Essay example --

The Civil Rights is a very important time in American history. It all began when the African Americans became free from slavery. African Americans began to protest unjust laws and to promote equal rights. African Americans struggled for racial equality in the 1950’s to 1960’s. After the Civil War many southern states continued to treat African Americans as second class citizens. The Jim Crow Laws was formed to keep Black people separated from white people. The United States Supreme Court struck down segregation in the public schools in 1954. Segregation was every where, African Americans had to drink out of separate water fountains, use separate bathrooms, sit in the back of the bus, and many other things. This put the African American population economically and politically powerless. The movement therefore addressed primarily three areas of discrimination: education, voting rights, and social segregation. The Jim Crow Laws passed in the south that kept black people separate from white people. This law caused social segregation in schools, restaurants, restrooms, and transportation. Also African Americans were not allowed to go to beaches, swimming pools, parks, and many hospitals. This created a racial an exclusive social class system in America. By 1914 the laws created two sides one black and one white. The African Americans could not ride together in the same rail car, and sit and the same theatre. There were laws enforced to prevent African Americans from voting. During the 1900’s African Americans started to protest the Jim Crow Laws that forced segregation. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People also known as the NAACP was formed, several African Americans leaders like... ...changes in the way African Americans were treated in America. It wasn't just that he became the leader of the civil rights movement that made him so unique it was the way he led the movement. Martin Luther King Jr. advocated civil disobedience, the Civil Rights activists organized demonstration, marches, boycotts, strikes, and voter registration drives. The results of the civil rights movement made possible for more freedom in the united states during slavery and segregation. Many people have made great sacrifices for the fight of civil rights. The civil rights movement has also meant that African Americans and other ethnic minorities have equal rights and can now have equal opportunities as white people this is highlighted by obama being the president of america when 50 years ago he would have not have go to the same school as the white people. Essay example -- The Civil Rights is a very important time in American history. It all began when the African Americans became free from slavery. African Americans began to protest unjust laws and to promote equal rights. African Americans struggled for racial equality in the 1950’s to 1960’s. After the Civil War many southern states continued to treat African Americans as second class citizens. The Jim Crow Laws was formed to keep Black people separated from white people. The United States Supreme Court struck down segregation in the public schools in 1954. Segregation was every where, African Americans had to drink out of separate water fountains, use separate bathrooms, sit in the back of the bus, and many other things. This put the African American population economically and politically powerless. The movement therefore addressed primarily three areas of discrimination: education, voting rights, and social segregation. The Jim Crow Laws passed in the south that kept black people separate from white people. This law caused social segregation in schools, restaurants, restrooms, and transportation. Also African Americans were not allowed to go to beaches, swimming pools, parks, and many hospitals. This created a racial an exclusive social class system in America. By 1914 the laws created two sides one black and one white. The African Americans could not ride together in the same rail car, and sit and the same theatre. There were laws enforced to prevent African Americans from voting. During the 1900’s African Americans started to protest the Jim Crow Laws that forced segregation. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People also known as the NAACP was formed, several African Americans leaders like... ...changes in the way African Americans were treated in America. It wasn't just that he became the leader of the civil rights movement that made him so unique it was the way he led the movement. Martin Luther King Jr. advocated civil disobedience, the Civil Rights activists organized demonstration, marches, boycotts, strikes, and voter registration drives. The results of the civil rights movement made possible for more freedom in the united states during slavery and segregation. Many people have made great sacrifices for the fight of civil rights. The civil rights movement has also meant that African Americans and other ethnic minorities have equal rights and can now have equal opportunities as white people this is highlighted by obama being the president of america when 50 years ago he would have not have go to the same school as the white people.

Comparing The Foresyte Saga Essay

Both extracts explore the theme of adultery and extreme examples of conflict in a relationship. However, the differing time periods in which they are set and the contrasting ways in which the authors portray them, vary accordingly. In both extracts it appears that the female protagonists seem to be the source of the problem within the relationship and the extracts centre on their supposed adulterous behaviour. The two extracts differ because in Shakespeare’s Othello, the audience know that Desdemona has in fact not cheated on her husband, but his possessive nature and mistrust of her has warped his judgement. In Galsworthy’s novel, it is clear that the character of Irene clearly has been unfaithful through the description of her body language and the dialogue used, â€Å"so you’ve come back. † The men in both extracts have the controlling factor within their relationships, and suffer from possessive love. In Othello, his desire to control Desdemona and to have her all to himself because she’s his wife, clouds his judgement on the situation; he’d rather her dead than for her to be with any other man and break another’s heart. In Galsworthy’s novel, the man is indeed slowly losing control, but still tries to grasp it. His wife had gone off and had an affair and he wasn’t able to control that. Now he tries to claw it back by shouting at her to leave, â€Å"get out of my sight†, and then contradicts himself by continuing to ask her to stay, which she obeys, and he is now in the stronger position. John Galsworthy uses animalistic imagery throughout this extract to show the way that Irene has become trapped: â€Å"resemblance to a captive owl. † This comparison also shows the way Irene has become vulnerable, having lost her independence and freedom. This mirrors the situation of Desdemona in Shakespeare’s ‘Othello’. In this scene Desdemona is entirely helpless, Othello having already decided what must be done as an alpha male: â€Å"sweet soul, take heed of perjury: thou art on thy death bed. † Shakespeare’s choice of language, for example, his use of imperatives, â€Å"Down, strumpet! † makes it clear to the audience how much in control Othello is. This control is echoed in Soames, who speaks with great authority and power: â€Å"take your hated body†¦ out of my house†¦ Get out of my sight†. Soames commands his wife here in a way that suggests he views her as a possession, who should not disobey him, emphasised in Galsworthy’s use of the image of Irene â€Å"huddled in the fur†, as though she is a belonging. Again Shakespeare reflects this idea in Othello, with the handkerchief used as a dramatic device embodying Desdemona’s belonging to Othello, her supposed giving it away driving him to madness: â€Å"I saw my handkerchief in’s hand. Thou dost stone my heart. † Neither Soames nor Othello can see the fault in their own actions, demonstrated by Galsworthy through rhetorical questions: â€Å"Why should I suffer? What have I done? † Irene, however, is left in a helpless place, the animalistic imagery continuing, likening her to a trapped bird, her spirit crushed and giving up, â€Å"a bird shot and dying, taking farewell of all that is good – the sun and air and its mate. † This comparison also links back to Irene’s now dead lover Bosinney, her partner, without whom she feels she is unable to function. Shakespeare uses stichomythia to create a passionate atmosphere. Short dramatic lines such as ‘it is too late’, build tension in the audience. John Galsworthy also uses speech to create tension but does so via the exposure of Soames’ thoughts. ‘Take away that pitiful white face’. Soames’ outburst is made particularly striking in the way that Galsworthy withholds excessive speech up until this point. Unlike Shakespeare who employs continuous dialogue and only one stage direction in this extract, to create a sense of a never ending flow of emotion. The structure used in Othello is used in the build up of tension, for instance the stichomythia used towards the end of the extract. This technique is commonly utilised to dramatic effect in plays. The structure in Othello is generally used advance the narrative and to further increase the build up of tension towards the dramatic climax at the end of the play. In the Forsyte Saga the structure allows the author to progress and elaborate on the metaphors used. Galsworthy uses the structure to put emphasis on certain words or phrases: ‘so they sat, by the firelight, in the silence, one on each side of the hearth’. Typically of a novel the structure shows the progressive thoughts of the narrator and isn’t necessarily as linear as that in a play (ie Othello). Wider Reading: The poem My Last Duchess also carries the theme of adultery and extreme example of conflict in a relationship. Robert Browning doesn’t make it clear whether the woman is guilty, but the Duke, like Othello is guilty of jealousy. He doesn’t believe she treats her husband and different to any other men ‘all and each’, ‘she liked whate’er she looked on, and went everywhere’, suggesting she flirted alot, not that the Duke has any proof. The repetition of ‘that spot of joy’ emphasises how the fact her smile wasn’t just reserved for him bothered him, so much so that he used the harsh language like Ann Galsworthy’s choice of ‘Get out of my sight’ here, ‘that in you disgusts me; here you miss, or exceed the mark’, this shows his dark side and makes the reader question whether he killed her himself without knowing what she had done, similar to the way Othello acts on rage of his pride being damaged. The Duke also seems to be very possessive of the Duchess as is Othello and Soames Forsyte. Here he opens the poem ‘That’s my last Duchess painted on the wall’ immediately highlighting he owns the painting, but also implies he owns her in person. He also seems to like the fact he can control who looks at the painting, ‘the curtain I have drawn for you’, but couldn’t control who looked at his wife when she was alive. Additionally, in comparison to the imperatives Shakespeare and John Galsworthy use, Browning stresses the Duke’s power through his quite forceful request, ‘will’t please you sit and look at her’, almost as if the Duke is desperate for his audience to understand his anger, he states ‘I gave commands’, yet it seems she didn’t obey him, hence he killed her, ‘then all smiles stopped together’.

Intellectual Property of Lasik Surgery

The procedure of Lasik Surgery is an innovative technique that could provide life lasting changes to individuals afflicted with ophthalmic disorders.   Patents continue to develop and new and improved technologies released.  Ã‚   In considering and evaluating the intellectual property of Lasik surgery, it is important to look at the procedure from a variety of angles so as to better understand the complexity of the process.Lasik surgery is a privately owned business.   Additionally, private as well as public owned corporations have the ability to research and investigate new procedures in Lasik Surgery.   As a procedure is released, individual practitioners are eligible to practice the business if they have the correct licensures.   The procedure of Lasik Surgery is FDA approved, and all patents to further develop and improve upon Lasik surgery procedures must also be approved by the FDA.   Furthermore, while the Lasik Surgery business is privately owned, it is still subj ect to the legal regulations of the Federal trade commission.There are countless patents involving Lasik Surgery and its technological improvements.   As of Fall 2003, VISK and Summitt were the only two companies authorized by the FDA to hold Lasik Surgery patents.   Recently, the companies of Summitt Technology and VISX were charged with price fixing and violating the standards of the Federal Trade Commission.  Ã‚   As a result of the price scandals reveled by the FTC, patents became released to the patent pool, but were still subject to veto power by VISK and Summitt (Perry, 2003).   As a result of the release to the public pool, the competing patents would no longer be held by a single entity (FTC.gov, 1998).There are several individual physician that can also hold ophthalmic patents.   For example, Dr. Richard Lindstrom, Founding Manager of Minnesota Eye Consultants, holds twenty-eight patents involving ophthalmology and improvements in laser procedures (Minnesota Eye Consultants, 2006).At current time, there is no approval for the development of generic Lasik procedure products.   This is due to the sensitive nature of the industry, as a generic procedure may cause harm to the patient and may not comply with all FDA regulated standards. One recently released patent related to Lasik Surgery was patent number 6,951,556.   This patent was issued to an individual by the name of Robert L. Epstein, MD.   Dr. Epstein is the director of 800-I-CAN-SEE, the Mercy Center for Corrective Eye Surgery in McHenry, Illinois. The release of the patent provides a new way for physicians to correct off-center laser ablations that periodically occur as a result of the Lasik procedure.   As a result of the patent, correction of off-center laser ablations can now be incorporated into newer laser correction machines (Epstein, 2005).The Lasik Surgery industry is an evolving and constantly improving technology.   It is important to understand the intellectual pr operty laws and patent regulations so as to determine what the future holds for the industry.   It will be interesting to see what changes result from the increased privatization of the Lasik Surgery process.ReferencesEpsetin, Robert (2005).   New Patent for Correcting Centering of Lasik Vision  Ã‚  Ã‚   Treatments.   Retrieved October 20,  Ã‚   2006 from http://eye.taragana.net/archive/new-patent-for-correcting-centering-of-lasik-vision-treatments/FTC.gov (1998).   FTC Charges Two Firms that Control that Market for Laser Eye Surgery with Price-Fixing Conspiracy.   Retrived October 20, 2006 from http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1998/03/eye.htmMinnesota Eye Consultants (2006).   Laser Vision Correction.   Retrieved October 20, 2006 from http://www.seewithlasik.com/docs/lasik-minneapolis.html.Perry, Martin (2003).   Laser Eye Surgery Patent Pool.   Retrieved October 20, 2006 from http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:qadHX0VPSOQJ:econweb.rutgers.edu/perry/389/lectures/PPTB38 9.F03.PatentPools.doc+number+of+lasik+surgery+patents&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11.

Safe Administration of Intravenous Medication and Management of Central Line

Intravenous therapy is a crucial element of acute care management; this provides easy access for medication, maintaining fluid and electrolyte balance, and administration of blood products (Wiechula & Hodgkinson, 2002). This is an invasive procedure that entails a number of risks for the patient. This literature review will provide important information regarding the safe administration of intravenous medication and the management of the central line. Safe Administration of Intravenous Medication. The article â€Å"Safe Practice in intravenous medicine administration† from the Nursing Standard journal provided a detailed account of safe administration of intravenous medication. The IV route has many advantages over other routes, mainly because of its absorption rate, but it must â€Å"only be used when its benefits outweigh its risks† (Lavery, 2008). The first step in safe administration of intravenous medication is assessment of the patient’s condition and satisfying the 5 Rights of drug administration; Right Patient, Right Dose, Right Medication, Right Route, and Right time. The patient’s chart must also be checked for all the other drugs that the patient is currently taking. The expiration date of the medicine ordered must be checked as well. Drug interactions and interval of the medication must be considered as well. This must be taken seriously as 22% of medication errors committed on general medical practice were due to lack of knowledge of this little detail (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2005). As a confirmatory measure the drug order must be consulted with another nurse. There was evidence that suggested the efficiency of having two nurses check medication orders prior to administration (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2005). Following hospital protocol, the procedure must be explained to the patient and acquire consent on the doing the procedure. Secondly, the materials needed for the procedure must be prepared. The materials needed will be dependent on the route specified which could be; bolus injection, intermittent infusion, and continuous infusion. IV bolus injection requires the use of a syringe; conclusive evidence suggested that labels on syringes or enhancements on syringe may prevent medication errors (ISMP Medication Safety Alert, 2004). Application of aseptic technique is essential in the process of drug administration through the intravenous route. Thus, swabbing the injection port with alcohol is an important practice. The injection port is exposed to bacteria and injecting these to the patient’s system must be avoided (Institute for Safe Medication Practices, 2007). No conclusive evidence was presented on this claim. Upon swabbing the IV port with alcohol and letting it dry, the next step is to administer the medication at the IV port. The rate of the IV push must be observed carefully, since there are conclusive evidence of death occurring on an IV push that was done too quickly (Cohen, 2003). This is known as â€Å"Speed Shock† and will be discussed in detail later. If the method of administration is through continuous infusion, the rate of infusion must be confirmed with another nurse (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2005). An infusion pump may be used to ensure accurate infusion rates. The careful use of the infusion pump must be observed by the nurse.. After drug administration, the patient must now be watched closely for adverse reaction to the drug. After assessment of the patient after administration, the central line must be flushed with a 5-10 ml 0. 9% sodium chloride solution. This is a precautionary measure to relieve the cannula of any residual medicine (Lavery, 2008). Afterwards, the sharps and other equipments used should be discarded in a proper container. CDC recommended that sharps should be disposed in a proper container; â€Å"closable, puncture resistant, leakproof on the sides and bottom, and appropriately labeled or color coded† (CDC, 1998). Proper documentation and monitoring of therapeutic effect concludes the procedure (Wiechula & Hodgkinson, 2002). Management of the Central Line The article; â€Å"Promoting Best Practice in the Management of Peripheral Vascular Devices† from the Joanna Briggs Institute, used an evidence based approach on the management of peripheral vascular devices. It stressed a number of key recommendations in achieving best practices in the management of a central line (Wiechula & Hodgkinson, 2002). This literature will be central to this discussion. It is common medical knowledge that hand washing and observance of the aseptic technique is crucial for the prevention of infection. This was also pointed out in the article and was given utmost importance. The next guideline is the dressing of the central line; the article suggested the use of gauze or transparent dressing. It also suggested that it should be changed when it is damp, loosened or soiled. Conclusive research from CDC noted that both the transparent and gauze dressings virtually have the same effect (CDC, 2002). Secondly, the routine replacement of IV catheters, IV therapy is an invasive procedure and these devices can harbor bacteria that can cause complications. In addition, it also stressed rotation of the site of catheter insertion every 48-72 hours to prevent phlebitis; this suggestion was well within the extent of rotation specified by the CDC which was every 72-96 hours (CDC, 2002). Moreover, it also stressed that IV catheter should be replaced at the first sign of phlebitis. Another consideration for the removal of the catheter is evidence of local infection (Gosbell, 2005). The third guideline was the replacement of the IV administration sets at 72 hour intervals. These equipments include; blood products, piggy back, and lipid emulsions. When a medical order required the use of these materials, the healthcare provider must make sure that these materials should be replaced or disposed of when it goes past its usefulness. This must be meticulously observed especially with blood products and lipid emulsions, which produces a higher incidence of bacterial colonization; this case requires the IV administration set to be replaced within 24 hours of initiating the infusion. Fourth, is the use of flush solutions to prevent thrombosis or infection, heparin is the most common flush solution in use today. A study with much legitimacy in it, has confirmed that flushing a catheter with a vancomycin/heparin lock will yield to a significant decrease in infection rate (Woensel, 2008). Much debate surrounds the issue of whether it should be done continuously or intermittently. A recent study by the Cochrane Collaboration attempted to address this issue. Considering the inconclusive results of the study, it still claimed that intermittent flushing, â€Å"were less likely to infiltrate, leak, or cause phlebitis† (Flint, Macintosh, & Davies, 2008). The fifth management approach to a central line is the use of in-line filters. Wietchula & Hudgkinson noted that this device is thought to reduce the incidence of infection, but no evidence confirms this claim. A similar claim supported this notion that in-line filters have no significant relation to decreased incidence of infection in a study conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration (Foster, 2008). This study, too, was shrouded with impartiality due to the lack of sufficient data. Lastly, proper management of a central line requires documentation of insertion date and time of the intravenous device. This would also serve as a guide for the overall care of the patient (Wiechula & Hodgkinson, 2002). Complications of Intravenous Therapy Intravenous therapy is widely used in acute care management. Due to the invasive nature of the procedure, healthcare providers must abide with known safe practices just like the ones outlined in this study. Failure to comply with safe practices can lead to infection and even death. The most disastrous complication can arise from failing to observe safe practice in intravenous medication. Meanwhile the patient can suffer from infections and much discomfort from failing to observe clinically effective practices on the management of the central line. These two topics will be explored in this section of the study. Aside from describing â€Å"Safe Practice in intravenous medicine administration†, this article also included some complications that arise in practices that are not clinically effective. Failure to asses the patient and confirming the medication can lead to disastrous results. A staggering 30% of medication errors arise from administering an inappropriate drug (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2005). An article entitled â€Å"Medication Errors†, mentioned that improper disinfection of multi dose vials can leave the patient at risk for infection with staphylococcus aureus (Cohen, 2003). The article even mentioned that refrigerating the MDV prolongs the life of the S. aureus compared with storing it in room temperature. In addition, it also mentioned the deadly effects of administering a drug too quickly (Cohen, 2003). This is otherwise known as â€Å"Speed Shock† (Lavery, 2008). This is the body’s violent reaction to a foreign body that was abruptly introduced in the system. The patient may experience hypotension, shock, flushed face, tachycardia, shock,and cardiovascular collapse. Miscalculations in the required dosage can be deadly to the patient as well. Failure of the healthcare provider to confirm the order with a doctor or colleague contributes to the occurrences of medication error. Studies have shown that one of the factors contributing to medication error is â€Å"poor communication healthcare professionals†, which comprises of 19% of recorded incidents (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2005). The healthcare provider administering medications must be familiar with standard dosage computation and manipulation of infusion devices like the infusion pump. There are concrete evidences published in the medical safety alert of ISMP regarding misuse of the infusion pump. It stated: â€Å"a misprogrammed infusion pump can leave a patient only a button press away from disaster† (Institute for Safe Medication Practice, 2002). Another complication is extravasations or infiltration. This condition is characterized by local edema and pain on the site of catheter insertion. This is caused by accidental administration of the drug to a surrounding tissue by a cannula poised in a wrong angle or problems in its patency. As mentioned earlier, failure to observe safe practices in managing the central line can also lead to serious complications. The article â€Å"Diagnosis and Management of Catheter Related Bloodstream infections due to staphylococcus aureus† outlined the complications arising from bad practices in management of peripheral vascular devices. Among the complications it discussed were; Catheter Colonization, Phlebitis, Infusate related bloodstream infection, and Cather related bloodstream infection. Colonization of bacteria on the catheter tip is the most common complication associated with wrongful management of the catheter tip. The Maki hypothesis stated that bacteria from the skin surrounding the catheter site can migrate to the catheter and eventually to the bloodstream (Gosbell, 2005). Catheter related bloodstream infection may lead to bacteremia and sepsis. The bacterium that is most commonly associated with this kind of infection is S. aureus which account to 5-50% of cases and coagulase-negative staphylococci in 20% to 96% (Gosbell, 2005). Failure to observe aseptic technique upon insertion of the IV catheter can contaminate the central line itself and directly introduce bacteria in the patient’s bloodstream. Another issue arising in practices that are not clinically effective is infusate-bloodstream infection. This is an infection through contamination of the fluids that are being administered. The use of the IV port either for injecting medicine or extracting blood from the patient can introduce microorganisms on the system. This commonly happens to blood products and lipid emulsions were bacterial growth is common. Lastly, phlebitis, this condition is characterized by redness, pain, and swelling around the insertion site. Phlebitis may be caused by infection and other patient factors like the patient’s inherent risk in developing such problems. Healthcare providers must be very careful in caring for patients undergoing intravenous therapy. Previous researches have shown that nosocomial infections due to bad practices in intravenous therapy account to 200,000 cases each year (Wiechula & Hodgkinson, 2002). Patients arrive in the hospital to seek medical attention, it is only imperative that healthcare providers must deliver the quality of care that patients deserve and avoid aggravating their illness by complications that could be avoided by safe practices.

Madoff Scandal

Contents Introduction2 Early Career2 The Firm3 Sales Strategy4 Investment Strategy5 The Scandal7 He was not alone9 The Markopolos Whistle11 The collapse13 Charges and Sentence13 The Victims14 2009 Ponzi Schemes16 The SEC Failure17 SEC post- Madoff19 Hedge Fund Transparency20 Conclusion21 Bibliography25 Tables Table 1: List of Madoff Clients (taken from the â€Å"The New York Times†, last updated June 24, 2009)15 Table 2: 2009 Ponzi Scheme SEC Charges17 Figures Figure 1 Fairfield Sentry vs Gateway6 Figure 2 Madoff Investor Funds (taken from http://orgnet. com/madoff. html)7 Introduction Operating from central Manhattan, Bernie Madoff developed the first and biggest global Ponzi scheme, an event of greed and dishonesty that lasted for more than 20 years, in which $65 billion dollars vanished from the pockets of some of the world’s richest people, charities and ordinary investors alike. This scheme lasted longer than any other white collar crime in history and along the way ruined countless individuals and organizations. The Madoff Ponzi scheme has changed the rules of trust that governed the money game. † Unlike other similar schemes, Madoff’s Ponzi scheme also scammed wealthy and investment savvy individuals that Madoff associated with. Bernard Madoff is a former financier, American hedge-fund investment manager, chairman of the NASDAQ (National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations) stock exchange, and chairman of the firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. He is the main conspirator of the history’s largest investor fraud committed by a single person. As a result of his act, Madoff was sentenced on June 29th, 2009 to 150 years in prison for crimes that the judge called â€Å"extraordinarily evil†3 and imposed a sentence that was three times as long as the federal probation office suggested and more than 10 times as long as defense lawyers had requested. Early Career Bernard Lawrence Madoff was born in New York City on April 29, 1938 and grew up in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. He earned a degree in political science from New York’s Hofstra University in 1960 and founded the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC the same year. 1 He was a pillar of finance and charity. As an outstanding philanthropist he served on boards of nonprofit organizations around the world such as businesses, charities and foundations, many of which were entrusted by his endowments. The firm started as a penny stock trader with $5,000 dollars he saved from working as a sprinkler system seller and lifeguard. In the beginning the firm started trading common stock over the counter (OTC) through the National Quotation Bureau using Pink sheets. It later challenged the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) old brokers by using powerful marketing techniques to win clients and promoting electronic trading using innovative computer information technology. His firm grew with help from people around him such as his father-in-law, who referred him to friends and family. Madoff helped created NYSE rival, NASDAQ, where he later became the chairman. The Firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC functioned as a securities broker and/or dealer in The United States and internationally. Headquartered in New York City, it provided executions for dealers, brokers and financial institutions. The firm had been one of the top market makers on Wall Street with Madoff as the principal face. In plain terms, a market maker is an institution (brokerage company or bank) that is ready to execute stock trades (buying and selling) at every second of the trading day and charges a small fee for every trade via the use of a spread in the ask or bid price. It functioned as a third-maker provider by directly implementing commands from retail brokers. At one point, Madoff Securities was the largest market maker at the NASDAQ and in 2008 was the sixth largest market maker on Wall Street. Sales Strategy Around the 1970s, Madoff began administrating money for investors, some on them he knew personally and several others who belonged to clubs he was member of. He attracted billions of dollars and several large hedge funds also invested in the firm because he did not charge usual fees and only collected fees for processing trades. Madoff offered modest and steady returns to exclusive clients instead of offering high returns to all clients, giving the appearance of his firm to be exclusive. The firm’s annual returns were abnormally consistent, a key factor in achieving the fraud. Most business men believed the story that a single person could generate returns of 12 to 13 percent a year trading the stock market no matter what happens without a single down quarter. 7 Some of these people applied for membership to the clubs that Madoff was a member of, in order to meet and be accepted by him. In addition, he never hustled anyone for investing with him; instead he let them come to him. Thus, he created this aura of exclusivity around him and everyone wanted to be a part of his club. One of the groups targeted by Madoff was the â€Å"Jewish circuit. Being Jewish, Madoff attracted many wealthy Jewish people he met at country clubs on Long Island and Palm Beach. This was an Affinity Ponzi Scheme, as it was called by Newsweek article. 7 Affinity fraud includes investment frauds that prey upon members of identifiable groups, such as religious or ethnic communities, language minorities, and the elderly or professional groups. Around 1995, some of the most prominent Jewish individuals in finance and industry began to invest with Madoff. 1 His most effective recruiter, Jacob Ezra Merkin, was president of the Fifth Avenue Synagogue, member of Yeshiva University, Carnegie Hall and other nonprofit organizations. Mr. Merkin started the investment firm named Gabriel Capital Group. Embraced by philanthropies and installed in a superior position of trust, Merkin seemed to be a Wall Street wise and trusted person to manage other peoples’ money. 1 Investment Strategy His investment strategy consisted of purchasing blue-chip stock, from well established companies like Coca Cola, Intel and General Electric, having stable earnings and no extensive liabilities, and taking option contracts on them. Typically, a position will consist of the ownership of 30-35 S&P 100 stocks, most correlated to that index, the sale of out-of-the-money calls on the index and the purchase of out-of-the-money puts on the index. † When done correctly, this strategy creates boundaries in the stock and protects them against a quick decline in the share price. The investment strat egy used in Madoff’s feeder fund, Fairfield Sentry, is called the split-strike conversion strategy and involves a combination of stocks and options. In plain terms, Madoff bought 40-50 stocks from the S&P 100 index. He then bought put options on the index at strike prices below the market's current level and sold call options above the index's current price. It is similar to using collars, an options strategy that limits losses along with the gains for a particular stock. The following chart outlines the returns of the Madoff feeder fund against Gateway, a fund running the same split strike strategy. A feeder fund is a fund that conducts virtually all of its investing through another fund. Madoff used such feeder funds to mask the fact that he’s acting like a hedge fund in order to avoid SEC investigation. Figure 1 Fairfield Sentry vs. Gateway After the stock market crash of 2001, Gateway follows a downward path for a period of almost 3 years, before it starts to gain positive traction that will last until mid 2007, just in time for the mortgage meltdown that ignited one of the worst recessions in history. Interestingly enough, Madoff’s returns shows no signs of volatility and continue to gain positive traction with only minor fluctuations. Apparently he worked with multiple feeders and the network of individuals and funds were set up to pass money to him. Most of the investors did not know that all of their money was going to the same place: Madoff’s firm. The next diagram depicts the depth and interconnections of Madoff’s funds. The directions of the arrows represent the direction of the money flow. Figure 2 Madoff Investor Funds The Scandal The investment scandal was unveiled with Madoff’s confession. He reportedly confessed to his two sons during the first week of December 2008 that his business was â€Å"giant Ponzi scheme. † Madoff sons, Mark and Andrew, turned him in to U. S authorities on the day after his confession. On December 11, 2008 he was arrested and charged with securities fraud; also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, securities fraud covers a wide range of illegal activities, all of which involve the deception of investors or the manipulation of financial markets. He said to the agents that there was no innocent explanation to the fraud that cost clients $65 billion dollars. He traded and lost money and paid investors with money that was not there. How did Bernard Madoff set the most audacious fraud in history? Madoff said that had absolutely nothing, everything was just a big lie and it was essentially a giant Ponzi scheme. No one ever questioned the investment strategy and resources of the firm. No verification of the accounting was ever made. 7 A Ponzi scheme is a type of illegal pyramid scheme. It is named after Charles Ponzi who became infamous throughout the United States for using the technique in the early 1920s. The Ponzi scheme operation pays returns to investors from their own money or from money paid by new investors, rather than from actual return earned. This type of schemes attracts many investors because it offers high and consistent returns that other investments cannot provide. Eventually the system is destined to collapse under its own weight because earnings are usually less than the payments. â€Å"The business had been insolvent for many years. † Madoff was lying to his clients when he said he was investing their money and generating stable returns. 3 The money of new clients was used to pay clients who wanted to cash out. Some may still ask the question of why he started the scheme in the first place. A possible explanation of his actions could be that he incurred some trading losses and in order to recoup them quickly, put a quick plan together where he would shuffle money between new and old accounts. Initially he may have had the intention of paying all the investors back, but since his real investing strategy did not work fast enough, he stuck to the scheme. His initial intentions were probably not to carry on indefinitely to its present point. However, once his real trading strategies were not producing enough returns to cover his advertised returns (when the market was performing well), he continued until he lost control. If the economy were not in a recession, he would most likely keep going. The only reason he gave up is because investors started withdrawing money and he could not cover the upcoming withdrawals. If the economy kept going strong, Madoff would have been able to attract new money and continue living his double life as usual. He was not alone Few people knew that Bernard Madoff had a highly structured second life for more than 20 years. Bernard Madoff confession and the afterward fraud scandal triggered the investigation to uncover Madoff’s mysteries. He initially claimed that he committed the crimes all by himself, but because it extended trough decades and continents â€Å"a fog of suspicion immediately engulfed Madoff family members who worked at the firm, as well as employees and business associates. There were some small clues on how he pulled off the massive fraud, for instance, the 1980s server that Madoff refused to replace even though some data had to be typed by hand. When government investigated the machine it discovered that it was the heart of the fraud. The statements printed out from this old IBM machine showed trades that were never made. 15 First, the in vestigators turned to the accounting department. Madoff’s accountant David Friehling was also charged with securities fraud, investment adviser fraud and false filings made to the SEC. Unlike any other professional who protects the interests of his clients, accountants have the commitment to protect the public by ensuring accurate financial reporting. â€Å"They are the first line of defense against fraud. † Friehling’s duty at the investment firm was to ensure clients’ securities and money were they when they wanted to withdraw it. In addition, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action against him alleging that he did not perform his duties as an auditor. David Friehling was the auditor and the bookkeeper, which means that he audited his own work. It’s no great surprise that he found nothing wrong with any of his own work. †18 Next, they turned attention to the person second in command at Madoff’s firm. Frank DiPascali was Madoff’s right hand man for 33 years and his unofficial title was director or of options trading and chief financial officer. Nobody was sure what he did or what his official title was, but everyone knew he was a big deal. DiPascali rose to the position of CFO despite his lack of education and financial experience industry. On August 11, 2009, he pled guilty to ten counts of fraud related to the Madoff investment scandal and he is currently trying to negotiate his sentence (to be set on May 2010) in exchange of information of additional people involved in the scheme. Madoff trusted DiPascali completely to keep the secret of the scam operations. DiPascali manipulated fake returns on some key investors and if one of these clients had large gains, he would fabricate a loss to reduce the tax bill. 15 This means, if true, that these investors knew their returns were suspicious. JP Morgan Chase was the primary bank Madoff used to make his Ponzi deposits. According to one estimate, his deposits totaled $5. 5 billion sometime in 2008, and the after-tax profits grew to $483 million over a period of sixteen years. The bank withdrew a total of $250 million in the summer of 2009, due to suspicions arising from due diligence in Madoff’s investment-advisory business. According to a pending lawsuit against the bank: â€Å"Upon acquiring this knowledge, Chase entered into a conspiracy with Madoff and BMIS in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (â€Å"RICO†), 18 U. S. C.  § 1961 et seq. 19Depending on the outcome of the lawsuit, along with many more to come, JP Morgan Chase may have to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement. Madoff’s family was also the center of attention to find clues of Bernard Madoff’s fraud, although none of them have been charged or accused so far. During the plea hearing Madoff took all the responsibility of the fraud most likely to c over up his family. Peter Madoff, Bernard Madoff’s brother, was the chief compliance officer of the firm. He was in charge of ensuring adequate internal control and that the client funds and securities were properly protected. Even though Madoff sons, Mark and Andrew, did not have any position with the investments firm, they were involved in other areas within the firm. They are the ones that turned Madoff in. The family must have known about the long running scheme and should be indirectly responsible for some of the investor losses incurred, as the scheme had supported their lavish lifestyles. Irving Picard, the court appointed trustee in charge of liquidating Madoff’s firm, sued some of the Madoff family members (two sons, brother, niece) for $198. 7 million seeking defrauded investor damages. The Markopolos Whistle Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC firm was inspected at least 8 times and he was personally interviewed twice in a period of 16 years by the SEC and other regulators before being uncovered. For years, he avoided regular reviews by saying that he was managing accounts for hedge funds instead of running an investment advisory business. During the years of 1999 and 2000 the SEC was worried that the firm was violating a trading rule and sent examiners to investigate but in response Madoff summarized new procedures to deal with the findings. 12 In 2001 some outsiders were becoming suspicious of Madoff’s firm activities. Harry Markopolos, Barron’s, a Dow Jones & Co. publication and Marhegdge, a hedge fund trade publication, raised concerns about Madoff’s steady returns. 12 In 2005 Mr. Markopolos met with SEC investigators in New York and prepared a 21-page report entitled â€Å"The World’s Largest Hedge Fund is a Fraud† summarizing his concerns. The memo specified 29 red flags and in part concluded that â€Å"Bernie Madoff is running the world’s largest unregistered hedge fund† and â€Å"†¦yet since Bernie Madoff is not registered as a hedge fund but acting as one via third party shields, the chances of Madoff escaping SEC scrutiny are very high. 12 The SEC examined Madoff and did not find any violations. He failed for 8 years to get SEC to step in until the scam collapsed and prompted Madoff to confess. In his report, Markopolos clearly outlines some pretty obvious (by now) facts that the regulatory authorities omitted. Here is a short summary of some points that stood out: †¢If the Madoff returns are legitimate, they’re due to insider trading (unlikely scenario). If they’re illegitimate, they’re due to the setup being a Ponzi scheme (likely scenario). †¢The secrecy around the fund’s assets doesn’t make sense as a typical hedge fund would brag about such returns. The secrecy is probably due to the fact that Madoff doesn’t want the regulatory authorities to know he exists as a secret hedge fund. †¢Since Madoff is a broker-dealer, he can generate any trade tickets he wants, therefore generate false information. †¢The Madoff family has held important leadership positions in NASD, NASDAQ ® and other prominent industry bodies that would not be inclined to lead an investigation. †¢Out of 174 months, only 7 months (4%) saw negative returns in Madoff’s Fairfield Sentry fund. No MLB hitter bats . 60, no NFL team has ever had a 96-4 record out of 100 games, and no money manager is up 96% of the months. †¢Since Madoff is not registered as a hedge fund but acting as one via third party shields, his chances of escaping SEC investigations have remained high. The collapse The final weeks of the biggest scheme in history began on December 2008 when the market continued to fall. Madoff struggled to keep the scheme afloat wh en investors tried to withdraw $7 billion from the firm. In typical Ponzi scheme fashion, Madoff desperately needed money from new investors to pay off existing investors. Ten days before his arrest, he received $250 million dollars from Carl Shapiro, a 95 year old philanthropist and entrepreneur, and one of Madoff oldest friends. Mr. Shapiro helped Madoff launch his investing career by giving him money to invest in 1960. He also asked others to invest including Wall Street financier Kenneth Langone. Madoff said he was raising money, between $500 million and $1 billion, for a new investment vehicle for exclusive clients. Mr. Langone declined to invest. 13 Mr. Langone’s denial could have been based on quantitative analysis that most of Madoff’s investors failed to undertake. In addition, by the time Madoff proposed the new investment vehicle to Mr. Langone, rumors of his questionable returns had increased considerably. Charges and Sentence â€Å"On March 10, 2009, a Criminal Information was filed in Manhattan federal court charging Bernard L. Madoff with eleven felony charges including securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, false statements, perjury, false filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (â€Å"SEC†), and theft from an employee benefit plan. † The case is United States v. Bernard L. Madoff, 09 Cr. 213 (DC). The criminal information or complaint declared that Madoff had defrauded his clients for $65 billion. On March 12, 2009 he pleaded guilty to all eleven counts and on June 29, 2009 he was sentenced to 150 years of imprisonment at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York (he was later moved to a prison in Butner, North Carolina) and $170 billion in restitution. A breakdown of his sentencing is given below:19 †¢40 years for two counts of international money laundering †¢20 years for securities fraud †¢20 years for mail fraud 20 years for wire fraud †¢20 years for false filing with the S. E. C. †¢10 years for money laundering †¢5 years for investment adviser fraud †¢5 years for false statements †¢5 years for perjury †¢5 years for theft from an employee benefit plan The Victims Some of Madoff’s clients included hedge funds, banks, charities, universities, astute financiers, hospitals, film prod ucers and many others. According to the latest Trustee Interim Report assigned for fund recovery, as of June 30, 2009 the recovery of funds from Bernard Madoff has been $1,088,507,818 with an additional $13. billion in incoming recovery requests. A short list of the investors with the largest losses follows: CLIENTTYPE OF CLIENTEXPOSURE Fairfield Greenwich Group Financial Firm$7. 5 Billion Kingate ManagementFinancial Firm$3. 5 Billion Tremont Group HoldingsFinancial Firm$3. 3 Billion Banco SantanderFinancial Firm$3. 1 Billion of client exposure Bank MediciFinancial Firm$2. 1 Billion Ascot Partners, run by Jacob Ezra Merkin, GMAC’s chairmanFinancial FirmMost of the firm's $1. 8 billion in assets Access International AdvisorsFinancial firm$1. 4 billion Fortis Bank NetherlandsFinancial firm$1. billion Union Bancaire PriveeFinancial firmunder $1. 08 billion HSBC HoldingsFinancial firm$1 billion Picower FoundationCharity$958 million Carl ShapiroIndividual$545 million Carl & Ruth S hapiro Family FoundationCharity$145 million Yeshiva UniversityCharity$100 to $125 million Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of AmericaCharity$90 million Korea Life InsuranceInsurer$50 million Fairfield, Conn. pension fundPension fund$42 million Madoff Family FoundationCharity$19 million Jewish Community Foundation of Los AngelesCharity$18 million Alicia KoplowitzIndividual$14 million Table 1: List of Madoff Clients (taken from the â€Å"The New York Times†, last updated June 24, 2009) As if the loss of fortunes were not tragic enough, there were also 2 suicides that stemmed from the scandal. Rene-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet, 65, who lost more than $1 billion of his own and his investors’ money, took his own life on December 23, 2008 after realizing that he would not be able to recoup his investment. The Magon de la Villehuchet family was one of the most prominent families in France, building its fortune in the shipping industry during the 17th century. William Foxton, 65, was the second suicide victim of the scandal, but unlike the first victim, he had never heard of Madoff and lost his investment through one of Madoff’s feeder funds. 2009 Ponzi Schemes The now infamous Ponzi scheme may have been popularized by Bernie Madoff during the present year, but the SEC has been uncovering such schemes at a rapid pace since the Madoff scandal. The following is a list of all the Ponzi schemes charges the SEC has issued in 2009 so far: DATEDEFENDANTSPONZI AMOUNT (In millions) 1/08/09Joseph Forte, Joseph Forte LP$50 1/15/09James G. Osie, CRE Capital$25 /19/09Robert Allen Standford$8,000 2/19/09Marvin Cooper, BCI Inc$4. 4 3/11/09Anthony Vassalo, Kenneth Kenitzer$40 3/26/09Millenium Bank$68 4/01/09Edward T. Stein$55 4/06/09Weizhen Tang$50-75 4/08/09Shawn Merriman$17-20 4/09/09Robert P. Copeland$35 4/13/09Clelia Flores, MRI Inc$23 6/09/09Peter Son, Jin Chung$80 6/10/09Gregory Bell & Lancelot Mgmt$2,000 6/15/09David J. Hernandez$11 6/24/09M ichael C. Regan, Regan & Co$15. 9 6/24/09Moises Pacheco, AMM, BD&C$14. 7 6/28/09John Bravata, Richard Trabulsy$50 9/08/09Philip Barry, Leverage Group$40 9/28/09Frank Bluestein$250 10/16/09Homepals14. 3 Table 2: 2009 Ponzi Scheme SEC Charges According to the SEC website, 2008 SEC Ponzi charges totaled $470 million (excluding Madoff charged on December 11), compared to 2009’s approximate amount of $11 billion YTD. The earliest Ponzi scheme on SEC recent records dating back to 1997 is reported on July 4, 2001 for $67. 5 million. There is no mention of another such scheme until June 9, 2005 for $6 million, while the next such scheme is reported on July 24, 2007 for $41. 9 million. The SEC Failure Bernie Madoff was so above suspicion that he even got his name informally applied an SEC rule. The â€Å"Madoff exception† allowed market makers such as Mr. Madoff to sell stock short to facilitate a customer buy order, even if the stock in question was ticking downward. Under a rule that was in place until 2007, short sales on a downward-ticking stock were normally prohibited. In a short sale, investors borrow stock and sell it, hoping to repay with shares bought at a lower price. Madoff was frequently and unsuccessfully investigated by the SEC. His firm’s first contact with the SEC was in the early 90’s when he hired two accountants, Frank Avellino and Michael Bienes, for his first small investment advisory business. The accountants helped him recruit more than 3,000 clients. They were violating the law selling unregistered securities; however they were not accused of securities fraud. The SEC shut down the Avellino & Bienes operation and forced Madoff to return more than $400 million to investors. 13 In 2000, the SEC Boston office is contacted by Markopoulos where he outlines his first concerns about Madoff. Unable to persuade an investigation, Markopoulos is told to contact the SEC New York office. 13 However, no further investigation is conducted partly because the information presented to the SEC is not understood by its investigators due to its highly complex nature. Since then many other letters from concerned outsiders are being sent to the SEC about Madoff. No action is taken from the SEC until January 2006 when it launches an investigation prompted by the Markopolos memo. After an interview with Madoff in May 2006 in its case-closing recommendation, the SEC said it â€Å"found no evidence of fraud. †13 After the uncovering of the investment fraud, the SEC conducted an internal investigation entitled â€Å"Investigation of Failure of the SEC to Uncover Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. A 477-page report was released in September 2009 were the SEC Office of Inspector General (OIG) analyzes the SEC failure to uncover Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, how it missed all the red flags and identifies recurring opportunities to find the fraud and how unsuccessful their efforts were. In a recent PBS interview with Henry Pitt, former SEC commissioner from 2001-2003, Mr. Pitt indirectly pointed out some SEC flaws:31 †¢The SEC’s exami nation program was put in place in the mid 90’s is fatally imperfect. The total staff of the SEC is 3,500 people (not all of them do examinations) and there are 11,000 registered investment advisers subject to the SEC’s jurisdiction. There will never be enough money, enough people and enough sophistication to conduct examinations the way they needed to be conducted. †¢The law for broker-dealers was setup in 1934 and in 1940 for investment advisers. The relationship between the two entities is treated separately. In today’s marketplace, this viewpoint needs to change. This is one of the reasons why Madoff continued to be in business after the Avellino and Bienes scandal. The SEC was heavily focused on legal analysis, while not paying too much attention to economic and financial analysis. †¢There needs to be more hedge fund transparency, something the SEC has failed to convince the courts to do so up to now. Arthur Levitt Jr, former SEC chairman from 1993-2001, maintains a view that supports a more focused approach on risk-assessm ent within the SEC. Mr. Levitt has been drawing criticism lately regarding his personal and business relationships with Madoff. When asked about SEC resources, he raises a valid point: â€Å"Since 2002, the number of investment advisers — such as Madoff Securities — has increased by 50%. Yet enforcement resources have been flat or even reduced. The number of SEC enforcement division personnel was cut by 146, to 1,192 in 2007 from 1,338 in 2005. †37 SEC post- Madoff Since the Madoff scandal, the SEC has been taking significant steps to reduce the probability that such frauds will occur in the future. A summary of the post-Madoff Reforms are included on the following list: †¢Safeguarding Investors’ Assets †¢Revitalizing the Enforcement Division †¢Revamping the Handling of Complaint and Tips †¢Advocating for a Whistleblower Program †¢Conducting Risk-Based Examinations of Financial Firms Increasing Focus on Agency-Wide Risk Assessment †¢Improving Fraud Detection Techniques for Examiners †¢Recruiting Staff with Specialized Experience †¢Expanding and Targeting Training †¢Seeking more Resources †¢Integrating Broker-Dealer and Investment Adviser †¢Enhancing Licensing, Education and Oversight Regime for †Å"Back-Office† Personnel In summary, the changes focus where the SEC had previously failed: enhancing investigator financial education, providing incentives for whistleblower tips, allocating additional resources. Hedge Fund Transparency One of the SEC’s attempts towards hedge fund transparency came in 2003 where the entity unsuccessfully tried to enforce the registration of a majority of hedge fund managers by re-interpreting the definition of ‘client’ to an investment-adviser. This rule would have required hedge funds to register as investment advisers. This attempt was dismissed by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on June 23, 2006. The hedge fund industry as a whole is against regulation in part because such regulations would reveal the trading strategies employed internally to the competition. This is a viable argument in favor of the hedge fund industry, however not viable enough to prevent further regulation, at least in the US markets. A possible suggestion could be to create a quasi-government committee made up of various former heads of finance-related industries that are given the power to review and approve hedge funds. The information they have on their hands is solely between them and certain high level members of the SEC, with secrecy comparable to that of the likes of the Department of Defense. In this way, hedge funds avoid public disclosure of their strategies, while the SEC accomplishes the regulation they have always been pursuing. There could be different levels of approval according to the market value of a hedge fund. While this suggestion may not be the most viable, it is serves an option for both the SEC and hedge fund managers. Conclusion Given its impact on the financial world, it would seem that this scandal could have been prevented much earlier. Why did FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), SIFMA (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association), SEC, and other regulatory bodies not act quicker? Below follows a list of possible concluding points for such long inaction. The world to which the securities laws apply — laws now 70 and 75 years old — is light years away from the world we have today. †34 Point 1: Bernie Madoff was a legend on Wall Street. He and his family were among the elite of the Street and, due to his long career and connections, he obtained a God-like status on the Street and as someon e who could do no wrong. As any religious individual, they do not question God’s actions, they just believe. Furthermore, individuals who commit fraud usually do not have Madoff’s impressive background, connections and reputation. Madoff used his status on the Street as an advantage to raise more money and fly under the radar for as long as he did. A scheme is the last thing one would expect from someone whose resume includes a time as former chairman of NASDAQ. In addition, Harry Markopolos admits that he did not contact FINRA due to his family’s connections with the regulatory authority. In particular, Andrew Madoff served as an incoming District 10 member of FINRA in 2003 while his brother Mark served on FINRA’s Mutual Fund Task Force in 2004. Also, Bernie Madoff’s brother Peter served on the board of directors of SIFMA. Point 2: Madoff was not using any illegal trading strategies. The split-strike option is a legitimate strategy that has been employed for years by a few experienced industry professionals, such as Harry Markopolos. It is a highly complex strategy that even Markopolos in his SEC paper admits that few really understand, hence many of Madoff’s experienced investors failed to quantitatively analyze, yet they rather based their assumptions on word of mouth. In the same token, the SEC did not pay attention to something that they could not completely understand and did not put as much emphasis as they should have. Point 3: Red flags were not raised initially due to the overall economy’s performance. When the market was performing well, a 12% return was within reasonable lines of S&P returns. Some flags came up when the market started producing negative returns, yet Madoff’s returns kept their usual steady, profitable path. If the market were still performing neutral to slightly above neutral levels, chances are that the scandal would still lie beneath fake returns. Point 4: The SEC did not act any sooner possibly due to the psychological structure of its own investigators. A typical SEC investigator is young, non-aggressive, and lacks enough resources to fully take on such a case single-handedly. The aggressive and talented individuals get absorbed by Wall Street due to obvious lucrative reasons. This is not to say that the SEC does not employ talented, aggressive individuals; all that is being conveyed here is that probably some of the investigators’ psychological and character structure coupled with the lack of resources was a key mixture of ingredients the organization was missing. Plus, in order to raise such a high stakes complaint an SEC investigator would have to go through the usual bureaucratic red tape inherent in government process. Point 5: The SEC is made up of lawyers, thus lack the experience and knowledge of financial markets. The institution is not a financial entity that relies on satisfying shareholder returns; it is a regulatory authority that interprets and applies the law. Lawyers are not fund managers, thus are not familiar with the complexities and headaches that come with such territory. Point 6: The SEC failure in the Madoff case is yet another example of a ‘failure’ of the invisible hand to regulate capitalism’s promotion of self-interests. While de-regulation of capital markets was very instrumental to transform the US economy into a global powerhouse, lack of de-regulation brought upon the Madoff scandal along with one of the worst recessions in US history. If the markets were more heavily regulated from the beginning, one can only speculate on how far the US economy could have reached. In his testimony to Congress, Allan Greenspan admitted that his ideology of free market capitalism has a major flaw: â€Å"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms. † In short, Greenspan’s flaw was a variable he never considered as part of his ideology of free market capitalism: human greed. Not surprisingly, Greenspan’s flaw has influenced many areas of free markets from credit-default swaps and mortgage lending tactics, to unregistered hedge fund management practices. Bernard Madoff has left his imprint on Wall Street's ‘disgraced' list and his case will be used as an example to further regulate hedge funds and transparency needed in the financial industry. His life story of rising to the top and falling from grace highlights the double-edged sword of capitalism's laissez faire attitude. It will be very interesting to see how effectively the regulatory authorities will tackle this issue, as Madoff's case moves from the public eye to university case study in the coming years. Bibliography

Commitment and Dedication

As a Boy Scout what commitment and dedication mean to me is being completely ready to carry out my responsibilities as a Boy Scout. I will do my very best to uphold my duties and responsibilities in the best way that I can, and I will always be willing to help others, if a situation arises. I will always appreciate the experience and knowledge that I have gained while being a Boy Scout and I will also encourage others to join.I will remain dedicated and committed to my title and I will do my very best to use my knowledge for the good of others. Whenever I am in a situation where I must choose between my Boy Scout meetings or play, I will do my very best to attend the meetings. I will remain a loyal Boy Scout who values the time he has spent in the Boy Scouts and will strive to demonstrate the skills that I have learned. I will also always remember to respect my fellow Boy Scouts and remain a good friend to them.I will always be committed to helping them and be fully dedicated as a Bo y Scout. My dedication and commitment will always remain with me, for I am grateful for the ones who trained me to be knowledgeable in so many areas and I will always appreciate them for the dedication and commitment that they gave to me. Dedication and commitment are two things that the Boy Scouts have taught me that I will keep with me and appreciate for the rest of my life.

Responsibility of Firefighting Teams Term Paper

Responsibility of Firefighting Teams - Term Paper Example The fire and rescue team has a responsibility to give support and restore stability in case of natural disasters like terrorist attack, radioactive emission, nuclear disaster and floods. The government supports the service team nationally to help it work effectively with other local bodies requiring local, regional, national response. To address large issue the local and the regional bodies come together. They are utilized to consider and plan for wide area risks like floods and other major outbreak of diseases. In the Fire Control project, it is ensured that the fire and rescue team gets the required mobilizing and response tools they need to continue a world-class enabled service. Communities and local government remain committed to working with Fire Control teams so that best services are delivered and can successfully meet up the challenges of the twenty-first century. The Fire and Rescue services team have, to enter an agreement with the local bodies that they agree to perform t he task so as to run the new control service and keep the department informed of any issues that might arise. (Fire and Rescue service 2008-11, n.d. p.12) They also have a duty to participate constructively and wholeheartedly in any other regional arrangement that m fight exists. They also have a duty of working closely with fire Recontrol technology,y providers and subcontractors and to report about the progress regularly to the communities and local governments. Firelink provides for the crucial internal communication between the communication rooms and various vehicles of Regional control centers (Fire and Rescue service 2008-11, n.d. p.23) The roles of fire and rescue teams have become even more important because of the changing temperature in a global context. It has been found out that an increase in 1 degree centigrade in summers increases the number of outdoor fires by 24000 to 40000 per year in England and Wales while an increase of two degrees would increase the chances of outdoor fire by thirty four to fifty six percent.