NY Times article on Madoff misleads...and worse
When the Feds locked Bernie Madoff away in a Federal prison in Atlanta, GA, it reminded me of an article by Joe Nocera, a New York Times financial journalist. The article focused on the Madoff vicitms who feel the government should do more to help them. It rightly pointed out that many people have been victimized by Ponzi Schemes, and most get little or nothing back after the swindles are uncovered.
However, the article makes a few statements that, frankly, minimize the Madoff scheme. At one point, the author states that nobody who actually took the time to kick the tires invested with Madoff. He further states that no "serious" institutional investors or endowments invested with Madoff. This is simply not true.
Large private banks, here, in Europe and in South America, gave their blessing to Madoff. He had relationships with the major Investment Banks, who did business with his broker-dealer operation. And the endowments of some large universities invested with him as well. Many of their investment committees were made up of "serious" financial professionals.
This sort of sloppy talk minimizes the size and impact of Madoff's crimes. It makes it sound like if only you had paid attention, you wouldn't have invested. The title of the article is: Madoff had Accomplices: His Victims.
Nocera clearly got carried away with himself. Was it due to a lack of knowledge of the facts, incompetence, or the desire to write something sensational to break through the blizzard of Madoff coverage that has almost numbed his readers?
In any case, there is no excuse for this sort of journalism. He falsely reports the facts, then draws false conclusions.
The victims do carry things too far by demanding (some of them) the government create a "fund" to compensate them for their losses. But you have to understand that these are the words of distraught people and leave it at that. Making things up in order to sensationalize the story is inexcusable.
An old lesson reinforced: don't believe everything you read (or see or hear). And these days you can't reinforce that lesson enough.
However, the article makes a few statements that, frankly, minimize the Madoff scheme. At one point, the author states that nobody who actually took the time to kick the tires invested with Madoff. He further states that no "serious" institutional investors or endowments invested with Madoff. This is simply not true.
Large private banks, here, in Europe and in South America, gave their blessing to Madoff. He had relationships with the major Investment Banks, who did business with his broker-dealer operation. And the endowments of some large universities invested with him as well. Many of their investment committees were made up of "serious" financial professionals.
This sort of sloppy talk minimizes the size and impact of Madoff's crimes. It makes it sound like if only you had paid attention, you wouldn't have invested. The title of the article is: Madoff had Accomplices: His Victims.
Nocera clearly got carried away with himself. Was it due to a lack of knowledge of the facts, incompetence, or the desire to write something sensational to break through the blizzard of Madoff coverage that has almost numbed his readers?
In any case, there is no excuse for this sort of journalism. He falsely reports the facts, then draws false conclusions.
The victims do carry things too far by demanding (some of them) the government create a "fund" to compensate them for their losses. But you have to understand that these are the words of distraught people and leave it at that. Making things up in order to sensationalize the story is inexcusable.
An old lesson reinforced: don't believe everything you read (or see or hear). And these days you can't reinforce that lesson enough.
Comments