Dear FRONTLINE,

I watched this program with amazement at the coolness of Mr.Madoff.When all these people knew at some time that the market was going way up or way down, how in the world could these folks all think this was just normal for this ONE man's company to give such consistent returns.There were so many red flags that a child of 2 could have seen. The fact that he didn't use electronic mail for one thing. What company does that in this day and age? If someone wanted me to invest such large sums of money without using his name in the prospectus is another thing.If everything was on the up and up why would it be necessary to hidemr. Madoff's identity. My heart goes out to all the victims imcluding the sons and wife of Mr. Made-off.He should rot in hell for what he has done to so many and his family and friends.

SUSAN SHUMWAY
Phoenix, Arizona

Dear FRONTLINE,

June 17, 2009

Dear Sirs:

Frontline's "The Madoff Affair," broadcast on May 12, made several untrue assertions about companies in the Fairfield Greenwich Group, a group of affiliated New York financial services firms that, along with their clients, were victimized in the fraud.

Contrary to statements made on the program, Fairfield Greenwich conducted thorough due diligence of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities and its operations. From the time we made an initial "test" investment with Madoff in 1989 and launched the Fairfield Sentry fund in 1990, Fairfield Greenwich continually and regularly enhanced its diligence and risk monitoring capabilities to keep pace with evolving industry standards and growth of the Sentry funds. Throughout these years, Fairfield Greenwich performed extensive oversight through quantitative monitoring based on trade confirmations, monthly brokerage statements, price checking, and asset verification. Fairfield Greenwich's diligence and risk management practices were consistently in line with what it told investors about its funds.

The Frontline program contained several other errors, as well. For example:

1) Frontline inaccurately portrayed a December 2005 call between Madoff and Fairfield Greenwich personnel, in preparation for an interview with the SEC. Frontline failed to disclose that, prior to the call, Fairfield Greenwich had requested permission from the SEC to speak with Madoff, and that Fairfield Greenwich people discussed the Madoff call with the SEC afterward. Most important, records clearly show that Fairfield Greenwich personnel responded truthfully to all of the SEC's questions.

2) Frontline erroneously portrayed an on-site visit to Madoff's office by Fairfield Greenwich executive Jeffrey Tucker, implying that Mr. Tucker never received verification of Madoff's trading. In fact, Mr. Tucker was shown an electronic screen with Depository Trust Company records of Fairfield Greenwich client trades.

3) Frontline erroneously reported that Fairfield Greenwich's due diligence operation was located solely in Bermuda. In fact, our professionals actively monitored the investment with Madoff and conducted due diligence both in Bermuda and at the firm's New York headquarters.

4) Finally, Frontline erroneously implied that every feeder fund failed to disclose Madoff's name in marketing materials. In fact, Fairfield Greenwich's marketing materials did refer to Madoff by name.

Sincerely,

Fairfield Greenwich

Greenwich, CT

FRONTLINE's editors respond:

To ensure the accuracy of the reporting in "The Madoff Affair" in regards to the Fairfield Greenwich Group, FRONTLINE producer Martin Smith had extensive conversations with attorneys for the company in advance of the broadcast and researched all of their concerns. FRONTLINE stands by its report.

Dear FRONTLINE,

Excellent program.

The failure of the second SEC investigation remains a big mystery. The common excuse that the SEC was under-resourced is unsatisfactory because, among other reasons, the SEC did in fact launch a multi-year investigation of Madoff.

And the suggestion that the staff-level investigators were incompetent also rings hollow to me, first, because I'm skeptical of such a widespread allegation of incompetence and, second, because even a mediocre investigation would have revealed significant concerns.

That leaves the suggestion that the result was driven by "policy" pressures on SEC management (as described, for example, in last part of the Henriques interview). Perhaps this is the least incredible explanation of incredible events, but if so, I'd expect there to be internal docmuents identifying concerns and recommending formal action, as well as staffers disgruntled about failure of management to pursue recommendations. Is anyone aware of this kind of evidence?

David A.
Boise, ID

Dear FRONTLINE,

It was interesting watching the PBS coverage on the Madoff swindle. What would be more informative is to see a current follow-up that focuses on a few investors who lost their bankroll and the exact particulars on the workings of all of it.

What I truly found to be entertaining were the comments from all those "experts" in the "field" who claim they weren't truly aware of what Madoff was doing. To me that would be like Mickey Mantle catching a fly ball in the outfield and hearing a teammate yell. ' Throw it to third base," and Mantle saying, " Where's that?"

What a pack of frauds.

Rocky Bobbo
Franklin, Nj

Dear FRONTLINE,

This is another example of hypocrisy in America. Everyone "wants" the government out of their lives and then cry about it when they get hurt.

All enforcement agencies' budgets were severely cut and understaffed because the Americans wanted to have have it both ways. Supposedly the market had "an invisible hand" to take care of it. But you see what happens.

Another example is a recent special election in California. The budget balancing propositions were soundly defeated, yet nobody wants the state to cut funding to any of their "precious priorities." What a great hypocrisy we live in.

Robert C
Los Angeles , California

Dear FRONTLINE,

I have read several comments on this website of people who withdrew their money (or knew people that did) after years of investing with Madoff.

Those people should only be able to keep their original investments and not the money they fraudulently made. If those same people were still invested and were losing every thing, they would claim to be innocent victims.

It is funny that the people who complained to the SEC were people who were upset that they couldn't generate similar rates of return or weren't given the opportunity to market to their clients. Any one making money looked the other way as they collected their cash.

We need to change requirements for starting an investment firm since so many of these people don't know how to dissect investment formulas.

kat divine
washington, dc

Dear FRONTLINE,

The Madoff scandal has generated a number of lawsuits, accusing fund managers of forms of negligence. However, there appeared to be a number of eminent investment organisations which, after due diligence, apparently determined that Madoff's returns could not be legally obtained.

This knowledge seems to have been retained within the organisations that conducted the exercises, and they simply refrained from investing with Madoff. Given that the fraud perpetrated appears to be the biggest on record and has resulted in at least two suicides as well as driving significant numbers of elderly people into penury, some form of public service in sharing the misgivings earlier on could have prevented considerable human misery. In short, why was it that only one person out of the global financial community went to the authorities about Madoff, when many appear to have determined the truth behind his 'success'?

The lawsuits against the fund managers who invested with Madoff accuse them of negligence in that they had a direct obligation to conduct due diligence before investing and should have discovered the fraud or had reasonable suspicions to refrain from investing with him. It is theoretically possible, however, that these funds could have discovered the fraud, but only after investing considerable sums of money first. Under the current legal and regulatory frameworks it would appear that these funds, which enjoyed the closest possible relationship with Madoff, had no incentive to report the fraud as they would immediately have been liable for the kind of legal action they are now subject to, only with a smaller sum of money, which would still be relatively large. If the above was the case, then the best possible course of action for the funds would be to continue supporting the fraud, while at the same time arranging the affairs of their officers in anticipation of the fraud's inevitable collapse.

The funds could have discreetly withdrawn their money from Madoff, but this could have meant that they would probably have been unable to obtain the promised high rates of return legitimately elsewhere to satisfy fund members, plus also they could have brought forward the inevitable before getting their cash. The funds apparently had no action they could take with a mostly positive outcome as soon as their first dollar arrived in Madoff's bank account. There was also the consideration of the huge fees they received for directing the money to Madoff.

Thus it appears that the most financially sophisticated participants and non-participants in the fraud had no incentive to disclose suspicions of a criminal activity, obviously apart from a sense of common decency. Had some other form of incentive been available for disclosure then fewer lives would have been ruined. I would suggest that this situation should somehow be redressed otherwise laissez-faire capitalism, the bedrock of American economic success, may be tarnished for a generation.

Paul Horgan
Crowthorne, Berkshire UK

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank You Frontline for this great piece of journalism. The size and scale of this thing is incredible. The people involved were obviously all ruled by greed. I think that this problem really went too the heart of why our financial system collapsed. The SEC is tremendously understaffed, underfunded, and lacking competent professionals who know the financial system. This story more than any other shows just how ridiculous it became. The only good thing to come out of this will be a increase in funding and oversight to the SEC, and hopefully greater transparency in the future.

Also i dont know if anyone else watched the interview with Michael Bienes carefully but if you do -- watch his eyes anytime a question is asked about whether he knew or had any involvement in the ponzi scheme madoff was running. Every time, he will try to look at the interviewer and than his eyes quickly dart straight up toward the ceiling. The only time he does this is when questions about his knowing or involvement in the fraud are asked.

He is clearly lying, i believe he knew the entire time. Watch for his eyes to go straight up toward the ceiling thats when he's lying, not when his eyes go to the side, only straight up.

Kurt Stevens
Logan, Utah

FRONTLINE's editors respond:

An hour of the Bienes interview is streamed online on this web site.

Dear FRONTLINE,

Martin Smith and his outstanding staff have brought the public incredible reporting from Afghanistan, Iraq and now Wall Street.

The legacy of these fine investigative reporters will be with us from decades to come.

Thank you Mr. Martin-

LTC, US ArmyAfgh/2003-Iraq/2005

R. H.

Dear FRONTLINE,

Great production, enjoyed the story very much. Suggest Bernie be let out of jail and sent home on his own w/ no protection. Conducted a pool on how long he would last and give the $$$$ to the people he cheated.

If he does goes to prison out-source him to China it would be cheaper. Send his wife, kids, brother and any other family member, who profited illegally from his schemes along to keep him company.

Bo Diddley
Nashville, Tennessee

Dear FRONTLINE,

Hats off and in the air once again to Frontline for another top notch piece of TV journalism focusing on Bernard Madoffs crooked run! Couple of questions not answered were how much of other peoples money did Bernie spend on himself and what's left to give back to investors?I'll be watching for the "Bernie Behind Bars" sequel!Keep rollin Frontline!

Stuart Edmondson
Encinitas, Ca

Dear FRONTLINE,

I am bernard madoff's biggest fan..not only do i think he should get no jail time but that he should be allowed to keep the money..he didn't swindle working stiffs like me...nor poor people..nor desperate people out of their last two or three grand..nor poor uneducated religious people as slimeball evangelist ministers do..

his victims were well-heeled people who wanted even more..wealthy palm beach types who wouldn't be caught dead in the same building with someone like me..or you...so-called finance experts who were revealed to be greedy and dumb..and now i should feel bad for these people?..please..my feelings can be summed in three words-"well done bernie"

david arcuri
norwich, ct

Dear FRONTLINE,

as an accountant, i would like to have seen more reporting on therequirements of madoff's firm with regard to filing form 1099-int (for interest), 1099-div (for dividends) and 1099-b (for proceeds from sales of securities)with the irs.

in addition to losing their investments, did the clients also have to report all that interest and dividend income and long and short-term capital gains for all those years. income reported that they apparently never earned. talk about a double whammy. wow!

bill grant
south boston, ma

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thanks for the story.

Madoff is a very chilling person. I wish he had been caught sooner.

Tom McBride
Amherst, MA

Dear FRONTLINE,

Bravo. However, the hour program simply cannot do justice to this story. The astounding response and finger pointing only underscore that the broadcast was merely the frosting and to digest the layer cake one MUST read the full interviews and Markopolos' extraordinary letter. A remarkable job of reporting.

Nick Lipkowski
Hyattsville, MD

FRONTLINE's editors respond:

Read the interviews cited by this viewer.

Dear FRONTLINE,

I saw "Madoff" the other night, when it was originally aired. Whoa! I am a high school math teacher who teaches AP Statistics to very sharp juniors and seniors. We are now watching the broadcast in our classroom as a huge learning exercise. We are looking at it with financial lenses, ethics lenses and of course, statistics lenses. I hope my students learn the following: "if it looks too good to be true, it is." I also hope as future mangers and leaders what "due diligence" is and how important ethically it is. I am convinced: if the feeder funds to Madoff had done their due diligence Madoff would still have stolen the money but, not to the tune of $9 BILLION. Thank you, Frontline, for a great broadcast.

Joanne Fitzpatrick
Reading, MA