1. Charles Ponzi was a working-class Italian immigrant who was eager to find success in America. Bernard Madoff was already a multimillionaire before he started his scheme. Does that make one more unethical than the other? Why or why not? Ethics is the set of rules that we live by as a person, looking at what we feel what is right or wrong and how we behave toward other people. This set of ethics standards are usually acquire by the way that we are brought up, the culture and customs that we are more related, and finally the set of values that show how we behave around others; for example Ponzi coming from a working immigrant class family, it would most likely to have the dream that every person that comes to the United States to is to make
…show more content…
Ethics is not measure by a percentage is the set of values and way that a person conducts him in anything they do, especially when it got to do with the livelihood of other person. Ponzi’s 50% was a unreal it was one that investors could not pass out, especially when they start receiving the dividends from their inversions that made them more incline to keep on give more money into Ponzi hands. Ponzi On Madoff case the percentage that he was advertising was not as high as the one that Ponzi did but still was highly unusual because 10- 18 % is still high enough for people to be interested but not that high that was going to raise red flags. Madoff was more careful to stay under the radar of the SEC and when they did look at him he found a way to get out of trouble, Madoff unethical ways of doing financial investments were so well disguise that it took the SEC over 20 years to find the way that he was stilling money and laundering it within his own …show more content…
I think as an investor you have to be on top of what is going on with your money; you cannot just trust that the investor is going to have the ethical way of doing business; sometimes they show you their code of ethics which are the “companies’ written standards of ethical behavior that are design to guide managers and employees in making the decisions and choices they face every day” (Ghillyer, pg. 26, 2014). Any good investor would check up the firm or person who is going to be handling their money and not just read their code of ethics, because that is just a document that some organizations do not even look at them, another thing that they should have done was to follow up on the findings that “Boston-based money manager Henry Markopoulos had written an 18-page letter to the SEC in 2005 identifying 29 different red flags about Madoff’s operation, basically questioning the mathematical improbability of such solid returns year after years and suggesting that only way to achieve those returns was to either trade on insider information or create a totally fictitious trading record”(Ghilyer, pg. 133, 2014). If the investors would have made the SEC to investigate deeper into the findings that the Mr. Markopoulos turn in to the SEC, then it would have raise some flags and the investors that were
Ethics is not measure by a percentage is the set of values and way that a person conducts him in anything they do, especially when it got to do with the livelihood of other person. Ponzi’s 50% was a unreal it was one that investors could not pass out, especially when they start receiving the dividends from their inversions that made them more incline to keep on give more money into Ponzi hands. Ponzi On Madoff case the percentage that he was advertising was not as high as the one that Ponzi did but still was highly unusual because 10- 18 % is still high enough for people to be interested but not that high that was going to raise red flags. Madoff was more careful to stay under the radar of the SEC and when they did look at him he found a way to get out of trouble, Madoff unethical ways of doing financial investments were so well disguise that it took the SEC over 20 years to find the way that he was stilling money and laundering it within his own …show more content…
I think as an investor you have to be on top of what is going on with your money; you cannot just trust that the investor is going to have the ethical way of doing business; sometimes they show you their code of ethics which are the “companies’ written standards of ethical behavior that are design to guide managers and employees in making the decisions and choices they face every day” (Ghillyer, pg. 26, 2014). Any good investor would check up the firm or person who is going to be handling their money and not just read their code of ethics, because that is just a document that some organizations do not even look at them, another thing that they should have done was to follow up on the findings that “Boston-based money manager Henry Markopoulos had written an 18-page letter to the SEC in 2005 identifying 29 different red flags about Madoff’s operation, basically questioning the mathematical improbability of such solid returns year after years and suggesting that only way to achieve those returns was to either trade on insider information or create a totally fictitious trading record”(Ghilyer, pg. 133, 2014). If the investors would have made the SEC to investigate deeper into the findings that the Mr. Markopoulos turn in to the SEC, then it would have raise some flags and the investors that were