Madoff's 'customers' mostly believed that he must be doing something not quite kosher, but they thought they could still make money off of it.
This is a significant thing. My anecdotal understanding (from talking to my wall st friends) is that his clients basically thought he was screwing someone else (with his trading operations) so that his fund could do so well.
I wonder if this effect also takes hold in Nigerian emails scams. Would their success rate go up if they implied they were screwing someone else out of the money?
Isn't that the point of the Nigerian scams - the money is always illegal (some corrupt politician / foreign aid money) that needs to be got out of the country - so you feel you are "in" on the real scam?
It also discourages you from reporting it once you have sent off any money.
Honestly, I havent' gotten one in a while. I do recall some that seemed very legit (no implication that victim would be in on fraud). It was inheritance, and there were banking regulations that to be worked around, etc. Adding a taste of fraud seems like smart choice for the attacker.
From what I've read of the succesfull ones - as the victim sends more money more details of who was/has to be bribed, how the money was obtained, how the bank regs are broken are revealed.
Ultimately it becomes a carrot/stick - if you send more money you will get closer to the pay out BUT if you don't send more money we will reveal your role to the police/banks in your country.
This is a significant thing. My anecdotal understanding (from talking to my wall st friends) is that his clients basically thought he was screwing someone else (with his trading operations) so that his fund could do so well.
I wonder if this effect also takes hold in Nigerian emails scams. Would their success rate go up if they implied they were screwing someone else out of the money?