3 ms·

> I don't think that many people think that the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund losing money (SoftBank's largest LP) is harming any American citizens "Hey Chief, I

> I don't think that many people think that the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund losing money (SoftBank's largest LP) is harming any American citizens "Hey Chief, I know the band of robbers hit 30 houses last night, but they were all Chinese people here on visas; no American citizens were harmed, so we shouldn't investigate." Fortunately, that's not how the American legal system works. And if it worked that way, it would harm the US tremendously. Generally, investors are more ready to invest in places where there is a rule of law and functioning judicial system. Sure, the American justice system is not perfect, but it is better than many places. Foreign investors can confidently put their money into American companies, including through VC funds, and know there are some protections. If those protections only applied to American citizens or US public pension funds, we would face a large reduction in investment of foreign capital in the US.

mbesto 7y ago
> "Hey Chief, I know the band of robbers hit 30 houses last night, but they were all Chinese people here on visas; no American citizens were harmed, so we shouldn't investigate." <Chinese people on visas in the US> != <Foreign fund with no physical presence in the country> Big difference, I'm not sure how that's relevant. > and know there are some protections. To my knowledge, the only protection the SEC provides for private investment is when the seller provides deliberately fabricated documents.[0] To my knowledge, this has not happened with WeWork - everything was pretty much out in the open. > We would face a large reduction in investment of foreign capital in the US. This isn't just any foreign capital, but a sovereign wealth fund, which had a foreign GP (SoftBank) that poorly executed its due diligence. The US doesn't need this type of capital - it's not the norm. In fact, it's probably better that the US doesn't promote investors who act recklessly and potentially mislead non-accredited US persons who have a stake in a private business (e.g. WeWork employees). [0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-17/securities-fraud-can-happen-with-private-transactions https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-17/securi...
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  It is difficult to express precisely how distressing the attitudes in this comment are. You propose we abandon all pretense of enforcing the law as a neutral arbiter, in favor a world where the executive branch uses selective enforcement as a crude political cudgel against parties who they disfavor (or should disfavor). Taking this approach is a great way to corrode society, to make sure that politics and enforcement of the law are power games centered about punishing the regime's political enemies, without any regard to justice whatsoever. It is the dark ooze of pure corruption, and you are advocating for it. If you want an honest ban of Saudi investment money, here is what you do: you bring it to Congress, and get them to pass a law that makes the investment illegal. Then, until the moment that the last of their money is returned to them, you give them fair and equal treatment under the law and the same access to justice you would give your best friends. The alternative is monstrous.

mbesto 7y ago

> "Hey Chief, I know the band of robbers hit 30 houses last night, but they were all Chinese people here on visas; no American citizens were harmed, so we shouldn't investigate." <Chinese people on visas in the US> != <Foreign fund with no physical presence in the country> Big difference, I'm not sure how that's relevant. > and know there are some protections. To my knowledge, the only protection the SEC provides for private investment is when the seller provides deliberately fabricated documents.[0] To my knowledge, this has not happened with WeWork - everything was pretty much out in the open. > We would face a large reduction in investment of foreign capital in the US. This isn't just any foreign capital, but a sovereign wealth fund, which had a foreign GP (SoftBank) that poorly executed its due diligence. The US doesn't need this type of capital - it's not the norm. In fact, it's probably better that the US doesn't promote investors who act recklessly and potentially mislead non-accredited US persons who have a stake in a private business (e.g. WeWork employees). [0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-17/securities-fraud-can-happen-with-private-transactions https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-17/securi...

fennecfoxen 7y ago
It is difficult to express precisely how distressing the attitudes in this comment are. You propose we abandon all pretense of enforcing the law as a neutral arbiter, in favor a world where the executive branch uses selective enforcement as a crude political cudgel against parties who they disfavor (or should disfavor). Taking this approach is a great way to corrode society, to make sure that politics and enforcement of the law are power games centered about punishing the regime's political enemies, without any regard to justice whatsoever. It is the dark ooze of pure corruption, and you are advocating for it. If you want an honest ban of Saudi investment money, here is what you do: you bring it to Congress, and get them to pass a law that makes the investment illegal. Then, until the moment that the last of their money is returned to them, you give them fair and equal treatment under the law and the same access to justice you would give your best friends. The alternative is monstrous.