I can accept that Santander was a victim of Madoff, and so was Fairfield, and so were thousands of others all adding up supposedly to $50bn. But what Santander has to do, what Fairfield has to do and what all other financial institutions who made a lot of fees and commissions from selling Madoff products is to return these fees to their customers. Even if these fees cut the losses from 100% to 98% it will mean a lot to those who lost everything. Moreover while I accept that those who were selling Madoff products were victims they are also negligent in the sense that they did not really do a good due dilligence on Madoff´s operations as others did.
Here´s Emilio Botín, considered by many the world´s smartest banker explaining in broken English how if you don´t understand an instrument you should not sell it or buy it.
Follow Martin Varsavsky on Twitter: twitter.com/martinvars
No Comments
yani on December 16, 2008 ·
Martin
you are asking for something that would require a drastic change of current practices. As you could see with Lehman, where the CEO got the 3 digit bonus and could care less about the bankruptcy (except for his networth going from billion to nil), we are living in a world where morale, legitimacy is worth a penny- where it’s just a question of whether it’s legally correct.
An idea of how to achieve an ‘atmosphere’ change where these entities would feel the pressure to give at least some of that money back?
neoyorquina on December 16, 2008 ·
This was a fraud that was executed on a massive, unprecedented scale. We can blame the SEC, banks, lack of regulation, etc. for this disaster but a much simpler solution would be for those investors who lost money to look in the mirror. Let’s face it, the key to Bernie Madoff’s success was his ability to cater to the greed of individuals. He was turning investors away, that’s how many people wanted to get a piece of his action.
Madoff was posting consistent gains while the market was down. He never seemed to ever have a bad quarter or a bad year. Year after year he posted steady returns that made his clients consider him to be as “safe” an investment as investing in U.S. Treasuries. C’mon!! Any seasoned, intelligent investor knows that is just not possible.
The axiom “if it looks too good to be true it probably is” is more relevant than ever.
If a few of these big time bankers had stopped to ask themselves how on earth was it possible that Madoff was able to be so consistently good, with never a down quarter EVER in 30 YEARS they would’ve stopped themselves from investing. Yeah, sure, give us more regulation and more financial investment oversight, but first let’s start advocating that people start using more common sense.
Niko on December 16, 2008 ·
Isn’t it ironic………?
How ironic Botin’s video, in the context of Madoff. Botin claiming to not buying products he does not understand and not lending money to people he does not know and trust, while at the same time buying products from Madoff. Not very reasuring!
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jac on December 15, 2008 ·
Impressive ! Where was the SEC ? and the ratings copanies ?
I would also ask not just for refund of fee but compensation for “unmotivated fees” . .. What work these financial insitutions can justify in this and other many cases ? Just file handling ? Too expensive!!