In order for scheme to work, Madoff would have needed the new investments coming in to cover the net redemptions. So in your hypothetical model, the $0.5 billion every year for 20 years would be the "net" new money coming in. So, let's say $1 billion in real money came in every year in new money (for 20 years), and $0.5 billion went towards redemption (say 5% redemption on average portfolio size of $10 billion for the 20 years), leaving $0.5 billon in net new money coming in every year.
So the principal money at stake is significantly larger than what you have assumed in the hypothetical scenario. Most of the $50 billion WAS NOT phantom gains and did in fact exist at some point. I would hazard a guess that probably closer to $30 billion of it was real people's money.
Sort by:
Latest | Highest ratedWhere Is Madoff's $50 Billion? [View article]
In order for scheme to work, Madoff would have needed the new investments coming in to cover the net redemptions. So in your hypothetical model, the $0.5 billion every year for 20 years would be the "net" new money coming in. So, let's say $1 billion in real money came in every year in new money (for 20 years), and $0.5 billion went towards redemption (say 5% redemption on average portfolio size of $10 billion for the 20 years), leaving $0.5 billon in net new money coming in every year.
So the principal money at stake is significantly larger than what you have assumed in the hypothetical scenario. Most of the $50 billion WAS NOT phantom gains and did in fact exist at some point. I would hazard a guess that probably closer to $30 billion of it was real people's money.