3 ms·
Why did you inject all the stuff about ICOs and evil Wall Street into the discussion? There are credible ways to critique the cost of IPOs without devolving the
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Why did you inject all the stuff about ICOs and evil Wall Street into the discussion? There are credible ways to critique the cost of IPOs without devolving the discussion by calling the SEC a "criminal organization." Your comment strikes me as more ideological than critical.
- dave_sullivan 8y agoBecause it's topical and accurate.
- awad 8y agoThus far most ICOs have been _actual_ scams, so ironically, it's topical and accurate insofar as highlighting why IPOs are a lengthy and costly measure...
- dave_sullivan 8y ago> it's topical and accurate insofar as highlighting why IPOs are a lengthy and costly measure And I'm saying they wouldn't have to be if it were not for a convenient relationship between the SEC and major investment banks. I mention ICOs to highlight the difference in treatment. There is something in between shady ICOs and hugely expensive IPOs and the banking industry has very little interest in discovering what that is because their salaries depend on it. I think my most basic point is just "It could be cheaper to raise money but investment banking prices are held artificially high through regulatory intervention". Make of that what you will.
- awad 8y agoI think that's actually a fair point and would agree with you on that wholeheartedly.
- regulation_d 8y agoI don’t quite follow. Legal and accounting fees are a fraction of the bank fees, but they’re what’s actually tied to the regulatory scheme.