growing_older
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,657
I say it is bogus since we now know there was no insider trading... no 'illegal' trades going on that we could not get..
The guy was running an "investment" scheme that was questionable at best, and most investors got involved because they believed they were skirting the law. Yes, even the charities. It now turns out that one thing he didn't do was insider trading, because his fraud was bigger than that - he didn't do any trading. It looks more like an affinity group Ponzi scheme on an unbelievably massive scale. But still a con.
So how does that change that the investors were trying to get away with something outside the law?
So how does that change whether the investors should be protected by government insurance?
Maybe it doesn't matter to you that the investors TRIED to cheat, because they were thwarted in doing so by the larger con that Madoff was running. I see this as different from what the SIPC was set up to protect and I hope there is no bailout.