The King is Dead

Ah yes, you have me there - there are idiots buying them, thus if one is able to find idiots to buy one's bonds, they are not valueless monetarily. And lord knows there are plenty of idiots in the world. Not something I would call a reliable value, admittedly.

I don't know as I've never spoken with nicholas personally. I think the problem really is that he called ginko a bank and was asking for deposits rather than positioning and calling ginko a high risk investment fund which based on the available facts is what it actually is (as someone posted above).

I'm not sure everyone who's buying them now is an idiot. Example: Ginko themselves announced they'll be buying and that makes a lot of sense to me.

Are you buying them?

Yes.

What value do you think they have? Apart from your ability to sell them to people.

Surprised to hear such rudeness from you. There are some people who are trying to dig their way out of a huge hole. You ever make a mistake in your life and try to come up with a solution to salvage something?

It's plain to see through his responses in this forum that he feels that he has zero obligation to disclose his activities with people's money. It doesn't matter what he called it. What matters is that he refuses to lay out what he's done with 750k USD worth of deposits, what dog investments he's put them in, and how he intends to make good on returning the principal, much less the interest. No integrity. Some people here are dumb enough to think that just because he hasn't actually disappeared yet and is sticking his neck out in these forums that he has a conscience and that he's trying to do right. Wrong. He's shifted his repayment obligation from himself to the market by converting their funds into the toilet paper that is GPB. Oh, and he still hasn't demonstrated an investment strategy that is going to show how he's going to repay all the debt, much less the interest, if Ginko's assets are tied up in losers... except with NEW MONEY FROM NEW DEPOSITORS. Ponzi, anyone?

Why would anyone knowing this do business with this man?

Of course it makes sense for Ginko to buy them - he's paid off the debt at a fraction of the cost.

I wish there was a more polite way to describe those in the market to buy these bonds, but I fear that only the most severe language will serve to jar them out of their dreams.

Buying Ginko bonds at the moment, unless one is certain one can sell them to somebody else by some magic trick or force of personality, indicates that the purchaser is behaving, monetarily, extremely foolishly, and I fear there are no two ways about it.

keep telling ppl our economy is ran by idiots with to much money and they keep looking at me as if i`m stupid

actually from a legal point of view it makes all the difference in the world.

It doesn't matter because in the end it worked out to be a de facto ponzi scheme, even if that was not his original intent.

as I posted on another thread: I don't see them trading near 1L$ because then they're only yielding 12% for new investors and there are better places to put one's money. (you can just leave it as a cash balance on deposit at WSE and you'll get 15.9%)

So there are legal precedents to follow in a case like this?

Do depositors have any legal recourse?

Seems to me that genko are trying to resolve this. They could have just disapeared, and with LL policy of privacy and not getting involved with resident desputes regarding money, there would be no comeback on genko.


I say genko you say ginko, lets call the whole thing off.

it does matter. a ponzi scheme by definition is an original intent. and from what I understand the intent was to invest depositors money in medium to high risk investments which per se is not a ponzi scheme.

Well, I wasn't really asking what you thought they weren't going to trade at - I was asking what you thought they were actually worth, what sort of income they would generate or represented - if any. In other words: what rational reason would anyone have to pay money for them?

The trouble is, we don't know that any money was invested anywhere. Ginko refuses to state where the money is. That's what is fueling all the ponzi speculations.

Well let's see. He called it a bank. It was advertised as a bank, with ATMs. People had "savings accounts." They weren't issued shares. He sunk the money into investments that, from all appearances, weren't going to return the kind of cash that he expected, at least not at first. So how does one pay the exorbitant interest on the existing deposits if the money is tied up in investments that he refuses to liquidate? If the answer is, "with new deposits" - if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's...

well if you read my post again you'll see I'm saying Ginko was behaving like an investment fund and not a bank.

Charles Ponzi's origianal intent was to invest in low risk, high yield investmants. He found that the demand was far higher than he could physicaly invest. He came upon the scheme named after him by digging a hole he could not get out of any other way.

No crap. It behaved partially like an investment fund, and partially like a bank. All banks make investments to generate interest. But his offered exorbitant rates and needed a plan to deliver. It becomes clear that the only way it could do it was through new deposits. Without more information, that is the only logical conclusion.

You know what? You go right ahead and buy his toilet paper. See you on the 12th of Never getting your money back.

To whoever posted ginkos co-owner information from the domain name Whois,should know we can all see that information, what you just did there, is to make up some drama, and likely have people who are frustrated right now, trying to get his address,and.Who knows.

Totally irresponsible and idiotic

You think someone can just skeedaddle with a half a million US and think that there is not gonna be some drama?