4 ms·
you call it "investor class monopoly" (if such thing exists), I call it protecting citizens who can be easily duped
by antr 9y ago
you call it "investor class monopoly" (if such thing exists), I call it protecting citizens who can be easily duped
- whataretensors 9y agoYet they don't protect people from pay day loans or from gambling. They only 'protect' intelligent people from getting out of the system they've rigged. They also don't protect workers from getting worthless secondary 'common' stock. Keep regurgitating their lies. It's working for them.
- option_greek 9y agoThe common stock is one of the most direct way of screwing workers. I guess anything is okay as long as it is part of fine print.
- tptacek 9y agoWhen you take out a mortgage to bring more capital to a craps table, literally everybody involved knows you have a problem. The same is obviously not true for securities and speculative assets.
- mrep 9y agoThat's completely different. Those are regulated so you know the exact deal you are getting up front.
- jMyles 9y agoIt's basically "think of the children!" except you extend childhood to all of life. Perfect, really.
- antr 9y agoExcept the majority (let's say 99%) of all adults have zero financial literacy
- pishpash 9y agoYet they are expected already to operate as if they do. What's one more thing?
- tptacek 9y agoYou can sell securities to anybody, including (presumably) children. You simply have to register them with the SEC and follow the disclosure rules all the other thousands of publicly traded companies have to follow. Heck, after the JOBS Act, it got even easier to do this under Reg A+, which allows for a lightweight IPO for raises under 50MM --- which describes most ICOs. What's happening in this thread is simply special pleading for a particular type of enterprise to be exempt from those rules.
- vkou 9y agoIt's mindboggling how people are perfectly OK with raising 50-200 million dollars with an ICO, when they don't have a team, or a working product, but they can't possibly afford the expense and hassle of compliance, auditing and disclosure.
- michwill 9y agoThere are two things here: * It's not OK to raise 200M with no team and product; * Compliance only creates obstructions, not protection.
- tptacek 9y agoRegA+ companies don't require SEC proxy statements, director and 10% stockholder reporting, SOX independent audits, SOX internal controls documentations, or SOX CEO certification. Pretty much all they're required to do is create a quarterly audited financial report. How is that "obstruction, not protection"? What kind of company that ordinary people should invest in can't produce an audited financial report? Charities and nonprofits product audited financials!
- vkou 9y agoThanks for bringing this up. I didn't realize just how lax the rules regarding being a Regulation A Plus company are. You don't need to be an accredited investor to invest in one. You just need to limit your investment to no more then 10% of your salary, or net worth, whichever is greater. There are currently over 150 Reg A+ companies in the United States. I am eagerly waiting for people lambasting how the accredited investor rule keeps out little people... To explain why little people aren't falling head over heels to invest in RegA+ corps.