Talk:Stanford Financial Group

Should we add a "breaking news" template?
Things seeem to be changing fast for Mr Stanford. Thanks y'all for the hard work to get a good article together so quickly. (I am not a mod or anything just like to say thanks.)

Should we add a template saying that this article will frequently change? The English Cricket Board (ECB) have knocked him off as a sponsor. I dunno what the legal issue for me as an English person to write on the subject, it is not sub judice in England but could become so I guess. Since Wikipedia is covered by Florida law that should not be a problem itself, but might be for an Englishman writing it.

Personally I rather hope the SEC's case falls unfounded, if I was a crook I wouldn't give loads of money away to charities etc. There again my bank grumbles if I go £10 overdrawn but apparently $8 billion can go unnoticed.

SimonTrew (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh we already have. Sorry my browser must have cached an old copy. Thanks folks.

SimonTrew (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

SIPC protection
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 the alleged Stanford fraud say they lost everything. Not quite. While half a million dollars is not much when the victims thought they had many millions, it is quite a bit of money. Can we have SIPC material added to this article?--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just exactly who is this guy said to have swindled???
Just exactly who is this guy said to have swindled??? I mean, we know who Bernie Madoff swindled - mostly Jewish investors, with a large number of them connected to the Fifth Avenue Synagoge in Manhattan, and Palm Beach residents. We know who they are because they were hopping mad and were very vocal about getting Madoff's hide. But who are Stanford's victims??? There doesn't seem to be anybody who is coming forward to say they were swindled. It can't be residents of Antiqua - they are poor people. Did Stanford mainly swindle Latin American drug kingpins??? Is that what happened??? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WHO WERE STANFORD INVESTORS? In response to the person who wanted to know who Stanford Investors were; note that there were a lot of people right here in Antigua that invested, including myself. Not everyone is poor here - in fact quite the opposite. I worked at SIB for a year and during my employment most of the clients were out of Latin America - predominantly Mexico and Colombia, but hardly drug lords. These were people that had a few hundred thousand dollars and lived off the monthly interest payments that their accounts provided. I realise that there were probably lots of accounts that us lowly employees never got to see the 'files' for, but the many we did seemed like regular people with retirement funds etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xabbar (talk • contribs) 18:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - but is there a list anywhere of the major investors who were swindled in this Ponzi scheme?, like there is with the Madoff scam? It seems sort of strange that there is no list attached to the Stanford scam.  Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.Betathetapi545 (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.banking-business-review.com/news/stanford_financial_group_to_open_caribbean_facility/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Stanford Financial Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011185523/http://www.ahp.org/other/tugx.php to http://www.ahp.org/other/tugx.php

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Pension plans
The ease with which this debable could have been solved, defies the imagination of many, excepting, those in psychiatry and psychology.

Placing the totality of the amounts above 42k onto a long range pension plan, governmental bonds, solves for all and every client, all coinage in relation being defacto an attempt to retain parquo against inflation.

The reason why this was not promoted? Quite a few demented.

You should link to psychology, psychiatry and frauds and cons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.33.30 (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)