southparkcpa Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 21 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said: 1. Buy BRK 2. Hold There. I just saved everybody a point and a blowjob. But I want a blowjob.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 8 hours ago, southparkcpa said: The fraud aside... the LARGE houses you speak of have some of the worst advisors. Young, aggressive, commission driven. They use funds recommended by the firm. the firm receives back door fees from these fund companies. I would add, any mutual fund with an expense ratio above .65 should be avoided. I'm not advocating for their non-brilliance. Only that if I, as a client said I want low risk and they put me in high risk behind my back, that I would/could recover my losses. Being purposefully vague here, but (though it wasn't me) I'm very familiar with an instance where this very thing happened. It was at a household name large house. I'm familiar with those types of funds with the types of exorbitant mgmt fees that average investor is blind to even being there. Not even counting any other potential behind the scenes "incentives" that aren't published in the prospectus. It's disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanTX Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 I'm not advocating for their non-brilliance. Only that if I, as a client said I want low risk and they put me in high risk behind my back, that I would/could recover my losses. That depends on the type of investment contract you signed. If you agree and sign to a discretionary account, the advisor/broker can trade at will and basically do anything he/she wants to do. If you sign a non-discretionary account, the advisor/broker can not do anything without your verbal/written authorization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rex-n-effect Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 6 hours ago, PatsFanTX said: Good call, and once FINRA adopts the same rules for non-qualified accounts, commissioned sales will be a thing of the past. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. Hell, I'm not even confident the DOL rule will survive judicial scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 5 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said: That depends on the type of investment contract you signed. If you agree and sign to a discretionary account, the advisor/broker can trade at will and basically do anything he/she wants to do. If you sign a non-discretionary account, the advisor/broker can not do anything without your verbal/written authorization. I'm not speaking to picking winning or losers in hindsight. If I sign something that says I want limited risk/exposure and someone invests my money in an inappropriate class of funds (or whatever risky purchases) it is more than merely actionable. But yes, if I said you have full discretion within the equities portion of my portfolio, then sucks to be me if I don't like it in hindsight, even if the investment house had the funds to make me whole again (which this scumbag surely does not have). This is different altogether, if Mark is to be believed. Or anyway, it would seem at least somewhat non-discretionary, if he said it was ok to go in for $100K of his account. It suggests he was being asked. Further, the other allegations are that signatures were forged. If he was at a big bank or large house he'd get that back. It's such bad publicity, what with these guys being famous, that it would never make the papers and would have already been settled to avoid such embarrassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 1 hour ago, The Crusher said: Simple, predictable but still well played. LOL did the thread really go 3 pages without someone calling it a buttfumble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, neckdemon said: did the thread really go 3 pages without someone calling it a buttfumble? Since this marked the top of page 4, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighPitch Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 I have no idea what bat you guys are talking about. Zero! TX teach me about this world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanTX Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 I'm not speaking to picking winning or losers in hindsight. If I sign something that says I want limited risk/exposure and someone invests my money in an inappropriate class of funds (or whatever risky purchases) it is more than merely actionable. But yes, if I said you have full discretion within the equities portion of my portfolio, then sucks to be me if I don't like it in hindsight, even if the investment house had the funds to make me whole again (which this scumbag surely does not have). This is different altogether, if Mark is to be believed. Or anyway, it would seem at least somewhat non-discretionary, if he said it was ok to go in for $100K of his account. It suggests he was being asked. Further, the other allegations are that signatures were forged. If he was at a big bank or large house he'd get that back. It's such bad publicity, what with these guys being famous, that it would never make the papers and would have already been settled to avoid such embarrassment. There are only two ways Sanchez got screwed on that investment: 1) He signed a discretionary contract. 2) He was a victim of fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 31 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said: There are only two ways Sanchez got screwed on that investment: 1) He signed a discretionary contract. 2) He was a victim of fraud. Ultimately the way he got screwed was giving someone else the keys to his safe and saying "Please don't steal any of my stuff." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 2 hours ago, HighPitch said: I have no idea what bat you guys are talking about. Zero! TX teach me about this world It's like anything else. The margins on ripping the clients' eyeballs out diminish over time so lazy people get up to malarkey. Pretty much sums up the legal profession too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 they should just invest in car washes like oak man did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Mostro Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 11 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said: What kind of company is it? It's called Sendrax. They've got some new kind of technique for televising opera. Some sort of electronic thingy. What could go wrong? Still funny stuff after all these years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard King Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 13 hours ago, southparkcpa said: No , I simply dont want/think its appropriate to discuss business on a JETS site. I have no other methods. Its 1 percent and it is less as the account is above certain levels. Lol I only asked because you brought it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack48 Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I feel bad for Sancho. This guy flat out lied about what he would do with the money. A lot of guys give their money to money managers without specific instructions. Apparently, Mark told him only 100 grand on sports ticket companies. Scary investment either way, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no psls Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 Don't worry about Mark ; this is how he spends his down time ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Madoff Whistleblower Warns of 3 New Ponzi Schemes, 1 Bigger than Bernie's http://time.com/money/4209599/bernie-madoff-new-ponzi-schemes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet9 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, TuscanyTile2 said: Madoff Whistleblower Warns of 3 New Ponzi Schemes, 1 Bigger than Bernie's http://time.com/money/4209599/bernie-madoff-new-ponzi-schemes/ Is one of them Social Security? *Sorry Max, low hanging fruit and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetophile Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Funny, I was reading about Madoff some time back, and he's still cavalier and unfazed about his crimes. One son hung himself, the other kicked the pail in the clink, he ruined tons of people, and he flat out doesn't give a rat's ass. He pretends that he's sorry, he pretends to care about any of it is my take. He's not getting out, so paying lip service doesn't help him one way or the other. That level of sociopathy is amazing to me. Scamming is as old as modern man, which essentially goes back 600,000 years. Ain't changing any time soon. How 'bout never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.05f3dc52804d5fd84cf09ccfcd7bd10b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.