The SEC is dumb as hell

[Ed Anger]

If they were any good, they'd be in the NFL.

I dunno, seems nobody ever goes straight from high school to the pros in football. I think it's because no matter how good their skills are, their body just isn't strong enough at that age. They need a few more years lifting weights to compete with the other freaks.

The NFL doesn't allow a jump from HS to the NFL.

[saskganesh]

If they were any good, they'd be in the NFL.

I dunno, seems nobody ever goes straight from high school to the pros in football. I think it's because no matter how good their skills are, their body just isn't strong enough at that age. They need a few more years lifting weights to compete with the other freaks.

excepting the truely gifted, most pro athletes are made and not born. even if you are drafted, a lot of the right things have to happen in order to become a regular at the highest level. this is why good teams always seem to find good players in later rounds: they are good at development and development is crucial.

[The Minsky Moment]

"Despite numerous credible and detailed complaints, the SEC never properly examined or investigated Madoff's trading and never took the necessary, but basic, steps to determine if Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme," Kotz wrote.

I'd think that this at least should have prompted the SEC to investigate, or if they aren't the ones who do so, then they should have been able to get the proper authority to investigate.

The reason why the SEC failed to detect the ponzi scheme in this investigation is that they were looking for something else.

For many years, people had cast doubt on Madoff's trading strategy.  The defense of Madoff's boosters (Madoff himself was always craftily silent and aloof about this) was that the detractors either didn't understand the strategy or couldn't implement it properly becuase they weren't sophisticated pros like Madoff with their own dedicated brokerage to do the trading.  The skeptics -- and this in part includes even the great Markapolous -- alleged that this was all BS and was a cover for a front-running scheme (ie Madoff was making money for his fund investors by trading ahead of his brokerage customers).

Part of the problem I think the SEC faced is that they just didn't have the expertise and knowledge to make an effective assessment as to the feasibility of the "split-strike" strategy Madoff allegedly operated.  But an even bigger problem was that most of the tips were pointing them in the wrong direction - b/c a front running scheme is a very different animal from a Ponzi scheme, and someone investigating the former is going to look at very different things than someone looking at the latter.

[alfred russel]

"Despite numerous credible and detailed complaints, the SEC never properly examined or investigated Madoff's trading and never took the necessary, but basic, steps to determine if Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme," Kotz wrote.

I'd think that this at least should have prompted the SEC to investigate, or if they aren't the ones who do so, then they should have been able to get the proper authority to investigate.

The reason why the SEC failed to detect the ponzi scheme in this investigation is that they were looking for something else.

For many years, people had cast doubt on Madoff's trading strategy.  The defense of Madoff's boosters (Madoff himself was always craftily silent and aloof about this) was that the detractors either didn't understand the strategy or couldn't implement it properly becuase they weren't sophisticated pros like Madoff with their own dedicated brokerage to do the trading.  The skeptics -- and this in part includes even the great Markapolous -- alleged that this was all BS and was a cover for a front-running scheme (ie Madoff was making money for his fund investors by trading ahead of his brokerage customers).

Part of the problem I think the SEC faced is that they just didn't have the expertise and knowledge to make an effective assessment as to the feasibility of the "split-strike" strategy Madoff allegedly operated.  But an even bigger problem was that most of the tips were pointing them in the wrong direction - b/c a front running scheme is a very different animal from a Ponzi scheme, and someone investigating the former is going to look at very different things than someone looking at the latter.

That said, a cursory review by someone with a clue should have sent off alarm bells.