On the recordNovember 20, 2013
The answer is zero. And the reason the answer is zero, sir, is because it would take money away from people who did not get their own money.
Source
congress.govEditor's note · Context
Garrett explains the implications of Ponzi schemes on SIPC payments.
Share & report
More from Scott Garrett
Nov 20, 2013
I think that is one of the takeaways from today is that first, you are willing to change the SIPC logo to say that there is a caveat and that your members will now have a caveat or statement, and that should be indicated to them on a…
Dec 11, 2013
I have been quite disturbed at this Administration's clear pattern of stonewalling anyone who dares shine the light of day into the inner workings of this Administration.
Sep 16, 2014
You have heard from both sides of the aisle that we believe that information should be heard.
Nov 20, 2013
If you wish to put an addendum saying SIPC does not permit the payment of fraudulent, fictional profits, we would be in agreement.
Other voices in this conversation
