Stanford: Signs That Should Have Worried Investors

Stanford: Signs That Should Have Worried Investors

www.businessweek.com

The Stanford scandal also raises questions as to whether the SEC, which had been investigating the firm for three years, should have acted sooner
By Matthew Goldstein
R. Allen Stanford can blame Bernard Madoff for bringing down his financial empire
Regulators had been looking at Stanford's firm and its suspiciously high-yielding certificates of deposit on and off for at least three years. But it wasn't until late December—the week after authorities learned about Madoff's alleged $50 billion.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
[url=http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/02/19/investment-fraud-suspect-stanford-was-major-political-donor/]features.csmonitor.com[/ur l]

According to the article...the warning signs with Standord Financial began all the way back into the 1990's! For example, in 2006, Stanford was accused of running a "ponzi scheme" or "pyramid scheme".
While it is almost certainly true...why did the SEC keep hand off Stanford? They say it was thier job to banlance the needs of the investors, with those of the firm. But I think I see something much deeper. Something much more sinister at work. What do you think?

www.businessweek.com
(visit the link for the full news article)