The Math on Madoff Does NOT WORK ....

[Blackhatjack]

So Madoff ran a $50bil 'ponzi scheme' for decades, and all the Madoff personal assets anyone can find do not add up to more than $200mil--most of which is in joint ownership with his wife.

With consistent returns of 12-17% paid to investors over the years, Bernie would have run out of 'principal investments' of earlier investors and the number of new investors injecting $$ needed to keep the scheme going would have been larger than those identified.

And now Madoff REFUSES the deal offered by the Govt to allow his wife to keep all joint assets in return for his full cooperation--most importantly where the $$ went. Hmmmm ....

Just like AIG acting as a 'passthrough' for billions paid to other entities which wished to remain anonymous, it appears that Madoff was a collector of funds which were used for some purpose other than investment, and those funds still exist today somewhere.

The question is WHERE? He did not buy stocks for last thirteen years.

I hestitate to even put this in print .... was the Madoff scheme part of a giant coordinated effort to manipulate governments and their massive govt contracts for the benefit of those who collected the funds for Madoff? Foreign and Domestic?

Unlike investment frauds where the $$ is lost on bad bets in the stock market, this $$ WAS NOT INVESTED... IT STILL EXISTS .... AND MADOFF IS NOT TALKING.

[librechik]

1. The money laundering shop is closed.

and they aren't big on receipts, either.

Did I just say drug dealing conservative ideologues?

You know, I did!

[Atman]

2. You're assuming that he ever had to pay out that 12-17%. He didn't.

As I hear it, very few people ever cashed out. Why would they? They were earning three times what everyone else was getting. When people did try to cash out, Madoff would go to work and talk them out of it. He only put the "earnings" on the "investors'" statements...he never actually paid any money to them.

Which raises the question: how much did he ACTUALLY take in, and how much of the "losses" being reported never actually existed in the first place? IOW, are they saying he "lost" $50 bil, that his scheme was showing a fake value of $50 bil -- fake in that it wasn't actually invested in anything. If that was the case, then his investors only "lost" what they put in, not what they didn't earn in dividends which didn't exist.

.

[hfojvt]

3. some of it may have been paid out

as I read on another thread

"These were (from what I've seen) the very wealthy in our society, and I know there were exceptions, like the woman who gave him a million, got $100K each year for 10 years and is pissed because she wants her 'original' investment back."

If a story like that is true, then the only thing she has 'lost' is the interest on $1,000,000 for ten years. She still has her million and her loss is not as big as she wants to make it.

Like you said, people, or the media, seem to be inflating the losses, like they do whenever the stock market drops. Citi drops from 18 to 9, and it's "omigod, I lost half my 401K (even though I bought Citi six years ago for 10. (not that I am saying this is an actual scenario, and Citi is now well below 9))"

[closeupready]

4. This guy bought homes in Cap d'Antibes, France, Florida,

New York and somewhere else. He got around. There is no question in my mind that he stashed a substantial sum in a secret bank account SOMEWHERE. Could be Switzerland, Israel, Panama, Singapore - who knows. If he doesn't cooperate, I'm not sure we'll ever find out.

[pansypoo53219]

5. early investers that got out have

some of the money.