASDAQ chairman and founder of the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, admitted that the wealth management arm of his business was an elaborate multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme.

It's a really ugly look to have "Bernard L. Madoff" stuffed inside a comma-clause Big Gulp about Bernie Madoff.

If you like that style, get a job at a newspaper, if you can still find one (either the job or the newspaper).

Jesting aside, these stuffed lungfish -theticals are hard on readability to begin with, and this is an especially bad case. — MaxEnt 17:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madoff_investment_scandal&oldid=1208684364"