82

A significant portion of my girlfriend's family have fallen for, what seems to me, an obvious Ponzi scheme.

They take money, in cash, to a casino in the area. They give the casino the cash, and one month later get 150% back. This amount is always handed back to them in cash, which they immediately reinvest. Some of them have been doing this for years.

My girlfriend, being a reasonably sensible person, has had no intentions of participating in this until recently. She now needs to save up some money for next year and is seriously considering putting her life savings into this scheme.

What are some strong arguments against participating in something like this?

Edit: This is a 'legal', fairly large casino. The casino has a story about using the money 'invested' as a float for Singaporean billionaire gamblers. No apparent strings attached to the money. The idea is that you can take it all home straight away.

Edit 2: The guy running the scam took the money and ran after about a year. A lot of people in my girlfriend's family lost a lot of money. Thankfully she didn't put any of her own money in.

Flux
  • 17,043
  • 8
  • 68
  • 124
Omegastick
  • 771
  • 1
  • 5
  • 11
  • 38
    If it is a legitimate casino, and the family has been doing it successfully for years, are you sure it is a scam? When you say “they immediately reinvest,” Do you mean that they immediately hand the cash back to the casino? Which casino is it? – Ben Miller Sep 04 '19 at 11:40
  • 56
    While this deal indeed sounds too good to be true, the question does not contain nearly enough information about the system to write a good argument against it. I think we need to know more in order to clearly show "the catch" of this arrangement. Is it a ponzi scheme? Then it wouldn't go on for years. Is it some illegal money laundering scheme? Perhaps, but we don't have any proof. Is it a confidence scam? Did anyone ever tried to not reinvest the money and cash out? What happened? – Philipp Sep 04 '19 at 11:41
  • 29
    @BenMiller To me, this triggers too many red flags to not be a scam. Working in cash only, the 50% p/m guaranteed returns, not certified with their country's security and exchange commision. Yes, they immediately hand the cash back to the casino. I'm not sure whether they've ever tried taking the cash home first. I'm not sure which casino (I'll check with my girlfriend when she gets back). – Omegastick Sep 04 '19 at 12:02
  • @Philipp What information do you want to know? I'm not sure if they've ever tried taking the cash home first. If they did, it would have been when they first started and were only putting small amounts of money in. I'm confident they haven't taken any home (or deposited any in a bank) recently. – Omegastick Sep 04 '19 at 12:04
  • 3
    Is there a written agreement? If so, are there conditions under which the returns are varied or withheld? Unless you have runaway inflation in your country, 600%pa yield compounded monthly doesn’t sound sustainable. – Lawrence Sep 04 '19 at 13:25
  • 3
    The bit about this going for years is admittedly difficult to explain, but there are just too many questions. How is it sustainable? Where is the extra money coming from? If this casino has a sure-fire guaranteed way to make 150% returns every month, then why isn't everyone doing this? If this weren't a scam or some other kind of illegal enterprise, I don't see why it wouldn't be part of every financial advsior's portfolio by now. – Steve-O Sep 04 '19 at 13:25
  • 3
    I find it hard to believe it has, literally, been going on for years, without getting to the point of being unmanageable truckloads of cash. I tried to come up with a figure for the sake of argument but none of the online interest calculators I tried would actually take an interest rate this high. That should tell you something right there. – dwizum Sep 04 '19 at 13:53
  • 122
    The numbers here don't add up at all. If I invested one single dollar with a 150% monthly ROI, I'd be a millionaire within 3 years and a billionaire within 5 years. Unless everyone in her family very recently became millionaires, it should be clear that it doesn't actually work this way. – Nuclear Hoagie Sep 04 '19 at 14:14
  • 4
    You need to provide more information for this to be answered properly. Is this a legal public casino? Do they advertise this offer to the public? What are the strings attached to the money? What is the deposit limit? (If it's a legal casino it's not possible that there aren't any rules around this deal. Maybe they have to place bets totaling the amount they receive at least once before they can take it home, etc.) – TTT Sep 04 '19 at 14:47
  • 10
    This fails the smell test. Such returns are completely impossible, no exceptions. Anyone saying they 'do not know enough yet to conclude' needs to reevaluate if they might also fall victim to a scam that doesn't come in a format they are used to. – Grade 'Eh' Bacon Sep 04 '19 at 14:55
  • 77
    The question can't possibly be accurate. A total investment less than $100 wouldn't be worth worrying about and the minimum amount of time you can describe as "years" would be two years. But if the description is accurate, $100 would become over $1.5 million in two years. There's no way anyone who invested just $100 is being shown over a million dollars in cash, told it's theirs, and not taking at least $100,000 out. Turning $100 into a $100,000 seems very much unlike a scam and not something to complain about. 50%/mo is quickly unsustainable even for a ponzi scheme. – David Schwartz Sep 04 '19 at 15:28
  • 12
    @Philipp ' Is it a ponzi scheme? Then it wouldn't go on for years. ' The Madoff scheme went on for over a decade. – Charles E. Grant Sep 04 '19 at 17:37
  • 10
    My guess would be that the money the casino gives back is all counterfeit. So they're really stealing whatever real money the family invests. In which case "investing one's life savings" would be financially disastrous. – bob Sep 04 '19 at 21:42
  • 16
    @CharlesE.Grant The Madoff scam was ~10% per year supposed return, involved investors being simply being told/shown a screen that said that they were getting that return, and had a sophisticated feeder system of billions of dollars. This scheme is 50% per month (12874% compounded over a year), supposedly involves actual money being shown to the investor, and takes only $100 per person. Suppose someone spends an hour recruiting someone into this scheme, then spend 10 min a month for 2 years showing them the cash. That's $20/hr. Not many people are willing to risk years in prison $20/hr. – Acccumulation Sep 04 '19 at 21:56
  • 2
    Actually something doesn't add up here: even if the casino only ever gives out fake bills, the amount of paper would quickly become unmanageable as described. $1M in fake bills would still be a LOT of bills to pass around. Is the casino instead only given out "money" in exchange for new money "invested"? In that case they're definitely stealing the new real money "invested" knowing they'll never give anything real in return. The "cash" they give is likely either fake, or if it's real then they probably wouldn't let anyone leave with it. – bob Sep 04 '19 at 21:56
  • 3
    Create an opportunity for the parents to invest the money in something else. See what happens when they try to take the money out. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Sep 04 '19 at 23:09
  • 5
    Don't invest your life savings in ANY one thing. – ab2 Sep 04 '19 at 23:13
  • No suggestions to get some authorities involved? – Mars Sep 05 '19 at 00:38
  • 1
    @NuclearWang Yes, a lot of her family members have recently become very 'rich'. Of course, they can't make use of this because the money is currently in the scheme. – Omegastick Sep 05 '19 at 02:04
  • 1
    @Mars Unfortunately, this is taking place in a very corrupt country. – Omegastick Sep 05 '19 at 02:05
  • 3
    @TTT This is a legal, fairly large casino. The casino has a story about using the money 'invested' as a float for Singaporean billionaire gamblers. No apparent strings attatched to the money. The idea is that you can take it all home straight away. – Omegastick Sep 05 '19 at 02:12
  • 3
    @Omegastick ok, that's important info. You should add that to your question. (Still doesn't really make sense why a casino would need to offer that though.) – TTT Sep 05 '19 at 02:47
  • 3
    #1 Why in the world are Singaporean billionaires going to this casino instead of to Monaco? #2 What happens when your GF's parents try and leave with the money? – RonJohn Sep 05 '19 at 03:38
  • @RonJohn #1 This is a third-hand retelling, but how I understand it is that the casino has a side-business of running private games for billionaires in Singapore. I'm not confident in how accurate that information is (I received it second-hand myself) and it's probably a fabrication anyway. #2 They took some home when they first started, but now reinvest everything every time. They haven't tried taking the money home recently. – Omegastick Sep 05 '19 at 06:21
  • 8
    How can anyone ask "are you sure it is a scam? " ?

    3 years at 150% every month and you are a millionaire by investing only 1 dollar !

    – agemO Sep 05 '19 at 08:20
  • 1
    @Omegastick: which “very corrupt country” is this? – Paul D. Waite Sep 05 '19 at 08:48
  • 4
    @bob: “$1M in fake bills would still be a LOT of bills to pass around” — not with these great new $169,000 bills we just got direct from Fort Knox! – Paul D. Waite Sep 05 '19 at 08:49
  • 3
    Tag the country. This is a Ponzi unless you live in country like Zimbabwe. But to convince your family is not easy as their mind already stuck with stories. I just write an answer for this "story vs story" condition. – mootmoot Sep 05 '19 at 09:05
  • 1
    @PaulD.Waite Lol! :) Good point. Still... – bob Sep 05 '19 at 12:39
  • 2
    Even after the edit, the math just doesn't add up. The story being told here simply can't be true. – bob Sep 05 '19 at 12:41
  • 8
    @agemO kids say "I'll never use this math in the real world", and then get suckered into stuff like this when they're adults. – RonJohn Sep 05 '19 at 12:43
  • Can you add a location tag please? Knowing the country will immensely. – ventsyv Sep 05 '19 at 17:51
  • 2
    @agemO - It sounds like the "casino" is *showing* them some money, which the marks then re-invest. I'm assuming it never leaves the premises and that the dupes would be given a reason why they couldn't actually take it away – Valorum Sep 05 '19 at 17:54
  • Highly relevant: https://money.stackexchange.com/q/112669/25694 – MonkeyZeus Sep 05 '19 at 18:03
  • @Valorum How can they show them millions or billions of dollars in cash ? (I also doubt that their initial or total investment was only 1$). I hope the OP will update. – agemO Sep 06 '19 at 06:29
  • 1
    @agemo - Madoff showed people millions by sending them a regular "statement". This is no different. I arrive with £10,000. After a few days I'm called in and shown what appears to be £20,000 but, critically, I'm barred from taking it out of the room. Have I got £20k? No, I've got nothing. – Valorum Sep 06 '19 at 06:32
  • @agemO I wasn't there, so I don't know. Her family just tell me that they definitely have the cash "in hand" before they reinvest. – Omegastick Sep 06 '19 at 06:38
  • 1
    @Valorum "This amount is always handed back to them in cash, which they immediately reinvest", I can imagine it can work for tens of thousands of dollars, but millions ? Or even billions ? Why the fuck would you try to convince a relative to invest 1K $ from his own pocket when you think you are a billionaire ? The key difference with Madoff is that the ponzi scheme was sustainable enough so that sometimes people where able to take some money out, and for the others it was only 'statement' not real (fake ?) cash. Here with 1$ turning rapidly into billions it is just not possible. – agemO Sep 06 '19 at 06:40
  • @Omegastick So to be clear, each member of your girlfriend's family think they are millionaire or billionaire now ? – agemO Sep 06 '19 at 06:43
  • @agemO Only one of them has been doing it long enough to become a 'millionaire'. The others merely think they are 'rich'. When I said 'all' in the OP, that was an exaggeration. I should have said "most". – Omegastick Sep 06 '19 at 06:46
  • @agemO - The issue for me is the "*which they immediately reinvest*". Since the money isn't ever entering their possession, they don't really have any money, even if they can, in theory, take it back. – Valorum Sep 06 '19 at 06:47
  • @Valorum It is just that at some points it seems they physically have some money in their hands, but millions and billions are a lot, so it just seems physically impossible to me. – agemO Sep 06 '19 at 06:52
  • @agemO - Sure. It's a "casino" (of sorts) so they've probably got quite a large float. That doesn't mean that this is a legitimate transaction though. It might just be people with access to the cash vault using their location as a cover. Since the money doesn't leave the casino, they don't need to show ownership of it. – Valorum Sep 06 '19 at 06:53
  • @Omegastick my point is that if most of them are rich or very rich, what's the point for the rest of the family to invest ridiculous amount of money from their own pocket ? And the millionaire guy, why can't he live a life of luxury ? I understand why turkeys that have only let say 10k $ prefer to reinvest all their "money" to have more later, but when you start to have millions, and the rest of your family is also getting rich, why not just taking a few hundred thousands $ each month ? – agemO Sep 06 '19 at 06:57
  • 5
    @agemO It's also possible that the one who is a 'millionaire' is lying, and in on the scam. – Omegastick Sep 06 '19 at 06:58
  • You have to show them the math, if you invest X$ and every month your investment get x 1.5, then after n months you will have X * 1.5 ^ n dollars.

    You can take a sheet and show them how 100$ will evolve.

    – agemO Sep 06 '19 at 07:06
  • 1
    Ok I can't answer because I just joined, but here are the total amount of money for 1000$ invested:

    After 1 year: 129 746$

    After 2 year: 16 834 112$

    After 3 year: 2 184 164 409$ (2 billions !!!)

    After 4 year: 283 387 333 428$ (283 billions, no ones is that rich)

    If the casino can do that they don't need anyone to invest, period. Ask them when this started (you can even say that you prefer something safe that has been going for a long time, so that they will try to give you a very large answer).

    – agemO Sep 06 '19 at 07:20
  • 1
    Sorry if I'm not putting this tactfully, but how well do you know your girlfriend and her family? Is there any possibility that gf + family's actual objective is to persuade you to part with your money to invest in this scheme that may or may not actually exist? – padd13ear Sep 06 '19 at 10:52
  • Could it be that the return is just casino bonus credit? In this case the casino might let you re-invest the bonus credit if you also add more actual money to encourage people to give them more every month. Winnings made with bonus credit can't be withdrawn (in this case, I don't know if that is normally possible) so there is no risk to the casino but they get free money every month from people who have no intention of actually playing. – Lomtrur Sep 06 '19 at 10:55
  • 4
    I think my solution would be a rather simpler "darling, if you invest in this, I will find a different girlfriend" for the basic reason that when she becomes a wife, my money will become our money and I don't want to share a life with someone who makes decisions like that, throwing away what I earned when it should have worthier causes like our future. I appreciate that you're trying to help and educate her, but ultimately everyone is free to lose their own money however they see fit so if you hit a brick wall with convincing her, there may be no other option – Caius Jard Sep 06 '19 at 11:51
  • Relevant: https://books.google.com/books?id=PMSk75TnYI0C&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=lewis+carroll+doubling+until+he+dies+%22sylvie+and+bruno%22&source=bl&ots=0EAwX-Jx8H&sig=ACfU3U0JnNsobA4lh0vcIKiv2qUqg52P4Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcxaLp0bzkAhUObq0KHcDUDOEQ6AEwEnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=lewis%20carroll%20doubling%20until%20he%20dies%20%22sylvie%20and%20bruno%22&f=false – Chris Sunami Sep 06 '19 at 16:43
  • Hmm... a transaction exceeding 500kPhP will make you subject to AMLA, which may mean 14 years of prison if there turns out being anything shady down the lane. How do prisons in the Philippines look like? Much alike Le Club Med where one would like to spend a couple of years, or rather like I'd imagine they do? Personally I'd stay away for that reason alone even if they did actually pay me 50% per month interest. – Damon Sep 06 '19 at 17:39
  • @Caius Jard IMO, your comment would be a good answer. – ab2 Sep 07 '19 at 01:37
  • @padd13ear They'd really be playing the long con. We've been dating two years, living together for three quarters of that. My girlfriend has helped me through some really hard times, and vice-versa. I'd part with my meager savings in a heartbeat, if it bought me the relationship I have. – Omegastick Sep 07 '19 at 04:44
  • @Omegastick: When people request clarification in comments, the thing to do is to edit the question to supply those clarifications. Don't just respond in comments. To see your clarifications, people now have to read an extremely lengthy comment stream. –  Sep 07 '19 at 18:32
  • How did this all turn out? – MonkeyZeus May 03 '22 at 13:43
  • 2
    @MonkeyZeus The guy running the scam took the money and ran after about a year. A lot of people in my girlfriend's family lost a lot of money. Thankfully she didn't put any of her own money in. – Omegastick May 03 '22 at 15:31
  • 2
    I'm really sorry to hear that. I think you should add this update at the end of your answer since this question is so popular. I don't think there are many people that will read through the 57 comments here. It will serve as an excellent warning beacon for years to come. Let me know if you're unsure of how to get started with the edit. – MonkeyZeus May 03 '22 at 15:54

11 Answers11

169

What's Wrong With Being a Turkey?

One of our dear friends comes to us to seek advice, since we seem to know a thing or two about money. Our friend just so happens to be a turkey - a particularly great turkey, thank you very much, so don't judge.

Our dear turkey friend is being told by all their friends that there is this incredibly friendly butcher they know, and believe it or not, as much as you might have heard rumors to the contrary, this butcher loves turkeys! Day after day, month after month, they visit this butcher and are given an incredible deal that is impossible to beat. In exchange for spending a little time with the butcher, they are given free food, shelter, warmth - all a turkey could possibly ask for!

Time after time, all the turkeys have had an absolutely wonderful time with the butcher, and have nothing but good things to say about them. All their turkey friends - including some very sophisticated, street smart, and well-educated turkeys - who have spent time with this butcher report only great experiences.

economic analysis of the prospects of a turkey

Now our turkey friend is feeling pretty bad about this whole thing. They are out, working their lives away for chicken-scratch like a sucker! Why shouldn't they get to wet their beaks, too? If this is a turkey-loving butcher, then why shouldn't they get the same great deal all their turkey friends are getting?

Now, from our perspective, the problem of our turkey friend is simple: they don't know about Thanksgiving.

You see, butchers do love turkeys. They love them, care for them, and protect them - right up until one fateful day when all of a sudden it won't be a good day to be a turkey. On that day no one will trade places with the turkeys for any price, and it will be too late to do anything about it - they will lose everything.

1000 and 1 day in the life of a turkey - surprise, Thanksgiving!

In our world, bad investments can work the same way. The mechanism doesn't really matter, be it ponzi scheme, money-laundering, confidence scam, embezzlement, organized crime, government corruption case, exotic derivatives trading, real estate tranches, A-rated securities (rated by once-admired pay-for-rating agencies), cryptocurrency-related scams (fake ICOs, mass stolen coins, evaporating alt coins, roach motel exchanges, questionable legal/tax treatment, market manipulation for cyclical pump and dump, etc.), or whatever the next sweetheart deal turns out to be. The result is that the world can look very bright right up until the day it doesn't anymore, and it only ever seems obvious in retrospect.

And the thing is, much like the turkey, we don't know when our version of Thanksgiving is scheduled.

Are you willing to make a special arrangement with the butcher, not knowing exactly on what day it will be a bad day to take that bet? Sure, of course you have something to gain, and those gains might be very precious if you could get them - but what would you do if you lost? How many weeks, months, or years of effort and sacrifice went into creating the savings you are willing to trust with the butcher? And do you know you'll only stand to lose what you invested and not more? Butchers tend to take more than turkeys thought they were "investing".

Remember the noble turkey, and consider the great care and effort put into taking care of animals being fattened up before the slaughter. This is the turkey problem, and the best way to win the game with butchers is not to be on the turkey side of the arrangement. Gobble gobble.

* this story is adapted from Nassim Taleb's telling of the turkey problem in The Black Swan, Antifragile, etc.

BrianH
  • 11,696
  • 4
  • 37
  • 35
  • 5
    I was with you until you inserted the word cryptocurrency into the same list as ponzi schemes and scams. – JBentley Sep 04 '19 at 22:14
  • 88
    @jbentley I bought Bitcoin (along with Litecoin and Etherium at the same time) when it was at over 16000. I keep them, as a reminder that speculation on large short term gains works right up until it doesn't. I knew people who got more carried away than I - I only lost a few hundred bucks for the lesson on how I can be a turkey too :) – BrianH Sep 04 '19 at 22:22
  • 27
    Yeah ok, but your bad luck at speculation doesn't say anything about cryptocurrencies as a commodity. You could just have easily lost that same money speculating on the stock market or on forex. There is nothing inherently "scam-like" about cryptocurrencies as with most of the other items in your list. – JBentley Sep 04 '19 at 22:25
  • 10
    The problem with this explanation is that (unless you invest all your and your family's money) you can accept some risk of a Thanksgiving if the other possible outcome is a 150 % return. "You might lose all that you invested" should not scare a rational investor away. If I was somehow magically guaranteed a 75 % chance of getting 150 % return and a 25 % chance of going bust, I'd definitely bet a part of my savings in that each month, as that would be a 112.5 % expected return. There must be something else going on here. – JiK Sep 05 '19 at 11:47
  • 2
    Big point that objectively wrong with the turkey story, is that they aren't loved, cared for or treated well until slaughter at all. They live in cramped, horrific, holocaust-like conditions and usually never see the light of day. So the story is a nice metaphor but isn't accurate of the life of a turkey, or any other poultry for that matter. – Cloud Sep 05 '19 at 12:35
  • 4
    @jik That's actually why such schemes work, time and again - not irrationality, but a misunderstanding of risk, and not knowing one's likely behavior multiple steps out. Most people who experience big gains are drawn to double down or more - if you got 150% returns for 1% of your savings, it is hard for most people not to think of how much more money they could have made with more in (just one of many such tricks). For risk, there is no known probability in advance of the tail event - things look less risky over time and as more people join - so the bet looks safer until it doesn't. – BrianH Sep 05 '19 at 12:41
  • 2
    @BrianH This answer makes it sound like that the only problem with this scheme is that there's a chance of failing. We might not know probabilities, but we can estimate based on the info we have: if there was an over 1/3 chance of failing each month, the scheme would not have run for years. There's absolutely no way that this scheme actually works as described in the question and this answer. The real answer is not about psychology of getting out and Kelly betting a risky investment, the real answer is that the scheme is not "150 % monthly return but we might fall with some probability". – JiK Sep 05 '19 at 13:19
  • @BrianH Also how are you calling "not knowing one's likely behavior multiple steps out" and "it is hard for most people not to think of how much more money they could have made with more in" not irrationality? Falling for such tricks is definitely irrational. – JiK Sep 05 '19 at 13:23
  • 1
    @JiK I had hoped the listing of potential crimes involved and the allegory of being led to the slaughter would have carried a stonger message of danger than a mathematical expectation of return, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough that this is a type of investment where you can potentially lose more than you gain - perhaps the 2nd to last paragraph caused that, I'll see if I can avoid that interpretation. – BrianH Sep 05 '19 at 13:26
  • 1
    "that this is a type of investment where you can potentially lose more than you gain" Once again, that is absolutely not a reason enough for this to be a bad investment. But the fact that someone claims it has given a 150 % monthly interest for years is; as shown in this comments, there's no way that has happened. – JiK Sep 05 '19 at 13:27
  • 22
    The turkey parable is the ultimate example of "past performance is no guarantee of future gains". – Barmar Sep 05 '19 at 18:07
  • 3
    Albeit entertaining I don't think that OP is going to be able to use this parable to dissuade the girlfriend within any sort of meaningful timeframe. It sounds like her eyes are locked on to greed and the "truth" of riches will outweigh the "truth" of the turkey story right up until Thanksgiving arrives. Trying to tell her that she is a turkey is further unlikely to dissuade her and would get her to resent OP. – MonkeyZeus Sep 05 '19 at 18:19
  • 1
    I don't feel like this is compelling argument. Everyone will agree that scams exist. The problem is that people who get scammed do not realize they are involved in a scam, for various reasons. Compare the tale of a turkey to that of a pet dog who is loved for, cared for, and never intentionally harmed. People being scammed will admit that OTHER PEOPLE might be slaughtered, but they have a loving owner who considers them a pet. The nice man at the casino isn't going to slaughter me. I know him. We're pals. Of course scams exist, but this is a business opportunity! I'm a dog not a turkey! – Rob P. Sep 06 '19 at 16:31
  • @RobP. Unfortunately I know of no universally effective argument to prevent people from getting grifted. Some people are especially unable to learn from the experience of others, and so have to learn for themselves. My goal has generally been to try to dissuade people from a bad decision, but to use a memorable and compelling story that they would also remember after and help them learn from the experience. We all screw up, so the hope is to limit damage while maximizing learning to prevent a long life of being taken advantage of. Such approaches helped me in the past, but YMMV. – BrianH Sep 06 '19 at 18:16
  • 3
    @Cloud before factory farms, farmers actually did care for their turkeys. For individual small-scale farmers, the best way to keep and increase business is to have the best turkeys, and turkeys that were well-cared-for (fed well, good shelter, room to move about) made the best turkeys. – Doktor J Sep 06 '19 at 19:18
  • @BrianH +1 Brilliant story about confidence buidling and abrupt end of performance.. There's a little turkey in all of us (one might call it greed or FOMO). My turkey-time was when I bought 2 ETH just before the start of the recent crypto winter. I was always a pretty conservative investor (ETF's, physical gold, some single stocks, properties) but after a decade of crypto being around I just wanted one or two for myself. Your take on it (to keep it as a reminder) serves as a good band-aid.. ;) – iLuvLogix Jun 26 '22 at 20:15
61

I think it's less about proving that it's a Ponzi scheme and more about thinking which argument will resonate best with her.

Everyone responds to different types of arguments.

For someone who is a logical thinker, you could break down the logic and explain how ridiculous the returns are. With such ridiculous returns, you would have to wonder why someone would offer a deal like that. Why 50%? Why not 25%? Why wouldn't they take out a loan and pay a lower rate instead?

For someone who is naive but open-minded, you could explain how ponzi schemes work, the risks involved, and why they are too good to be true (similar to talking someone out of a new MLM business venture).

For someone who is inherently cynical, the "if it seems too good to be true..." argument is usually good enough.

For someone who is motivated by fear and/or greed, you could explain the risks. What if you lose your entire life savings? What is your recourse if something goes wrong? Is this transaction even legal?

One last consideration - it doesn't have to be all or nothing. If she can't be talked out of it entirely, have her test the waters. Start with a smaller "investment" to gauge the scenario. Fortunately, you are dealing with a 1-month timeframe so you can be more attentive.

daytrader
  • 2,232
  • 8
  • 13
  • 8
    The logical thinker and fear parts can be used quite well in conjunction with the "test the waters" idea. If she decided to risk $100,000, she'd be a millionaire in 6 months if it were legit. Or she could put in $60 and be a millionaire in 2 years. Saving 18 months isn't worth that risk. – Ray Sep 04 '19 at 21:30
  • 74
    Be careful with the 'testing the water' strategy. The returns can be great for a long time before they're suddenly gone. Don't accidentally convince her that it works. – Glenn Willen Sep 04 '19 at 22:02
  • 1
    "Why 50%? Why not 25%? Why wouldn't they take out a loan and pay a lower rate instead?"

    That not convincing at all, why don't they invest 1 dollar in their own scheme and sit on 36 billions dollars 5 years later ?

    If she is not convinced by this, it will be totally impossible for her to 'test the waters'. It would be easy to just invest 10$ then just wait, but she will not wait.

    – agemO Sep 05 '19 at 08:56
  • @GlennWillen But Ray makes a good point that if you've got $100,000 in savings, then $60 is a reasonable high-risk, high-reward stake ($60 is about 2-3 months of 1%pa bank interest on the $100k principal). If it is legitimate, you become a millionaire in 24 months (26 if you take back your $60 after 2 months). If it turns out to be a scam, you get back your $60 in bank interest in a few months. Still sounds scammy, but at a casino the odds are always against the players anyway. The words casino and investment are usually an odd collocation. – Lawrence Sep 05 '19 at 12:12
  • 9
    @Lawrence But there is 0% chance this is NOT a scam. Obviously, it is a scam, period. There is no 'if' about it. – Grade 'Eh' Bacon Sep 05 '19 at 12:49
  • 1
    @Grade'Eh'Bacon It’s a casino. Losing $60 is better than losing $100k if the OP’s girlfriend is determined to play. – Lawrence Sep 05 '19 at 13:12
  • 6
    @Lawrence There's a difference between a legitimate casino that offers some entertainment value in exchange for a known chance that you lose your money. This here is just a pure scam. And the problem is that the scammer will try to convince a player that everything is legitimate, in order for them to increase the amount 'invested'. Interacting with the scammers gives them the opportunity to scam you further. The winning move is not to play. – Grade 'Eh' Bacon Sep 05 '19 at 13:19
  • 6
    @Lawrence What you could lose is your freedom if that money is being used for laundering (take good money from patsies, trade that to the criminals at a steep discount for their dirty money, give some of the dirty money back to patsies to keep them hooked and launder the rest through the casino). – IllusiveBrian Sep 05 '19 at 13:39
  • 1
    @IllusiveBrian The all-cash policy on transactions supports that possibility. With that and Grade ‘Eh’ Bacon’s comments, I’m turning in my chips this round. :) – Lawrence Sep 05 '19 at 14:58
  • 1
    @GlennWillen "why don't they invest 1 dollar in their own scheme?" How do you know they haven't, and are just letting others in on the scheme? This is even true of pure pyramid schemes, the catch is that only the early investors get the promised returns. – Barmar Sep 05 '19 at 18:12
  • 1
    If it's a casino, they should already have enough currency from varied sources that they shouldn't need additional investment for this laundering. If they actually need investors for this, the investors must somehow be turkeys. – Aaron Cicali Sep 06 '19 at 21:57
46

TL;DR

Knowledge is the only way to dissuade a person. If they don't accept knowledge then there is unfortunately very little you can do besides beg them not to do it.


Unless this is money laundering then there is really no reason that such an establishment would need your money just to give you back 150% at the end of the month.

I'm sorry to hear that her family has been blinded and trapped by greed.

I say trapped because this is how I envision the process works:

  1. Give money to casino ($100)
  2. 30 days later get 150% returned ($150)
  3. Casino says that in order to re-invest that you need to give them $500
  4. 30 days later receive $750
  5. Casino says that in order to re-invest that you need to give them $1,500
  6. 30 days later receive $2,250
  7. Casino says that in order to re-invest that you need to give them $3,000
  8. This time the casino says that in order to receive 150% that you must keep your money in longer (60 days)
  9. 60 days later they say that the return is only 125% ($3,750) because of {insert fabrication here} so they convince you to put in $3,000 in new money so that you can make money faster at this lower rate
  10. 30 days later your investment has "grown" to $10,125 so you tell them you wish to withdraw it all but they convince you to just leave it in because the returns are 60% for anyone that leaves it in and gives new money.
  11. 30 days later they show you a fabricated piece of paper with your investment "growth"
  12. 30 days later you really wish to withdraw your money once and for all but they tell you that there is now a mysterious penalty where you forfeit all of the investment "growth" and they take 10% from your real money
  13. You are frustrated but you are not going to start an altercation because the guards are quite beefy. You can try going to the police but they are probably getting their pockets lined with your money. Do you really wish to admit that you willingly participated in a money laundering scheme?
  14. They offer you a way out; get other people to invest and maybe someday they will give you back what you put in.
  15. Rinse and repeat.

Note: $100 was merely used as a simple reference point for easy math.

If your girlfriend has to save up for months just to engage in this behavior then their grasp is going to be like a vice grip from the very beginning especially since she is gambling with money which she cannot afford to lose.

Sunk cost fallacy is going to be a major factor in how much your girlfriend ends up losing.


Given that the buy-in is probably much higher than $100 they may actually start the conversation like this:

So how much money do you wish to make? Can you put up $50,000 immediately?

To which she will reply:

Gosh, no. I only have $3,000 saved in total.

Them:

So no 401K you can liquidate or IRAs? Our returns are far superior to anything your measly investments can return.

She:

I can get about $8,000 if I liquidate my investments.

Them:

Okay, go ahead and do that but in order for us to see that your serious please try to come in with $10,000 because that is the absolute minimum that my boss would allow me to accept without tearing my head off but I'm going to risk it just for you. I suggest borrowing from a family member because you can pay them back with the interest almost immediately.

She:

Good golly, if my family hears about this then they would probably want to invest as well.

Them:

Oh, really??

and queue the scheme...

MonkeyZeus
  • 8,473
  • 2
  • 23
  • 48
  • 1
    Put a slightly different way: none of this is on paper. If/when something suddenly changes, you have zero recourse. You can't even prove that you invested any money in the first place. – bta Sep 06 '19 at 21:11
  • 6
    This should be the accepted answer because it's the only one that explains how the scam is actually going to go. Having a model that predicts the steps that are going to be used to dupe the victim before they happen is the only way to have a chance of making them see it. – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Sep 06 '19 at 22:35
  • 6
    This has turned out to be right on the money, in terms of predicting how the scam works. I've got more details from my girlfriend's family, and over time the amount they return per investment has gone down (it's down to 110% now) and the required time to keep the investment in has gone up (it's now several months). – Omegastick Sep 07 '19 at 04:35
  • 2
    Then this should be the accepted answer, no? – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Sep 07 '19 at 19:07
  • @Omegastick You are free to mark my answer as the accepted answer if you feel that it helped you the most. – MonkeyZeus Sep 09 '19 at 12:47
  • @MonkeyZeus You hit the nail on the head with how the scam functioned, but unfortunately this isn't the logic that dissuaded my girlfriend. – Omegastick Sep 10 '19 at 01:05
  • @Omegastick I see. Would you be willing to elaborate on what actually dissuaded her? I recommend editing it into your answer because I think it could be an invaluable piece of knowledge. – MonkeyZeus Sep 10 '19 at 02:17
  • 3
    @Omegastick I find it intriguing that your girlfriend's family kept bragging about 50% return on investement while in fact it was not the case at all. – agemO Sep 11 '19 at 08:50
28

A sign that it is a Ponzi scheme is that the returns are so good that the victim lets it ride. They are encouraged to not pull money from the program. Showing them the cash makes it seem real, but they never need to have as much cash as you would think as long as the number of participants is growing.

To convince somebody you need to be able to explain why guaranteed returns of 50% a year would not be sustainable, and 50% guaranteed a month is even more unlikely.

You would have to explain the concept behind the most famous Ponzi schemes, including the way the psychology worked. You will also have to explain that many people have been caught, even people that should have known better.

You also have to realize that convincing somebody to exit once they are in is very difficult. People want to believe.

mhoran_psprep
  • 139,546
  • 15
  • 193
  • 389
  • 56
    I would add the math in explicitly: If you gain 50% each month, then in 1 year you can turn $1,000 into $86,000 [show them how this math of compounding works], and in 3 years you would have 1.5 BILLION dollars. If someone has a way to earn that type of money, then why do they need yours??? – Grade 'Eh' Bacon Sep 04 '19 at 14:53
  • 4
    @Grade'Eh'Bacon Google calculator says 1000*1.5^12=129,746. Are you doing 1.5^11? – Acccumulation Sep 04 '19 at 22:01
  • @Grade'Eh'Bacon Also for 3 years I get 2.1 billion dollars 1000*(1.5^(12*3)) Did you do 1.5^35 instead of 2.5^36? No big deal, though. – ErikE Sep 04 '19 at 22:29
  • 2
    Guessing that @Grade'Eh'Bacon has a spreadsheet with month entries 1 to 12, and 1 to 36. Taking "in" to mean within one or three calendar years it makes sense. – Daniel R. Collins Sep 05 '19 at 02:20
  • A gain of 50% per month with a life expectancy of 6 months is easy to profit from. The problem is if it's a Ponzi scheme it will probably get rolled back and your gains taken from you. – Joshua Sep 05 '19 at 03:19
  • 2
    @Joshua Well, the simple fix for that is not to invest everything back. Take out as much as you would get from a reasonable investment. Of course, this doesn't help you if you're given counterfeit money or some such. Or if two gorillas come to you and break your legs. Which is likely the case, because even in a money laundering scheme or similar illegal activity, 50% per month would be way too much to be worth it. – Luaan Sep 05 '19 at 07:18
  • "Showing them the cash makes it seem real" - if they have 100 "investors" in this scheme, they only need enough cash to show to one investor at a time. And if they show somebody $1m in cash, is that person actually going to spend the time to check it is all real notes and not counterfeit -especially if they are only going to "reinvest" it anyway! – alephzero Sep 05 '19 at 09:25
  • 1
    @Joshua There is 0 chance this is a real return [call it a ponzi or whatever, but don't pretend it might be real]. – Grade 'Eh' Bacon Sep 05 '19 at 12:48
  • @Luaan No, the simple fix is to not invest anything - you are not going to outsmart the people scamming you, so don't try! – Grade 'Eh' Bacon Sep 05 '19 at 12:48
  • @Grade'Eh'Bacon Well, I'm talking about how to convince the people involved to stop this madness, not about what you should do :P – Luaan Sep 05 '19 at 13:59
20

Have her invest exactly 1 dollar and allow her to only re-invest any money deriven from that very first dollar.

Within 3 years (which equal 36 months), she will either be a millionaire or she will have lost only that one dollar and learned a valuable lesson.

1 * 1.5 ^ 36 = 2,184,164
knallfrosch
  • 331
  • 1
  • 4
  • 8
    They probably won't be interested in taking $1. Remember, it's supposed to be a cash game for billionaires. – Therac Sep 05 '19 at 08:44
  • 26
    Don't engage with scammers - this is not legitimate, and you will not outsmart them. – Grade 'Eh' Bacon Sep 05 '19 at 12:50
  • 8
    @Grade'Eh'Bacon Exactly! If she goes there with a dollar, they'll convince her to invest more - maybe even her life savings. These guys are pros - they run confidence scams all the time and know all the tricks in the book. – ventsyv Sep 05 '19 at 17:46
14

They give the casino the cash, and one month later get 150% back.

That's 13000% interest per year (before you ask: I refuse to use thousands separators for interest rates, to preserve my sanity).

Some of them have been doing this for years.

That seems unlikely. If they started with $10,000 and did it for 2 years they'd have $169,000,000 by now and would have cashed out. If they started with only $100 but did so 3 years ago they'd have even more money.


In conclusion, the information you have about the scam is wrong, so either her family told her lies, or you're not understanding the system correctly. Either way means you probably won't be able to convince her by telling her how investment scams work in detail - she'll be easily convinced by her family that this one is different.

Instead teach her about investing, loans, and legitimate looking scams like Bernie Maddoff. If she's looking to invest her life savings, she needs to know that stuff anyways. There is pretty much only one thing you need to teach her:

The existence of loans and arbitrage means interest rates reflect risk. 10% annual interest is more risk than 5% annual interest. This works the same for offering and taking loans. If there's a mismatch between interest and risk, arbitrageurs get involved and make money closing that gap. These arbitrageurs compete with each other so the gap won't ever be massive.

On top of that, teach her the common interest rates for stuff people actually invest in, and their associated risks. Start with government bonds, corporate bonds, and indices. Then tell her 100% annual interest is betting on a color in roulette. Once she knows that it's up to her to figure out what kind of risk 13000% interest would represent if it wasn't a scam.

Peter
  • 2,113
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 2
    "either her family told her lies, or you're not understanding the system correctly" Or the casino lied to her parents. or her parents misunderstood. – RonJohn Sep 05 '19 at 14:41
  • 3
    @RonJohn I intentionally wrote "told her lies" instead of "lied to her". I agree I could have been clearer, but decided doing so wouldn't noticeably improve the answer. – Peter Sep 05 '19 at 14:46
  • To "tell lies" is pretty active. Changing it to "repeated lies" would definitely clarify the answer. – RonJohn Sep 05 '19 at 15:43
  • 2
    @RonJohn They are telling lies if they claim they've been doing it for years and they get to hold (or ever see, for that matter) all of the cash at the end of each month. Assuming we're talking about either USD or Philippine Pesos, (or any other similar currency) the physical properties of the bills would make that rapidly become absurd, and then impossible just a few years into the scheme, regardless of how little was initially invested, and even sooner for investments of reasonable size. The only way this would not be true is if they are confused about the RoR and it's actually much smaller. – Xander Sep 06 '19 at 15:17
  • @Xander see my first comment to this answer. – RonJohn Sep 06 '19 at 16:39
  • I think you've added an extra zero there. (1.5^12-1)100% = 12874% or around 13,000% not 130,000%. (And this is why you should* use a thousands separator...) – GB supports the mod strike Sep 07 '19 at 11:08
9

How to convince her it's a scam? Easy, ask the following questions:

  1. Is it the casino, or someone AT the casino? Do they have any paperwork showing they loaned the money to the casino?
  2. Why would the casino pay 50% monthly interest rate when even credit cards top off at 25% annually?
  3. Surely the casino can go to a bank and get a much better loan, why does it need to get it from you?
  4. If the casino needs money as a "float" why don't they just keep more of their profits in the vault instead of paying you outrageous interest?

These question will reveal the truth - it's not the casino borrowing the money, and they don't need it to "float" billionaire, therefore it's a scam.

I suggest you call the police or the attorney general of your states (if you are in the US) immediately.

ventsyv
  • 1,322
  • 7
  • 7
  • 3
    Your last sentence is important. It's the first thing I would do to prove my point to my girlfriend: Report the ponzi scheme to the police and let them do their work. – Alexander Sep 06 '19 at 06:39
  • @Alexander While morally the right thing to do, it might allow the girlfriend's family to falsely attribute the loss of their money to OP's actions. It will also need the girlfriend's and her family's cooperation, because on his own the OP has no proof. – Peter Sep 13 '19 at 09:23
6

Although other people here already shown 150% compound return is impossible, I doubt you can convince your girlfriend and the family easily.

As mentioned by Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, fast and slow, human being love to convince themselves to unrealistic stuff with stories(thinking fast). To make one think rationally (thinking slow) is not easy unless you tell them an even better story.

Because many people hate to be proven wrong by others, letting them discover it themselves is a better way. Reconstruct a monopoly game and play with her and her family, put a new rule that looks absurd in monopoly game :

  • From the beginning, the banker offer players to deposit $200 for the first 5 round, with a penalty of forbidding from purchasing any property. The first 5 round $200 will continue to compound 150% interest and pays in round 12. (You must prepare the payout table in a paper for 36 rounds before you start the game)

Since the total of monopoly virtual money is around $20,580, the monopoly banker's will exhaust all the money in round 10 (compound gains value of the $200 is $20028.52).

You can also tweak the "put deposits but no property buying" rules to make the compound value increase even faster, e.g. put $1,200 for compound interest with the no buying penalty, cannot collect $200 for first 5 round. Here, the banker will go bankrupt in 7th round.

p/s: by the way, the idea is royalty free. Feels free to create one new board game out of it and make sure you don't stumble over Hasbro monopoly board games license.

mootmoot
  • 4,183
  • 9
  • 20
  • Slight change to this answer: The official Monopoly rules say the bank never runs out of money, that is, hyperinflation is by the book. Even if a house rule results in the bank paying out ten times as much currency as it started with, the bank still gets to make the payment and remain solvent. – Codes with Hammer Sep 06 '19 at 18:17
1

Alternatively to the good answers already here, but depending on your local laws and regulatory agencies, you may also be able to tip off the regulatory agencies that you have strong suspicions that this is a Ponzi scheme. It probably won't happen fast, but your girlfriend can't invest in a likely-illegal scam if the people running it get arrested first.

0

This investment return makes it more or less certain that this is a scam. A 50% return in a month, every month, on just cash, is absurd. If they were generating those returns, why wouldn't they keep more of that 50% for themselves? The only answer is because need to promise a lot of free money in order to attract victims.

First, have her ask her family for the documents and materials explaining the transaction - receipts, contracts, prospectus, pamphlets, whatever. I am guessing that documentation is minimal, maybe no more than a claim ticket. Criminals usually do not like lots of documentation of their crimes. Legitimate ventures usually do not mind explaining the details to their investors.

Then, have her ask her family how much money from this casino venture they have withdrawn and taken home, versus how much they have reinvested. Odds are they reinvest every bit of it. All the criminals need to do is flash some cash and trust that most or all of it will be "reinvested." They just need enough circulating currency to make it look real. At the end, when they have drawn in as many suckers as they can stand, they leave town.

Finally, have her warn her family it is a scam and tell them it's their fault if they lose everything. They are probably too far gone, but maybe this will slow them down. if nothing else, it will set the tone for when they come begging for money.

If you're feeling public-spirited, you might try turning over some information to local law enforcement. But I think it's wisest to avoid the criminals entirely.

NL7
  • 4,819
  • 16
  • 20
-5

I'm going to start with the assumption that it's at least semi-legitimate. I can't really know since I'm not there. Yes, it's unsustainable long term but you don't need to stick around for the long term.

Invest a small amount of money. (say $100). After two months you will have $225. Take out $125 and reinvest the rest. You now have zero risk and a 25% return on your original investment. What's left is house money.

If its a scam you'll find out quickly before losing a lot of money. If it's a Ponzi scheme they'll let you take out the $125 in order to keep the scam going.

If its not a scam you'll have enough money to live comfortably on forever in about 3 years.

I would also pull out money at regular intervals say 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 500,000 etc.

The biggest problems are lack of understanding of compounding interest and risk. A high interest rate will turn into ridiculous money very quickly. There's no need to increase your risk by investing more. You should be doing the opposite and minimizing your risk.

Savage47
  • 199
  • 1
  • 4
  • 13
    Obviously it is not even semi-legitimate. Why give an obvious scammer $125? You are advising someone to get scammed out of their money. – Grade 'Eh' Bacon Sep 05 '19 at 12:50
  • 9
    This is terrible advice. Ponzi schemes need new investors to feed the old. They'll play shell games to keep you coming back until the house of cards implodes. The only winning move in Ponzis is to avoid them entirely, as they have no means to generate legitimate revenue – Machavity Sep 05 '19 at 13:17
  • 4
    @Savage47 Please re-read the question at hand. The girlfriend is considering to buy into this using her life savings. I don't believe that $100 qualifies as life savings in most countries. She is gambling with money she cannot afford to lose. Change $100 in your question into a more likely $20,000 and you will quickly see why your suggestion is ludicrous. The buy-in is not $100 because the effort required to work you over is not worth such a small amount of money. – MonkeyZeus Sep 05 '19 at 13:29
  • @Monkey- Please re-read what I said because all of that is already answered in my original post. – Savage47 Sep 05 '19 at 13:33
  • 4
    I read it several times and fail to see the silver lining. The suggestion of "Yes, you should proceed with getting screwed because you've managed to defeat the opponent with a 5 minute mental plan against a professional scheme which may involved thousands of people." is generally frowned upon. – MonkeyZeus Sep 05 '19 at 13:37
  • Not what I said. I never said to proceed with anything. – Savage47 Sep 05 '19 at 13:40
  • @MonkeyZeus I can't see where he said that she should invest her lifesavings? He said she should invest 100$. And getting screwed out of 100$ would be an OK price to pay to no get scammed out of your life savings. Obiously this plan still has a serious flaw: You would need to guarantee that the person sticks with it. Onces shes talking with them, no matter what you told her, they'll convince her to invest more. They will tell her that she needs to invest atleast large number for them to offer her the deal, and they tell her "look how the 100$ turned out, everything worked out. – Lichtbringer Sep 05 '19 at 15:34
  • 2
    I like this approach of limiting risk, and playing along with exponential growth until it does come crashing down. Savage47 is right -- it would only take a couple cycles to recoup the initial (small) amount. – donjuedo Sep 05 '19 at 19:56
  • 3
    I appreciate that you are trying to limit risk here, but this is a dangerous game and it is wisest not to play. For example, the scammers might continually up the buy-in requirements to participate. Or they might eject somebody who keeps making withdrawals. There are lots of ways the scammers could convince a half-skeptical person to just keep adding little bits of money to chase higher returns. Hearing about all the money you're missing out on is really difficult and even once-sensible investors can be hypnotized. – NL7 Sep 06 '19 at 18:14
  • 2
    The problem with this approach is that - while technically sound - it is really playing with fire. Under ideal conditions (everything goes as planned, your initial return gets paid to try to entice you to continue, you or the girlfriend don't get talked (tempted, threatened...) into investing more than the initial $100, you retain all your limbs and organs intact, etc.) you are basically only guaranteed to make $25. If it's a scam, any more you make is made off the backs of other suckers while you likely know, making you culpable as well. –  Sep 06 '19 at 18:27
  • 1
    If anybody is thinking about taking this approach and can't be talked out of it, I would seriously suggest that you disclose your plan to the people you give that first $100 to - that is, tell them that the $100 is all you need to invest due to the fact that your target return is... and then insert a dollar amount. For instance, tell them, I only want to earn $1 million after taxes, and this initial investment will yield that in under 2 years so I have no need to ever invest any more and can't, won't. See what they say. I'll bet they either turn you down or you'll never see any money back. –  Sep 06 '19 at 18:30
  • The major flaw to this plan is that, whether or not this is legitimate or (far more likely) a scam, there's not much reason to allow an initial investment of $100. Definitely not if it's a scam, and for this exact reason. Why allow a mark to easily determine they've participated in a scam, and pay them for doing so? If the minimum investment to participate in this scheme is not trivial, even a risk-minimizing strategy can easily leave the "investor" seriously overexposed. – Upper_Case Sep 10 '19 at 20:44
  • Lots of people didn't read the first sentence of my reply. – Savage47 May 14 '22 at 02:01