Support SIPC in its SEC Case on Stanford
Public Comments (81)
-
Jul 22nd, 2014Someone from Mobile, AL signed.
Jul 13th, 2014Someone from Woodway, TX writes:
You are totally wrong. The CD's were sold by Stanford Group Company located in Houston, Texas. No money ever went o Antigua only into Stanford and Davis's pockets. You are protecting your own--not the investors that SPC was formed to protect.Jan 10th, 2014Someone from Delray Beach, FL signed.
Jan 10th, 2014Someone from Delray Beach, FL signed.
Oct 21st, 2013Someone from New York, NY writes:
SIB was run by Sir Allen Stanford, Antiguan citizen, (until recently) resident, Knight, and largest private employer. SIB was domiciled, chartered, regulated and audited in Antigua, a country so corrupt that the book about it (freely available since published in the mid-80's) is called "Caribbean Time Bomb". Antigua's, "Minister of Justice" was Sir Allen personal lawyer, and since the scheme melted down, Antigua has expropriated investor's property, and taken over Sir Allen's profitable bank (Bank of Antigua) without compensation to the victims. In addition, Antigua has ignored it's extradition treaty with regard to Leroy King, unduobtably because Mr. King will implicate highers up (including two Antiguan Prime Ministers) in the fraud. I fail to see what the US SEC or SIPC has to do with this.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelAug 15th, 2013Someone from Des Plaines, IL signed.
May 9th, 2013Someone from Waynesboro, VA signed.
May 9th, 2013Someone from Waynesboro, VA signed.
Apr 16th, 2013Someone from Coppell, TX writes:
Why wouldn't the brokerage industry want SIPC to protect investors who have their money stolen by SIPC member broker dealers, i.e. Allen Stanford. There were no CDs from a bank in Antigua. The owner of the broker dealer stole the money. That is why the SEC took "the Antiguan bank" into Receivership with the broker dealer in the U.S. The investments weren't just bad, they were never made. Allen Stanford is in jail for making the whole thing up to steal investor funds in a Ponzi scheme. Investors will never have confidence if SIPC doesn't protect them when the broker dealer steals their money instead of buying the securities they were sold. Congress and the securities industry should vehemently support SIPC paying the customers of a registered broker dealer who stole billions of dollars from its customers. That is what SIPC is for!REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelSep 4th, 2012Someone from Katy, TX signed.
Mar 13th, 2012Someone from Santee, CA signed.
Feb 29th, 2012Someone from Winter Park, FL signed.
Feb 25th, 2012Someone from Houston, TX signed.
Feb 24th, 2012Someone from Keller, TX signed.
Feb 24th, 2012Someone from Arlington, TX writes:
The SEC is taking the position that SIPC must provide financial guarantees for investors who chose to purchase CDs issued by an offshore bank in Antigua, rather than securities. Expanding SIPC coverage to investments held outside of a Broker/Dealer would put SIPC's reserve fund at risk. SIPC covered Madoff investors because investors were issued statements showing their assets were held at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. I don't believe Stanford Capital Management, LLC, the registered Broker/Dealer and Investment Adviser of Robert Allen Stanford, was holding anything.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelFeb 24th, 2012Someone from Ballwin, MO signed.
Feb 24th, 2012Someone from West Chester, PA signed.
Feb 24th, 2012Someone from Waltham, MA writes:
SIPC should not pay, SEC is dumping their responsibility once again.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelFeb 24th, 2012Someone from Carmel, IN writes:
If the SEC wins this suit, it will encourage every client that is looking for ways to skirt the system to flirt with unrealistic products. Even if a client thinks it's "too good to be true," they will have the comfort of knowing that "Oh well, even if it is fraud, I'll still get backed up by SIPC. This guy/gal will go to jail, which is fine, but at least I'll be made whole on my money." Sure, this will put a cap on what "smart" investors will put into shady deals...they'll only put what SIPC will insure. This is a dam that, if broken, will allow the fraud waters to flow freely.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelFeb 24th, 2012Someone from Greenwich, CT signed.
Feb 24th, 2012Someone from Beverly Hills, CA signed.
Feb 23rd, 2012Someone from Charlotte, NC writes:
I've read the SEC filing and understand the SIPC position but if you do the research and listen to the testimony, yep SIPC needs to pay up or my clinets will start putting money into the bank brokerage companies. People will not trust the independent broker amnd will look for deeper pockets. SIPc is acting like any health insurance firm looking for excuses to deny coverageREPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelREPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelFeb 23rd, 2012Someone from New York, NY signed.
Feb 23rd, 2012Someone from Amarillo, TX writes:
The SEC suit is such a waste of time and money. SIPC was never intended to cover a bad investment. If so, broker-dealers should be able to advertise that SIPC will cover any investment loss. Mary Schapiro knows this and should be ashamed! This smells like an Obama move, once again, to save people from their own foolish actions and subsequent consequences!REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelFeb 23rd, 2012Someone from Amarillo, TX writes:
The SEC suit is such a waste of time and money. SIPC was never intended to cover a bad investment. If so, broker-dealers should be able to advertise that SIPC will cover any investment loss. Mary Schapiro knows this and should be ashamed! This smells like an Obama move, once again, to save people from their own foolish actions and subsequent consequences!REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelFeb 22nd, 2012Someone from Kokomo, IN signed.
Feb 22nd, 2012Someone from Brookfield, WI signed.
Feb 21st, 2012Someone from Toms River, NJ signed.
Feb 21st, 2012Someone from Little Rock, AR signed.
Feb 21st, 2012Someone from New York, NY writes:
SIPC, by its Charter, is clearly not responsible to reimburse holders of the fraudulent Stanford CD's. For the SEC to try to force SIPC coverage for political gain is an egregious abuse of power.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelFeb 20th, 2012Someone from San Diego, CA signed.
Feb 17th, 2012Someone from Santa Rosa, CA signed.
Feb 17th, 2012Someone from Castle Rock, CO writes:
SIPC is already ripping off broker dealers who do not hold customer assets or funds and making $5000 net capital broker dealers to carry $150,000 fidelity bond thus making us pay for failed broker dealers who do hold client funds and assets instead of having the broker dealers who do hold client funds and assets pay the higher fidelity bond fees.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, CancelFeb 17th, 2012Someone from Pittsburgh, PA writes:
SIPC is a non-profit, non-government, membership corporation, funded by member broker-dealers, therefore the SEC should not be able to direct payments outside SIPC's stated coverage.REPORT COMMENTS
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.
No, Cancel
Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.