4 ms·

I strongly agree - a lot of the "protections" have become a privilege for the rich and educated, and I say that as someone who doesn't eat organic locally-sourc

I strongly agree - a lot of the "protections" have become a privilege for the rich and educated, and I say that as someone who doesn't eat organic locally-sourced Kale, drink lattes, read Marx at a hipster coffee shop, etc. For example - brokerages keep you from trading on margin unless you have x money and y experience trading on margin and/or options. You CANNOT invest into SpaceX (not pioneering SpaceX here, just an example) unless you are an accredited investor, that is, if you aren't RICH. Google does though. These are serious disadvantages. The real question is whether you want to be babied and coddled by people in power. Edit: Deleted "controversial" topic sentence.

adambatkin 6y ago
I don't think this is any way similar to gun legislation. If you lose a bunch of money investing in a scam startup, you might lose your money and be sad. If you buy a gun, you can use that to kill me and my family. Believing that the government should restrict access to guns has nothing to do with being "babied and coddled by people in power" and everything to do with not wanting to be shot by someone else.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- quxpar 6y ago
  Came here to say this. I have no idea how an insane person with a gun is equivalent to voluntarily trading. Should I accept that gun-toting idiots are an inherent risk in my life, even if I never purchase a gun?
- leetcrew 6y ago
  yes, let's not argue one controversial topic by introducing another. we all know HN has a deep disagreement over gun regulations. I do feel that a lot of the restrictions on amateur trader have the effect of barring "normal" people from making some of the best investments. I ought to be allowed to fail like the best of them. the catch here is that I don't bear all the risk if I fail. if I lose everything on a stupid trade, I am entitled to lean on my fellow taxpayers for support. some balance needs to be struck between allowing me to fail and requiring other people to pick me back up if I do.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > If you lose a bunch of money investing in a scam startup, you might lose your money and be sad. If you buy a gun, you can use that to kill me and my family. The negative externalies of investment losses are costs to the public safety net, political distraction and the risk of a public bail out if the losses hit critical voting blocks.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
It's for your own protection. With the recent meme stocks (and crypto), thousands of people have barreled headfirst into stock trading, thinking they'll get rich. Thousands of people jumped onto the GME train and basically lost all their money, while the short sellers and hedge funds who actually control the market and sentiments thanks to the power of a fuckton of money laugh all the way to their mansions. You cannot be trusted with margin / options if you haven't proven that you know the risks. If I were a broker, I wouldn't let you trade if you wouldn't be able to cover a loss on options - I'm sure brokers have been defrauded before by people just disappearing or going bankrupt. You can't play with millions if all you have to your name is a $600 stimulus check and a sock of rainy day money. That's irresponsible. Stick to what you can afford and what you know about.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I'd be more sympathetic to those who basically want to allow small retail investors to invest in anything they want to if there was really this big class of investments returning outsized risk-adjusted returns that "the little guy" isn't allowed to invest in. Yes, there are gambles that can give great returns if you're lucky. And may even make sense as part of a diversified portfolio. That's the idea with VC of course. Though VC returns aren't actually that great in general.
  - Mauricebranagh 6y ago
    Well SEC should start by allowing small US investors to invest in much safer things like the UK's Royal Mail privatisation and more recently Hipgnosis https://www.hipgnosissongs.com/ https://www.hipgnosissongs.com/ flat out bans US investors.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      People can absolutely rationally debate where the line should be drawn. (And my understanding is that the SEC has loosened some rules.) Where I at least part ways is the people here who argue vehemently that there should be no line given that people can go to Vegas and gamble away their life savings. And, as I say, I don't actually think people are missing out on fantastic opportunities for unsophisticated small-time investors that they think they are.

adambatkin 6y ago

I don't think this is any way similar to gun legislation. If you lose a bunch of money investing in a scam startup, you might lose your money and be sad. If you buy a gun, you can use that to kill me and my family. Believing that the government should restrict access to guns has nothing to do with being "babied and coddled by people in power" and everything to do with not wanting to be shot by someone else.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
quxpar 6y ago
Came here to say this. I have no idea how an insane person with a gun is equivalent to voluntarily trading. Should I accept that gun-toting idiots are an inherent risk in my life, even if I never purchase a gun?
leetcrew 6y ago
yes, let's not argue one controversial topic by introducing another. we all know HN has a deep disagreement over gun regulations. I do feel that a lot of the restrictions on amateur trader have the effect of barring "normal" people from making some of the best investments. I ought to be allowed to fail like the best of them. the catch here is that I don't bear all the risk if I fail. if I lose everything on a stupid trade, I am entitled to lean on my fellow taxpayers for support. some balance needs to be struck between allowing me to fail and requiring other people to pick me back up if I do.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> If you lose a bunch of money investing in a scam startup, you might lose your money and be sad. If you buy a gun, you can use that to kill me and my family. The negative externalies of investment losses are costs to the public safety net, political distraction and the risk of a public bail out if the losses hit critical voting blocks.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

It's for your own protection. With the recent meme stocks (and crypto), thousands of people have barreled headfirst into stock trading, thinking they'll get rich. Thousands of people jumped onto the GME train and basically lost all their money, while the short sellers and hedge funds who actually control the market and sentiments thanks to the power of a fuckton of money laugh all the way to their mansions. You cannot be trusted with margin / options if you haven't proven that you know the risks. If I were a broker, I wouldn't let you trade if you wouldn't be able to cover a loss on options - I'm sure brokers have been defrauded before by people just disappearing or going bankrupt. You can't play with millions if all you have to your name is a $600 stimulus check and a sock of rainy day money. That's irresponsible. Stick to what you can afford and what you know about.

ghaff 6y ago
I'd be more sympathetic to those who basically want to allow small retail investors to invest in anything they want to if there was really this big class of investments returning outsized risk-adjusted returns that "the little guy" isn't allowed to invest in. Yes, there are gambles that can give great returns if you're lucky. And may even make sense as part of a diversified portfolio. That's the idea with VC of course. Though VC returns aren't actually that great in general.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  Well SEC should start by allowing small US investors to invest in much safer things like the UK's Royal Mail privatisation and more recently Hipgnosis https://www.hipgnosissongs.com/ https://www.hipgnosissongs.com/ flat out bans US investors.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    People can absolutely rationally debate where the line should be drawn. (And my understanding is that the SEC has loosened some rules.) Where I at least part ways is the people here who argue vehemently that there should be no line given that people can go to Vegas and gamble away their life savings. And, as I say, I don't actually think people are missing out on fantastic opportunities for unsophisticated small-time investors that they think they are.