re: Stanford Financial Houston office's raided

that's why i had to question it

it just doesn't make sense

BR is one of the worst "rumor" towns ever also

*ETA: i definitely started a rumor mongering thread on the rant though

code 1 and code 2...don't feel so bad

code 3....yeesh. no surety or agency really, lots of UCC9 (which i never learned really. i just know the term PSMI is great)

torts...nothing really to say

LACCP....ouch

BA/NI....new tester = easy as frick

quote:

---

How could an attorney put money in a "CD" that was paying 10% and was custodied in Antigua and ever do business again?

---

They would steer their clients to Stanford and Stanford would spread their legal work among the law firms. Quid pro quo.

quote:

---

They would steer their clients to Stanford and Stanford would spread their legal work among the law firms. Quid pro quo.

---

That's the situation I was envisioning.

Interesting picture:

[link=( https://www.law.lsu.edu/index.cfm?geaux=galleries.showgalleryimage&gallery=1000000027&galleryImageName=1000000027_0019.jpg)]LINK[/link]

quote:

---

I'm hearing it is much closer to 1.7 billion in the BR region.

---

So you are claiming almost 1/4th of Stanford's Ponzi scheme (a firm head quartered in Houston with major operations in Miami and Latin America) was with BR money.

I doubt it.

quote:

---

if it's $1B

---

I'll take the under big time.

quote:

---

that is still going to be some major shite for BR

---

A figure much lower than $1B would cause major shite for BR.

That said I wouldn't be opposed to picking up some land for cheap.

That CCLA quote is very true. There are posers galore out there.

I've seen the term "Ponzi scheme" thrown around alot in this thread and in numerous articles... but is that even a fair label at this point? Stanford was obviously misrepresenting these these securities as CD's, which were marketed through the Houston broker-dealer, but has anything been revealed to show that these assets were in fact "underwater"? It's a moot point now as the regulators have now thrown the bank into receivership and all but guaranteed that investors eat substantial losses.

Further,I find it a little odd that Stanford, a relatively obscure and small bank, has been garnering so much press and attention over this. Obviously, Allen Stanford's larger-than-life persona has contributes to the story's press-worthiness - but I just don't follow the regulators' logic of pursuing Stanford while "big banks" have systematically destroyed the dollar and buried us under a mountain of debt. Yet BOA, Wells Fargo, Chase, etc. are all rewarded with billions of dollars and Stanford gets stuck with a subpoena and an order to liquidate.

My two cents...