4 ms·

Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though. Sure, some of them could use tweaking or reviewing, but throwing then all out at on

Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though. Sure, some of them could use tweaking or reviewing, but throwing then all out at once is no different than gutting the EPA.

conanbatt 9y ago
> Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though. Any self-made software engineer with 5-10 years working at startups doesn't have the legal capacity to buy stocks in the company he works at. Think that as an investor, this rule eliminates 95% of your competition. As a founder, you have a much weaker position of negotiation. And as an employee, you have incredibly distorting restrictions of what you can get and how much because of this rule. All harmful regulations exist for very good reasons.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  A software engineer with 5-10 years of experience that doesn't have the financial resources to invest in a company (outside of the stock he is presumably receiving as compensation) has clearly demonstrated a lack of financial intelligence and investment saavy, and probably is the exact type of rube that the accredited investor rules are meant to protect. And as an employee, you have incredibly distorting restrictions of what you can get and how much because of this rule. Blatantly false. An employee can receive unlimited amounts of stock as compensation. They're simply limited in their ability to expend their own financial resources to acquire stock of non-traded companies. All harmful regulations exist for very good reasons. Very true. But this isn't one of the harmful regulations. And even if it is harmful, it prevents significantly more and greater harm than it inflicts.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > Blatantly false. An employee can receive unlimited amounts of stock as compensation. They're simply limited in their ability to expend their own financial resources to acquire stock of non-traded companies. Today, employees negotiate the bulk of their stock only once: when they know the least about the company they work for. Not only that, but the information they have is asymetric with investors, because share classes are not the same which makes for a very convoluted and intrasparent market. Also, the majority of startup employees that quit do not excercise their options to the fullest: but they dont have the ease to sell those options to third parties, because of SEC rules. i.e. someone not able or willing to purchase stock when he leaves a company is most likely going to lose them. All consequence of this restriccion of buying and selling stock. Check out Sharepost for an example of this unmet market that drives down compensation. > Very true. But this isn't one of the harmful regulations. And even if it is harmful, it prevents significantly more and greater harm than it inflicts. What's your math to make this claim. I'm willing to be convinced in a strict utilitarian sense.

conanbatt 9y ago

> Each and every one of these regulations exist for a very good reason though. Any self-made software engineer with 5-10 years working at startups doesn't have the legal capacity to buy stocks in the company he works at. Think that as an investor, this rule eliminates 95% of your competition. As a founder, you have a much weaker position of negotiation. And as an employee, you have incredibly distorting restrictions of what you can get and how much because of this rule. All harmful regulations exist for very good reasons.

gamblor956 9y ago
A software engineer with 5-10 years of experience that doesn't have the financial resources to invest in a company (outside of the stock he is presumably receiving as compensation) has clearly demonstrated a lack of financial intelligence and investment saavy, and probably is the exact type of rube that the accredited investor rules are meant to protect. And as an employee, you have incredibly distorting restrictions of what you can get and how much because of this rule. Blatantly false. An employee can receive unlimited amounts of stock as compensation. They're simply limited in their ability to expend their own financial resources to acquire stock of non-traded companies. All harmful regulations exist for very good reasons. Very true. But this isn't one of the harmful regulations. And even if it is harmful, it prevents significantly more and greater harm than it inflicts.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > Blatantly false. An employee can receive unlimited amounts of stock as compensation. They're simply limited in their ability to expend their own financial resources to acquire stock of non-traded companies. Today, employees negotiate the bulk of their stock only once: when they know the least about the company they work for. Not only that, but the information they have is asymetric with investors, because share classes are not the same which makes for a very convoluted and intrasparent market. Also, the majority of startup employees that quit do not excercise their options to the fullest: but they dont have the ease to sell those options to third parties, because of SEC rules. i.e. someone not able or willing to purchase stock when he leaves a company is most likely going to lose them. All consequence of this restriccion of buying and selling stock. Check out Sharepost for an example of this unmet market that drives down compensation. > Very true. But this isn't one of the harmful regulations. And even if it is harmful, it prevents significantly more and greater harm than it inflicts. What's your math to make this claim. I'm willing to be convinced in a strict utilitarian sense.