A. Stanford has apparently been found guilty of running one. Any idea what the punishment is likely to be down in Texas? Usually harsh down that way.

Apparently, could be up to 20 years for the most serious offence or longer if judge decides he should serve consecutive rather than concurrent terms for the various offences.

Bum sex with Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie?

The US needs 'smaller government' and less regulation.

Apparantly.

What a wonderful image



Maybe they should start clapping a few more bankers and corporate shysters in irons, that may concentrate their minds a little

The UK is too soft. IMO Goodwin should have been brought to book.

They took away his knighthood. Hasn't he suffered enough?

Running a Ponzi scheme is a tad different from being useless. What's amazing about this and others is just how long these schemes run for, and how many suckers they can get to invest.

It is/was the system. If we don't change that, we'll get the same sort of behaviour from similar types of people. The reason the bankers behaved that way was not because they were mad or bad (they may have been, but that is rather beside the point), but because that behaviour was incentivised.

Retrospective revenge is shutting the gate after the horse has bolted and won't prevent a repeat - which is the crucial thing. Indeed, my fear would be that people would think it has been dealt with and move on.

I have actually met someone, one of Mrs D's cronies, who was caught by this one! Anyone who thinks 20% per month returns are to be consistently had is silly. It all comes down to greed - these people sell to greedy fantasists who think they can get rich(er) quickly.