>How would you expect investors to know that? An investor should research the company they are investing in. If it's a public company there is a wealth of curr

>How would you expect investors to know that? An investor should research the company they are investing in. If it's a public company there is a wealth of current and historical data. It takes time, but it's not hard. This is basic stuff, right? In the specific case of WeWork, even though it was a private company, there was a massive amount of information questioning its business model, the founder, and its corporate structure. I have no stake in WeWork, and I barely care about them, but even I knew what they were about. >Wouldn't it be better to just live under a system of laws that prevents insanity like this? And then you could spend your time learning and being productive instead of poring over the details of how you're being duped in any given situation? NO!!! I'm flabbergasted someone would make such a statement. You have to take responsibility for your life. You can't just offload that responsibility on someone else. Just because a law is made, doesn't mean it's followed, doesn't mean there aren't loopholes, doesn't mean you're protected. Ask Bernie Madoff investors who lost their life savings even though there were laws and regulations that 'protected' them. You still have to do your own diligence. It's like crossing the street and getting hit by a car - does it matter if you had the right of way and the car broke the law if you're now disabled for life? You look both ways even when the light green before crossing the street. I'm also not sure what a law to prohibit the children of founders from taking an active role in the operations of said company would even look like. How do you even begin to craft such a law? And do you even want to? If a child of a founder was around a company from a young age learning how it is run, the culture, and the business - is it that bad if the board and shareholders decide this person, with a wealth of experience, would be chosen to run it? Maybe, or maybe not. This is why laws are a blunt instrument. A law could be made to prohibit this, but it would then prohibit all the cases where it would have been beneficial to the company.