3 ms·
I assume that it was his attempt to give himself the appearance of authority, because the lengthy rant sure as hell did not. The guy displays shockingly poor d
by rprasad 15y ago
I assume that it was his attempt to give himself the appearance of authority, because the lengthy rant sure as hell did not.
The guy displays shockingly poor decision-making. Why would I (as a prospective customer) want to do business with a company that didn't do basic research into the regulatory environment of its target market?
The point of the capitalization requirement is not to inhibit startups -- rather, the point is to make sure that someone who wants to launch a business handling other people's money puts at least some thought into it. In this case, the Aaron guy appears not to have put any thought into it at all, and is now blaming everyone else for his mistakes.
- thinkcomp 15y agoI did basic research, and a lot more, actually. The real question is how do you research, in 2009, a law that won't be drafted until 2010? It didn't exist at the time. In this particular case, the point of the capitalization requirement actually is to inhibit new businesses. There are much better ways to assess risk, such as taking into account the actual involvement of credit, investments, and anti-fraud measures.
- malandrew 15y agoAFAIK, the regulatory environment of his target market changed due to the lobbying of the Money Servies Round Table. The changes made to the law resulted in the company, which was previously legal, to fun afoul of the law.