Wiping out my savings is one thing. Wiping out Bubbie and Zadie's is something else entirely

based on today's NY Times article *http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/business/15palm.html), Madoff would not even consider taking you on as a client unless you had at least $1 million in assets to invest with Madoff.
.
Bubbie and Zadie may have to downsize somewhat (sell that Palm Beach residence and moving to Boca will give them a nice big chunk of new cash), but they aren't going to be suffering. Your wealthy correspondent should save his pity for auto workers and people who would never come close to qualifying to invest with Madoff....

The Washington Post says this morning that about 70% of people are hit, not a surprising number with so many people losing jobs and considering that the 50% of Americans who have stocks lost some money. But Madoff is adding insult to injury and it is a blow to many charitable institutions. I disagree with Plukasiak: having money is not a sin (I do not have any, but I do not recommend it). I care for all people who have a hard time, their original social status should not matter to us.

I disagree with Plukasiak: having money is not a sin (I do not have any, but I do not recommend it). I care for all people who have a hard time, their original social status should not matter to us.
.
my point is that the Zadies and Bubbies affected by the Madoff fraud are not experiencing 'hard times' -- these are people who will be left with substantial assets even if they had all their "cash" invested with Madoff.
.
I'm far more worried about the middle and lower middle class people who bought into Wall Street's Big Lie -- that stocks were always the best long-term investment, and have watched as their 401Ks have tanked. Wealthy people aren't going to suffer -- they will be merely inconvenienced.

Justin Fox, you are right as usual. A small independent businessman has to scrape a lot of money to get a decent pension, and the invested money represents a lot of sacrifices. We cant shred off an independent house painter or the owner of a small wine shop any more than an autoworker. Once again, it is not my case: I got a small civil servant pension from Europe which is shrinking with the exchange rate and I can see the bad tide coming in (my choice though, no complaint). Plus, the real rich people that Plukasiak is thinking about probably did not lose any money at all: Bill Gates, for instance, said that much recently.

While Madoff may have had a $1 million minimum for investments in his fund, the "feeder funds" that took Bubbie and Zadie's money and gave it to Madoff may have had much lower minimums. The Bubbies and Zadies probably had to meet the SEC "accredited investor" standard of $1 million minimum net worth in order to invest in the feeder funds, but that is not exactly a high threshold these days (or at least it wasn't when houses were worth more).
--
But on the other hand, the subscription documents for a private investment offering (such as Madoff's fund or the feeder funds) often include a representation from the investor along these lines: "The investor is in a financial position to withstand loss of his or her entire investment in this fund." If only the investors had taken those representations seriously.

Justin...
since you seem to find no difference between (approximately) $526,000 and a million, please forward me the "irrelevant" near half million dollars. I'll set up a Nigerian bank account for our mutual convenience.