bluemonday Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Todays Sunday Times Clicky BARCLAYS Bank recommended that wealthy clients should pour money into Bernard Madoff’s funds, describing the $50 billion Ponzi scheme as an “attractive opportunity”. Details of the endorsement of Madoff’s scheme are contained in a letter written by Kevin Lecocq, chief investment officer at Barclays Wealth, the bank’s private client arm. The letter, written in December 2008 to justify the bank’s actions, is one of masses of documents being assembled by British investors planning to sue UK banks and fund managers over investment advice. Lecocq said: “Having submitted Fairfield and Madoff to our comprehensive due diligence programme, we concluded that this fund was an attractive opportunity for our clients. The London-based law firm Edwin Coe has been approached by 50 British investors with combined losses of at least £136m as a result of the Madoff collapse. One has lost about £37m. David Greene, head of litigation at Edwin Coe, said his clients would decide in the next few weeks whether to launch legal action in Britain or join a similar action in the United States. Greene said: “It is becoming clear from investigations in America that there were no real investments at all. So how would it be possible for anyone to do due diligence on the fund, as Barclays say they did?” A spokeswoman for Barclays Wealth declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Barclays Wealth declined to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Absolute tossers, the lot of them! The warnings were there from history. An American famously performed the same scam years ago, but it just shows how blind greed is. The fools who fell for this have only themselves to blame in my opinion. A bit like the short sellers in the Porsche take over of Volkswagen Group, they couldn't see beyond their own greed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurashima Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Is there ANYONE competent still working at Barclays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 you mean there were some then.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Royal Bank of Scotland executives want to give big bonuses to their GBM investment arm. It just so happens that GBM's results are £3 billion under target according to the last RBS trading statement - in part due to a big investment in Madoff's scheme. I gather that at RBS if you are relatively senior whatever you do is counted as outstanding performance - so a group of executives who can wipe 97% off the value of one of the UK's largest companies could count that as outstanding - outstandingly bad - but the performance bonus word is in there so pay them £1 billion. And they try to justify it on the grounds that they are 'legally obligated' to pay bonuses. So the UK taxpayers should withdraw their funds and say 'go for it lads'. I doubt that an insolvent bank with capital worth as much as Anglo-Irish would be 'legally obligated'. "Just check with the administrator lads"... And that is how they would end up without being bailed out. I just hope that the UK Government has 'ring-fenced' taxpayers capital so that it can't be used for this purpose - only the shareholders' dramatically diminished capital. Thank goodness I have no shares in UK banks - otherwise I would either be having a seizure or a word with the Real IRA. They are so incompetent that they can't see that they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 you find a lot of company invested in to this fund, i know of one company that invested about the tune of 300 million of ppl cash into it it was a well planned fund, who was to know it was a fake, it was set up that well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 you find a lot of company invested in to this fund, i know of one company that invested about the tune of 300 million of ppl cash into it it was a well planned fund, who was to know it was a fake, it was set up that well Lots of people suspected it was fake, Gazza. Read the Christmas issue of the Economist, page 20. "The outgoing head of the SEC has admitted the commission made a hash of the Madoff case, failing to act on warnings made nearly a decade ago." The problem with Barclays is that they totaly failled to do any due diligence at all. Had they done so, they would have realised that the fund was a charade. Several firms DID investigate Madoff, and they advised their clients to steer clear. The difficulty with all these people suing the banks is that the tax-payer is going to end up footing the bill. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 You're full of smug hindsight, aren't you Sebrof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 You're full of smug hindsight, aren't you Sebrof? Smug? How so? I simply pointed out that other people (not me - I'd never heard of him) saw through Madoff. How does that constitute smugness or hindsight, or do you just resent the fact that some people are better informed than you are? Quite a lot of people, I suspect. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurashima Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Actually , im with Sebrof on this one. Madoffs fund was based on the Wall St belief that someone who was head of the NASDAQ , and had decades of experience within the sector, could indeed be the man who could providing ever improving returns in a market with ever decreasing returns. A lot of his funds were based on the whispering at high society functions along the lines of "Im in this fund, but we dont just offer anyone a spot" , hence the number of high value casualties rather than Joe Bloggs who invested his £50k life savings. The warnings had been there, as Sebrof says, for almost a decade, but the fact was , the SEC didnt get a single OFFICIAL complaint, and whilst various people whispered they thought it was a scam (but couldnt put it in writing , since one of the wealthiest and most influential men on Wall Street gets wind youre bad mouthing him, and your career in the finance industry is over, not to mention youll be sued to within an inch of your life) nobody could even blog that they thought something might be dodgy. The sympathy level for those who are currently sueing Barclays is minimal. You have £37m , you have enough to live your life without worrying about money, and to gamble it all and spectacularly fail is the ultimate Gordon Gecko "Greed is Good" irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I've got a creeping feeling that capitalism in general is basically a ponzi scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 stupid people dont make millions and thats a fact.. .. some may inherit millions tho. so it really is amazing how stupid they can be once they have grafted all that money out of life.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Details of the endorsement of Madoff’s scheme are contained in a letter written by Kevin Lecocq, chief investment officer at Barclays Wealth, the bank’s private client arm. Sounds like Kevin Le Complete Cock if you ask me. A few words instantly spring to mind COMMISSION, COMMISSION, COMMISSION and COMMISSION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Smug? How so? I simply pointed out that other people (not me - I'd never heard of him) saw through Madoff. How does that constitute smugness or hindsight, or do you just resent the fact that some people are better informed than you are? Quite a lot of people, I suspect. I'm pretty well informed on this actually. I agree that Barclays could have done more, but lots of people were taken in by this and trusted the people who should have known what was going on, like the US regulator for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Smug? How so? I simply pointed out that other people (not me - I'd never heard of him) saw through Madoff. How does that constitute smugness or hindsight, or do you just resent the fact that some people are better informed than you are? Quite a lot of people, I suspect. I'm pretty well informed on this actually. I agree that Barclays could have done more, but lots of people were taken in by this and trusted the people who should have known what was going on, like the US regulator for example. How does that address my question? Or are you saying I should not comment on any financial matter? But thank you for the breathtaking insight that "lots of people were taken in". I look forward to more of your incisive analysis in future. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.