[cary lichtenstein]

It appears that Stanford had substantial ties to golf in his $8 Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme.

V J Singh reportedly received $3 million per year in endorsements.

Stanford also has sponsored the AT&T

I'm sure there is much more to come

[Paul Jones]

I wonder what will happen to the tournamet(s)/players they sponsor?  Especially since the season already begun.

[Peter Nomm]

The TOUR confirmed that that event would still go on regardless of the outcome.  And their sponsored players (VJ, Villegas, etc.) are apparently already paid for the first-quarter.

This was according to the PGA TOUR radio broadcast Thursday.

[Dean Stokes]

I would suspect the players will be wearing different logos on their shirts in the future.

Does anyone know what Tigers's bag will have on it since Buick and he parted ways?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tiger's bag will now have the AT&T logo.

[cary lichtenstein]

I am really getting tired of these ultra-somber, non-GCA threads. 

The whole country is going broke...OK, OK, we get it...can we move on, guys, and talk about something a little less manic?

Kind of ironic, look to the left at the 2 gals, and what the quote is "you want the truth, you can't handle the truth" 

[TEPaul]

Is Stanford Financial now being officially investigated by the Feds as a ponzi scheme like Madoff's operation?

[Mike Sweeney]

I am really getting tired of these ultra-somber, non-GCA threads. 

The whole country is going broke...OK, OK, we get it...can we move on, guys, and talk about something a little less manic?

Kind of ironic, look to the left at the 2 gals, and what the quote is "you want the truth, you can't handle the truth" 

Okay in the spirit of bi-partisanship, I suggest the following:

1. Shivas will post no more Cheater Line references;

2. Cary will post no more CNBC headlines or rumors from Del Boca Vista Phase II;

3. Sweeney will post no more Kavanaugh references.

Agreed? 

[JMorgan]

 

  http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/comp20901.pdf?sid=ST2009021701544

[PCCraig]

Geoff Shacklford had a post on his blog the other day in which he classified each tour sponsor into three categories 1) doing fine, 2) not doing too great and 3) doing horrible. Something like 25% were doing fine.

It is what it is I suppose with these sponsors, even the companies doing well do not really want to blow cash on Tour purses.

[cary lichtenstein]

I am really getting tired of these ultra-somber, non-GCA threads. 

The whole country is going broke...OK, OK, we get it...can we move on, guys, and talk about something a little less manic?

Kind of ironic, look to the left at the 2 gals, and what the quote is "you want the truth, you can't handle the truth" 

Okay in the spirit of bi-partisanship, I suggest the following:

1. Shivas will post no more Cheater Line references;

2. Cary will post no more CNBC headlines or rumors from Del Boca Vista Phase II;

3. Sweeney will post no more Kavanaugh references.

Agreed? 

Sounds like a good plan

[mike_beene]

In the last few years my fine alma mater has had a basketball player murdered complete with coach cover up,accepted millions of cigarette lawyer dollars,and now produced these two clowns.

[RJ_Daley]

Markopous says there are dozens more of these scammers and Ponzimen in the works.  His track record for calling fire in a burning theater is apparently just being only recently heard... despite many in the financial management, protectors and their regulators not wanting to hear any more about it. 

How many tour pros can't manage a check book let alone manage the $$$ they make, particularly in the irratic and unpredictable pattern of the ways of the tour?  They seem very susceptable to these very slick 'cocktail party' and club referral sorts of guys like Bernie and Sanford.  And, they get tricked into thinking that the referral is because they are somebody 'special'.  One can see how the whole tour atmosphere, and many pro sport social lives of these newly wealthy and fairly uninformed in financial matters celebs are particularly seen as low hanging fruit for the grifters. 

[Tom_Doak]

RJ:

It's not that easy to sort out who's what in these circles.  I spent a day with Mr. Stanford two years ago, and never suspected for a minute that he was not on the level, but luckily for me I didn't have a drawerful of cash I didn't know what to do with to invest with him.

The only thing that I did notice is that Mr. Stanford talked about everything but his own business, whereas someone like Julian Robertson, even though he was a hedge fund manager, is glad to discuss what he thinks about the markets (in general terms) if you want him to.

[Rich Goodale]

If, as it has been alleged several times on this forum, many if not most recent golf course developments will make money only after the first two or three financial structures go belly up, is it not true that much of what is invested in golf these days is no more than a Ponzi scheme with a few bells and whistles attached?

[Mike Sweeney]

If, as it has been alleged several times on this forum, many if not most recent golf course developments will make money only after the first two or three financial structures go belly up, is it not true that much of what is invested in golf these days is no more than a Ponzi scheme with a few bells and whistles attached?

Disagree. At the end of the day, an investor in a golf course CAN have the underlying dirt/land as an asset to recover. When you invest in software, financials services....it is basically in people who can move very easily and software code sitting on a box somewhere. With a golf course you always have the dirt - if it is set up that way.

The fact that golf course investors/early members do not protect themselves by taking a lien on the golf course land is something that is an investors choice. Nobody is stopping them, and some courses/clubs may have to do it now in the new environment.

[Rich Goodale]

Yes. Mike, you have the dirt, but if it comes with a multi-million $$$/year price tag to keep it looking like a golf course, and and you are only 1 of 100 or so members out of a planned 300+, I really wouldn't call what you have an "asset," or at least not more of one than a Stanford Financial CD.  While the latter one might be worthless, at least it isn't one of those "assets" that keeps on hitting your bank account every month....

[Mike Sweeney]

Richard,

1. Depends on location. Long Island can use lower income housing. Nebraska is a different story.

2. I am no longer a pipe dream guy. If it didn't work three years ago in a good market, I would pull the plug and plow the thing under. Pay the taxes and figure out what to do next. How many courses "need to be saved"?

3. I would love to have a crack at Citibank's balance sheet. I would need to control every board seat and at the end I would be the second most hated guy in New York after Madoff, but it would be clean or dead. Not this in between stuff.

Unfortunately, I have a fair amount of first hand knowledge of writing off 100%. 

[George Pazin]

The key difference is information. Each founding investor in a golf course should understand what he's getting into. The whole essence of the Ponzi scheme is deception.

Except in the case of Social Security.

[Sam Maryland]

The key difference is information. Each founding investor in a golf course should understand what he's getting into. The whole essence of the Ponzi scheme is deception.

Except in the case of Social Security.

Wouldn't this hold true for anyone paying a meaningful initiation fee into any club regardless of the age of the club?  Wonder what percentage actually ask for the detailed financials of the club in the process? 

I bet it's low...

[George Pazin]

I would bet the golf industry is populated with a higher percentage of dreamers than almost any other. I guess the music and entertainment industries might be close, or even higher. Heck, the t shirt industry has plenty of dreamers as well.

What I really meant was that in a Ponzi scheme, there is an intent to deceive; in a golf course, there is an intent to dream. Big difference, imho.

[Mike Sweeney]

Not to get all lawerly here, but it would be a very very rare membership offering that was not a Regulation D offering and did not register with the state. There can be lots of jokes about the SEC, but it would be near impossible for a club to get a certificate of occupancy on the clubhouse or similar on the golf course from the local town without a fully compliant offering on file with the state.

That doesn't mean that the numbers are in the Reg D offering. You have to ask.

People lose money in a capitalist society. Not everything is a Ponzi scheme. I am living proof!

Does anyone take responsibility anymore for their mistakes?!

[Lou_Duran]

Mike Sweeney,

Excellent question.  And the answer is?

Not if you are working real hard (unless you work on Wall Street or for a major corporation, which, by definition, is neither work nor hard), playing by the rules (well, only some of them), didn't fully understand the difficult requirements of the agreement (like having to pay interest, principle, taxes, and insurance), and do not have the income (though that too is changing if one is upside down on the mortgage and would like to pay less) or wealth to make good on the loan.  Funny how "systemic risk" and "moral hazard" are becoming part of the lexicon while we still have such little (or maybe selective) knowledge of history and macroeconomics.

Do please tell me how does an owner perfect a lien on his own property?  Interesting concept nonetheless.

[Mike Sweeney]

Do please tell me how does an owner perfect a lien on his own property?  Interesting concept nonetheless.

Lou,

Ricardo and I tend to finish each others sentences and we took it off-line.

More offline if needed, but the basic concept moving forward is I would never be an equity member at a big number in any club for the near future.

[Lou_Duran]

I suspect that you are one in a very large majority.  I wonder which clubs will not be at all affected by this potential shift.

It has happened before.  My only acquaintance at Shinny was asked to join back in the 1970s when the club was actively recruiting members.  While his membership is non-equity, has no voting rights, and can be terminated with frightening ease, I doubt that he paid a consequential amount when he joined.

As to being of the same mind with the esteemed author and bon-vivant Richard Goodale, that might be of some concern.  But to each his own.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()