What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
47 Comments
- Subduction, on 10/22/2009, -0/+23A rare win for the Mets.
- anareric, on 10/22/2009, -3/+22And they still suck
- zacharytelschow, on 10/22/2009, -3/+19Early investors in a pyramid scheme make money. That it was the Mets is interesting, but hardly newsworthy.
- AaronS2000, on 10/22/2009, -0/+7Proper etiquette says that if you catch 48 million dollars that you should throw it back onto the field.
- TAGline, on 10/22/2009, -0/+6By that logic, everyone who had money in there deserved to lose it all anyway.
Which I agree with. I never really understood the widespread anger at Madoff when he was running such an obvious scam. - LonesomeFighter, on 10/22/2009, -0/+5that would be stupid. everyone has a risk of investing and those that prosper should enjoy the benefits.
i feel bad for those that lost a lot of money, but i also feel people should only invest what they are willing to lose, if not, then they should stick to government bonds or something safe - squinky86, on 10/22/2009, -0/+4Then there would be no point to investing here. I'd be worried that, if the government can come and take profits from when I invest and make money in something that later fails, that they would be impeding on my freedom. My investments are my investments, and none of your business!
- charlie55, on 10/22/2009, -0/+4it is newsworthy, partially because it was thought the mets had lost so much it would make the team too cheap to be competitive. although i know it can be noted here that they are not competitve right now. but that is due to injury and mismanagement, not money.
- inactive, on 10/22/2009, -3/+7So?
No one knew he was running a Ponzi scheme.
No different than if he were to employ a bunch of people and give them money - they don't have to pay it back and weren't in the wrong for taking it. It was legit for all they knew. - rossnyc, on 10/22/2009, -1/+4Everyone was hurt. It's on next year!
- Eorster, on 10/22/2009, -0/+3Nope. Does not work that way. If you buy stolen property you will have that property confiscated and given back to the rightful owner irregardless of whether you knew it was stolen or not. You lose the property and what you paid for it. This holds true in this case as well. The attorneys for those that lost money will sue the parties that gained from their involvement, even if those parties had no knowledge of wrong doing.
- soccerman90, on 10/22/2009, -2/+5the mets are the champions of ***** up
- davewashere, on 10/22/2009, -0/+3@ LonesomeFighter
This wasn't an investment gain. The Wilpon family was led to believe their investments were making money, just as everyone else in the Madoff scheme was. The Wilpons withdrew some of their money, which they believed to be investment gains. They were not. They were essentially getting paid off with the money coming in from new accounts that Madoff was signing up. Madoff was able to pay off the withdrawing accounts in small doses, because he had the money to cover it. When the market turned sour and everyone started withdrawing and he couldn't find new accounts to bring money in the whole thing fell apart. The Wilpons are not entitled to their gains because they were not from a legitimate investment. They were getting paid with money that was basically stolen from Madoff's newer clients, even though they did not know that. - kingofinternet, on 10/22/2009, -0/+2everything involved with the mets this year turned to *****. the health of their blue chip starters, madoff, citibank, bababooey, steve philips, oh yeah, and their season.
- anareric, on 10/22/2009, -1/+3Dugg for being a real fan in spite of reallity.
- JoeHague, on 10/22/2009, -0/+2I couldn't agree more. When the SEC determines investment fraud has taken place and a person is convicted, investors are only entitled to their original investment. Thankfully there are claw back laws for situations lie these.
It is a widely held belief, that Madoff tipped off some of his biggest investors when he felt the noose tightening. Some of his close friends are said to have made billions. I'm not suggesting the Wilpon family colluded, but you have to ask yourself why they pulled there money when they did. I suspect at some point in time they will be asked to give the money back. They should give the money back before being asked- after all their are a lot of ball players who lost a lot of money and it could impact future signings if they try to keep their profits.
The people who were really hurt by this scam were retired folks who were living off of dividends. Now they receive no dividends and their investment is lost. For a lot of people that was their entire life savings. - lindenwold, on 10/22/2009, -0/+2they stole the excitement out of baseball.
- blackinthmiddle, on 10/22/2009, -0/+2First of all, learn the difference between "your" and "you're". Second of all, there have been many, many, MANY investments that have returned 20% per year for a long period of time. Third, all investments in a sense are, while not scams, gambling. You read a company's financial statement study the market in which they operate and make a financial bet on the health of that company. Obviously what Madoff was doing was a pyramid scheme in that at some point the people at the bottom would be screwed. However, it's not like there aren't legitimate investment vehicles out there that get 20% returns for long periods of time.
Oh, and one last thing. Obviously *everyone* didn't know what Madoff was doing was a scam otherwise the many who lost money with him wouldn't have invested with him in the first place. But otherwise your logic is flawless! - motionone, on 10/22/2009, -0/+2how does this make them criminals??
- ravishingluke, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1They will not be able to keep the profits. They can only keep, at most, what they put in. The government will come after them for the rest of the money to give to the other investors that got screwed. Watch the 60 Minutes episode from a couple weeks ago.
- inigomntoya, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1Agreed - I would be willing to accept nothing LESS than that to deal with that douche...
- methdwman3, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1@hey - The first report to the SEC was in 2000, a full EIGHT YEARS into Clinton's presidency. Last time I checked, Slick Willy was a Dem.
- JoeHague, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1I saw that too. I would give the money back without being asked for it. The attorney for the special prosecutor looks like the biggest pain in the balls on the planet. I bet his family pays him not to come to holiday dinners /
- Gundabad, on 10/22/2009, -1/+2I don't understand HOW this is a big deal. When you invest $522.8 million, and let it sit there for however many long years they did, and your statement tells you that you have $800-$900 million in the bank, well then you are making decisions about life and your business based on $800-900 million! When you go to spend that money and you only have $570.6 million then you LOST MONEY.
I read in another news article that 50% of Madoff's investors got back at least their original investment, but that doesn't mean they didn't lose money. Every year their money sat there not growing, inflation was destroying it's true value. - micro23, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1alright the second your should have been you're... my bad
- alclone, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1Except they do make money. Madoff's fund paid off a 10% interest which is below the 20% threshold of very noticeable Ponzi schemes. The inflation rate is negligible - in fact we were in a deflationary period when the scheme was revealed. So the people who put in and pulled out did make money.
- methdwman3, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1I don't know how people reconcile the ineptitude of the SEC to pick up on this obvious fraud, and a desire for Uncle Sam to regulate more.
- davewashere, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1The Mets and the Wilpon family are not criminals, but they also aren't entitled to their gains from this scheme. Being ignorant of how their investment gains were made does not mean they get to keep them, and I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult for some people on this thread (not speaking to you, but to the many others who are claiming the government has no right to seize the Wilpons gains).
Imagine the scenario like this: some guy comes up to me and says if I give him $100 million, he'll invest it and get me gains of 20% per year. The cost to me will be $1 million a year. When he tries to explain how he'll make these profits I just put my fingers in my ears and say "LA LA LA LA LA" really loudly. After 5 years I decide to withdraw my money. I receive my original investment of $100 million along with my compounded gains, which totals well over 100% of my original investment. Some time later I learn that same man had been going around to all the other wealthy people in town and convincing them to invest $100 million with him, and he'd never even heard of the stock market, or bond trading, or foreign currency exchanges. The money he paid me was just money he'd collected from other people in town, some of whom were now out all of their "investment". Do I deserve to keep my "gains" just because I thought the guy was investing my money legitimately? Of course not.
The Wilpons are victims of Bernie Madoff just like so many others. If they can get their original investment back that's great, but it's important to realize that any gains from this were not from investments; it was just money being taken out of other clients accounts. It doesn't belong to the Wilpons. - greggerm, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1Where in the article does it state when the deposits were made, and when the withdrawals were made?
Are you suggesting that the Mets pulled in a 20%+ return on their investment based on no annual rate of return data, or are you just blathering on about investment performance? - heynow21, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1OK, since the FIRST REPORT came in a full EIGHT YEARS into the Clinton presidency clearly he blew it. Your logic is irrefutable.
- rossnyc, on 10/23/2009, -0/+1Where do you think the Yanks would be without Jeter, Texiera? So if Reyes, Delgado, Beltran +5 other role players were not injured most of the year they win at least 20 more games. Seems like a huge dose of reality to me.
- dobbmcrowell, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1"Your" kidding right?
- inactive, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1...
- heynow21, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1Maybe in future staff the regulating agencies with non partisan experts rather than incompetent Republican hacks who love to tell us how government can't do anything right.
- gardnmi, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1Do they get to keep the money?
- dobbmcrowell, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1To be fair, a crowd that watches someone get beat up at least has the decency to post it on youtube.
- Insightful, on 10/22/2009, -2/+2Every who invested with Madoff deserved to lose their money - even the many charities that helped Jewish elderly and children.
If any of them had done their due diligence, as some banks apparently have done and warned their internal and external clients to steer clear, they could have seen that 1. an one man audit shop impossibly handled the auditing for the entire hedge fund, 2. the size of the entire S&P options market where Madoff was supposedly trading was not big enough to handle Madoff's fund if says that is where he is trading, and 3) the man seems to have not had a down quarter, much less a down year, no matter how volatile the market is. This is among the many discrepancies that investors and the poorly paid SEC enforcers overlooked.
So the investors either did their due diligence and stayed because they are greedy or they did not do any checking at all. - firesphotons, on 10/22/2009, -0/+0Nobody may have known about the ponzi scheme but CNN has an online article saying Madoff used to send personnel to buy drugs. Many knew about it apparently and knicknamed his office the north pole due to all the coke use at work, somebody knew this bastard was a bastard but just like a crowd that watches someone get beat up, nobody cared enough to give a *****.
- endustry, on 10/22/2009, -1/+1That's 1/3rd of the money they spent for all of heir star player to sit out the season with hangnails and splinters. Maybe they were just thinking ahead.
- kthoma22, on 10/22/2009, -2/+2Wait the Mets a move that didn't hurt the team?
- micro23, on 10/22/2009, -1/+1Yea, I totally should have wrote You're that makes tons of sense.....
"IF YOUR GETTING 20-25% RETURNS ON YOU ARE MONEY YOUR MOST LIKELY BREAKING THE LAW"
Show me one investment that is ANYWHERE near as good. Every year.
Your an ass. Half way thru you write that it was obvious what madoff was doing therefor giving your comments no validity.
Thanks for playing. - inactive, on 10/22/2009, -1/+0Yes, it does work that way. This isn't stolen property in the same sense of a car. I'm not debating whether stolen property has to be returned, but if investors in a Ponzi scheme have to pay back their return (which they do not)
If my employer were to suddenly get busted as a massive Ponzi scheme operator, I would not have to pay my salary back even though I made my living off of stolen money.
*I* had no idea the scheme, I was just making an honest living.
Ponzi investors are in the same boat. They are being lead that their investment is profitable. If you pay an early investor of this scheme with a 30% return, they don't have to give those profits back when you're busted... - T8erT0T, on 10/22/2009, -2/+1Mr. Met, you grimey son of a bitch.
http://yfrog.com/0emrmet290x315j - Quaestor44, on 10/22/2009, -4/+2http://picard.ytmnd.com/
- inactive, on 10/22/2009, -3/+1But they make $48 million? me confusey
- gfryesc, on 10/22/2009, -5/+3they shouldn't expect to keep any profits from this. the best they can hope for is coming out even, but the winnings will be taken to help make others in the scheme whole. Bet on the investigators taking it. The mets should step up and volunteer it.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is