Re: BRINKS HOME SECURITY MAY HAVE DIRECT TIES WITH MADOFF

["Crash Gordon" <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

no false alarms that way...just two keypads :-)

--
**Crash Gordon**







"mleuck" <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e0707e09-910e-45f6-9fc5-e04691ec5b49@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Jun 30, 11:23 am, Jim Rojas <jro...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> noauth wrote:
>> > NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Not quite rich enough and not quite smart enough,
>> > a certain investing class has for years paid through the nose for what
>> > was thought to be world-class money management by investing in funds
>> > that promise access to the best hedge funds.
>>
>> > The Bernard Madoff scandal now calls into question the value of the
>> > so-called fund-of-fund industry.
>>
>> > A fund-of-funds manager puts clients' money to work in a portfolio of
>> > hedge funds or other non-traditional investment vehicles.
>>
>> > The client gets access to accounts he wouldn't normally have access to
>> > but the expenses are exorbitant: often a 1% management fee and between
>> > 5% and 15% of any gains.
>>
>> > That might feel okay when the fund is turning in stellar performance,
>> > but not so much when they're losing money, or worse, investing in a
>> > fraud.
>>
>> > "The fund-of-funds community has a problem because they're a step
>> > removed from the actual investment of money," says Michael Lewitt,
>> > president of hedge fund Harch Capital Management. "To convince people
>> > they add value they sell themselves as offering diversification, due
>> > diligence and access to exclusive hedge funds. The Madoff scandal hits
>> > at the heart of this model, and could be devastating for the industry."
>>
>> > Indeed, some advisors seemed to do little more than turn over most or
>> > all of their clients' money to Madoff -- money that may now be gone.
>>
>> > "The fact that very well respected fund-of-fund names like Fairfield
>> > Greenwich and Maxam Capital Management were funding a ponzi scheme for
>> > a period of decades blows up the raison d'etre for a fund-of-funds,"
>> > said Lewitt.
>>
>> > Before the Madoff scandal broke, the average fund-of-funds had been
>> > struggling with the same negative trends slamming the average hedge
>> > fund -- investors pulling money out, poor performance and lots of
>> > volatility.
>>
>> > And the average fund-of-funds is down about 19% this year,
>> > underperforming hedge funds by about 2 percentage points.
>>
>> > "Even before these numbers came out, investors were beginning to
>> > realize that these two layers of fees made their chances of making
>> > money pretty remote," said Steve Cesinger, the chief financial officer
>> > at private equity and real estate investment firm Dewberry Capital.
>>
>> > According to CNBC, Fairfield is planning to sue Madoff, claiming that
>> > it was a victim of fraud and that it did due diligence and hired
>> > auditors.
>>
>> > "It is clear that there will be extensive litigation around this
>> > scandal and that fund-of-funds managers will be exposed to that
>> > litigation," said Steve Thel, a law professor at Fordham law school
>> > where he teaches securities regulation.
>>
>> > But Thel said such suits against funds of funds will address two main
>> > questions. First, did the fund managers conduct reasonable due
>> > diligence. And second, did they disclose to investors that they were
>> > not diversified.
>>
>> > Given that some prominent fund-of funds turned down Madoff it's hard to
>> > argue that proper research was conducted. As for whether proper
>> > disclosures were made, "that's still to be discovered," said Thel.
>>
>> With the small budget Brinks operates on, I doubt it.
>>
>> Why would a company spend millions of dollars on advertising, when they
>> can just lower their rates and get more client referrals that way?
>>
>> All they are doing is keeping rates high. Their overhead must be choking
>> them beyond belief. ADT doesn't need to advertise that much, or nor do
>> they resort to using scare tactics like Brinks does.
>>
>> Jim Rojas
>
> Not likely, Brinks Security has been a profitable company with low
> attrition for quite a while whereas ADT is currently losing more
> customers through attrition than they bring on
>
> Besides if you are a security company protection houses from burglars
> how else are you going to advertise? "Brinks Security.....it's a
> keypad......and.......a keypad.."