I was shocked reading it — truly horrified: I once hesitated to invest in what proved suspicious companies, and I definitely thought about the possibility of ge

I was shocked reading it — truly horrified: I once hesitated to invest in what proved suspicious companies, and I definitely thought about the possibility of getting out. Experiencing claw-back after that because others were not as considerate… Wow. However, the article names people who definitely should have known better: people who know what are reasonable returns, but also what you need and can do to get unreasonable ones. People who absolutely could have decided this was fishy. There is a principle in banking around your level of expertise: you can’t invest too much if you are not knowledgeable enough. It’s a little unfair to the young aspiring investors, but it allows to put strict requirements on large institutions without hurting people who legitimately couldn’t have known. That decision does introduce a precedent and a new level of responsibility: if it is too good to be true, you are liable for it all. This might also introduce interesting trickle-down decisions: you could be on the hook for alerting authorities if you come across one of those because you have to check, and if you found something uninspiring, you can’t claim deniability. It’s uncomfortable at first, but as long as that responsibility is carried by reasonably large investors only, it makes sense. Whether it might have negative consequences (typically, gatekeeping the best opportunities) is debatable.