Need to change the attached to my own words and if possible add a bit to these answers please.

As stated in the case, until an investigation into his company in 2006, Madoff had not registered as investment advisor with the SEC. Please refer to the SEC website. Are all investments advisors required to register with the SEC? How can the investing public discover whether an investment advisor has violated SEC regulation? Depending on their size, investment advisers have to register with either the SEC or the state securities agency where they have their principal place of business. For the most part, investment advisers who manage $100 million or more in client assets must register with the SEC. If they manage less than $100 million, they must register with the state securities agency in the state where they have their principal place of business. The investing public can discover whether an investment advisor has violated SEC regulations because most investment advisers must fill out a form called "Form ADV." They must file their Form ADVs with either the SEC or the state securities agency in the state where they have their principal place of business, depending on the amount of assets they manage. Form ADV consists of two parts. Part 1 contains information about the adviser's business and whether they've had problems with regulators or clients. Part 2 outlines the adviser's services, fees, and strategies. Before you hire someone to be your investment adviser, always ask for, and carefully read, both parts of Form ADV. Consult Paragraphs 5-8 of PACOB Auditing Standard No.8 and paragraphs 7-10 of PCAOB Auditing Standard NO.12. Based on your understanding of inherent risk assessment and the case information, identify three specific factors about Madoff Securities business model that might cause you to elevate inherent risk if you were conducting an audit at Mad doff securities. My understanding of inherent risks identified at Madoff Securities in Question #1 would influence the nature, timing and extent of time of my work as an auditor at Madoff Securities because for one they weren't registered with the SEC which would have raised a red flag for me. According to sec.gov investment advisors who manage $100 million and better must be registered with them. Madoff didn't register with them until 2006 when he was well over that $100million dollar mark in 2001. Another red flag to raise inherent risk would have been the fact that Madoff Securities didn't charge a fee on the money managed by them. Madoff Securities was working opposite of what other Hedge Funds where practicing. Lastly Madoff Securities provided paper statements versus electronic access like any modern day Hedge Fund that is a clear indication of some sort of fraud. Consider the Dodd-frank Wall Street reform and consumer protection act 0f 2010 explain the changes brought upon by this act to the edge fund industry. Do you believe that the act went for enough? Why or why not? The Securities and Exchange Commission adopted rules that require advisers to hedge funds and other private funds to register with the SEC, establish new exemptions from SEC registration and reporting requirements for certain advisers, and reallocate regulatory responsibility for advisers between the SEC and states. I do think that the act went far enough because I feel like prior to the act a lot of people were getting swindled out of their hard earned money and the penalties weren't sever enough. Maybe if this act was in progress prior to the recession the Madoff scandal may have been caught much earlier. In August 2011 an appeals court ruled that Madoff's customers were eligible to recover only the money that they had invested (estimated at$17.3 Billion) do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? I do not agree with the aforementioned decision. What the appeals court ordered was mere restitution. But this was clearly a case of fraud, and not merely misrepresentation. In misrepresentation, the erroneous assertion is made without any intention to deceive the other party. In fraud,on the other hand, a guilty mind is at work, and the wrong statement or assertion is made with the intent to deceive the other party. Therefore, in my opinion, the court should have, in addition to the order of restitution, given an order for payment of damages to the aggreived parties to compensate for the loss suffered by them for entering into a contract, wherein their consent was obtained by fraud. The so-called 'fake profits' was the feal reason for the customers to invest. They were led to believe that they would get a better return on their investment from Madoff, as compared to other prevailing investment opportunities. At least the victims should have been compensated for their opportunity cost, the sacrifice made by not investing in the next best alternative