www.CostaRicaTicas.com

There WERE relatively innocent victims of the Madoff scam, as it wasn't just Big Bucks Bozo individuals that invested; also investing were other investment companies (some of whom disregarded their investor's instructions to only invest in safe harbors), pension funds and all those small fry that put their money with bundlers with no knowledge of where that money was going. Woulda, coulda shoulda. Some measure of empathy is due some of the victims--give it up, Brother.

As usual Florida your post starts out making some reasonable points and then degenerates into an insulting diatribe directed at those who you disagree with.

May be you should try in 2010 to become a better person and stop trying to cause flame wars on the board.

Have a Merry Christmas and and a Happy New year.

What Steven1 said...As a wise man once said,"The only thing we learn from history is...we don't learn from history."

It's obvious no one else on this board (or probably the rest of the world) is smart as you Steven1 so you don't have to keep rubbing it in.

...like jake holman said.. "i was almost home"

dude, please.

I have no direct experience with the Villalobos fiasco, but neither have many of the critics of investors who put their money in, and for many years got 36% per year out of the Villalobos fund.

I am not saying I would have invested in this scheme, had I been in Costa Rica before 2003, but neither do I agree with those who – with the perfect vision of hindsight – dismiss those investors as foolish, greedy, and not too smart.

Let's be fair and see this scheme as it appeared before the collapse.

I am told that Villalobos would not explain how he made such a high returns, telling investors to trust him or go home. So investors, encouraged by reports from other investors that the returns had been paid without fail for years, invested blindly, and hopefully.

Did 36% returns make them "greedy"? What's a "non-greedy" expectation, then? 2%? In his book on Costa Rica back in 2001 Chris Howard explained the Villalobos returns in a way that made it seem like a factoring fund, lending for short terms to good businesses that did not have time or patience to arrange bank financing.

Factoring funds routinely make more than 20% per year; leveraged buyouts and initial public offerings make a lot of money too for investors willing to accept the risk. As well, there was no evidence that this was a Ponzi scheme, so investing with Villalobos was not as foolhardy as hindsight convinces us it was.

And what are the disappointed investors asking for? Total reimbursement from the government (hence all taxpayers)? Not at all; as I understand it, the CR government confiscated several millions of dollars when it closed the Villalobos down, and THAT money – investors' money – is what is being claimed, nothing more. Since the CR government has NOT proven any wrongdoing by Villalobos, whence comes their right to confiscate the money?

This is the issue: can a government allege (but not prove) wrongdoing, and in the process confiscate private money? The event that prompted the CR government investigation of Villalobos in the first place was an investigation by the RCMP (Canadian police), and that investigation was subsequently dropped for lack of evidence. The Villalobos investors are claiming only their own money, in light of no evidence of wrongdoing.

At least these are the facts as I understand them. I'd love to hear from knowledgeable people, but no ill-informed moralists, please.**