3 ms·

>the entire stock market is a ponzi scheme It isn't "my logic", it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme: early investors were paid out by later investors, with t

>the entire stock market is a ponzi scheme It isn't "my logic", it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme: early investors were paid out by later investors, with the bottom falling out for the later investors. That hasn't happened, because the story is still unwinding. It might not ever happen. It will only be obvious in hindsight. Besides, I own many stocks, and they return income to me. >Buying a share does not give you the right to future profits in a company. >it gives you ownership and control over a percentage of the corporation For someone critical of "logic", those two statements contradict each other. A company is expected to be profitable, and owning a stake in it entitles me to a share of those profits. What do you think Zynga is promising when they sell me a share of the company at IPO? Do you really think they are saying, "Here's part of this company. It might make money, or it might not, but perhaps someone will buy it from you for a higher price at a later date"? Good luck with your portfolio if you base it on a different philosophy. >Whether or not they bought a lemon is the fault of the public investor. Well, I'm sure the SEC would disagree with you on that statement. >It is _not_ a ponzi scheme, it is the exchange of assets. One does not preclude the other. Ponzi's original fraud involved the exchange of assets. The scam is in what they tell me the asset is worth and what it is actually worth.

bduerst 14y ago
>It isn't "my logic", it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme: early investors were paid out by later investors, with the bottom falling out for the later investors. Definition [1]: A form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors. This is not what selling stock in an IPO is because stock is not non-existent. A share of equity is a very real asset. You are committing a No True Scotsman fallacy by trying to redefine the term to fit your needs. >Besides, I own many stocks, and they return income to me. Just because you own equity does not mean you are an expert. Case in point: You don't know the difference between company net income, returned earnings, and dividends. >A company is expected to be profitable, and owning a stake in it entitles me to a share of those profits. No it does not entitle you to a share of any net income. All it entitles you to is vote of power. This is how corporations work. It's basic business, for christ's sake. [2] >Well, I'm sure the SEC would disagree with you on that statement. Why? Did Zynga falsify an annual filing or their 10-k? No? Then the SEC doesn't give a shit. >One does not preclude the other. Yes, it very much does, because in a ponzi scheme you give up your money to an investor for their service. In an IPO, you give up your money for shares of equity, which you sell later. I'm not going to go in circles with you on this any longer. You've either have a case of confirmation bias or you're trolling. It's a shame because you're another example of a rational but unintelligent investor. [1] https://www.google.com/search?oq=define%3Aponzi+scheme&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3Aponzi+scheme&safe=active#hl=en&safe=active&q=ponzi+scheme&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=WEeIUO2CEInciQLxpoG4CA&ved=0CB4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=80ef5323c76d6b79&bpcl=35466521&biw=984&bih=664 https://www.google.com/search?oq=define%3Aponzi+scheme&s... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(finance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(finance)
- tatsuke95 14y ago
  >This is not what selling stock in an IPO is because stock is not non-existent. You are committing a No True Scotsman fallacy by trying to redefine the term to fit your needs. Wait a minute, you looked up a definition that used the specific term non-existent to bolster your argument, then accuse me of warping the definition? In fact, there have been a variety of "Ponzi Scheme's" over the years, some of which have used stock, bank deposits and land. >Case in point: You don't know the difference between company net income, returned earnings, and dividends. Huh? Okay. >Why? Did Zynga falsify an annual filing or their 10-k? No? Then the SEC doesn't give a shit. I was talking about your statement, which is that: "Whether or not they bought a lemon is the fault of the public investor." Completely false, mainly because the public information is provided by the company. By the way, the SEC has looked into Zynga. >I'm not going to go in circles with you on this any longer. Good. I'm sure it's been exhausting for you, looking up all these finance terms on Google. Between the arrogance and personal attacks, you're not adding much here.

bduerst 14y ago

>It isn't "my logic", it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme: early investors were paid out by later investors, with the bottom falling out for the later investors. Definition [1]: A form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors. This is not what selling stock in an IPO is because stock is not non-existent. A share of equity is a very real asset. You are committing a No True Scotsman fallacy by trying to redefine the term to fit your needs. >Besides, I own many stocks, and they return income to me. Just because you own equity does not mean you are an expert. Case in point: You don't know the difference between company net income, returned earnings, and dividends. >A company is expected to be profitable, and owning a stake in it entitles me to a share of those profits. No it does not entitle you to a share of any net income. All it entitles you to is vote of power. This is how corporations work. It's basic business, for christ's sake. [2] >Well, I'm sure the SEC would disagree with you on that statement. Why? Did Zynga falsify an annual filing or their 10-k? No? Then the SEC doesn't give a shit. >One does not preclude the other. Yes, it very much does, because in a ponzi scheme you give up your money to an investor for their service. In an IPO, you give up your money for shares of equity, which you sell later. I'm not going to go in circles with you on this any longer. You've either have a case of confirmation bias or you're trolling. It's a shame because you're another example of a rational but unintelligent investor. [1] https://www.google.com/search?oq=define%3Aponzi+scheme&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3Aponzi+scheme&safe=active#hl=en&safe=active&q=ponzi+scheme&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=WEeIUO2CEInciQLxpoG4CA&ved=0CB4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=80ef5323c76d6b79&bpcl=35466521&biw=984&bih=664 https://www.google.com/search?oq=define%3Aponzi+scheme&s... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(finance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(finance)

tatsuke95 14y ago
>This is not what selling stock in an IPO is because stock is not non-existent. You are committing a No True Scotsman fallacy by trying to redefine the term to fit your needs. Wait a minute, you looked up a definition that used the specific term non-existent to bolster your argument, then accuse me of warping the definition? In fact, there have been a variety of "Ponzi Scheme's" over the years, some of which have used stock, bank deposits and land. >Case in point: You don't know the difference between company net income, returned earnings, and dividends. Huh? Okay. >Why? Did Zynga falsify an annual filing or their 10-k? No? Then the SEC doesn't give a shit. I was talking about your statement, which is that: "Whether or not they bought a lemon is the fault of the public investor." Completely false, mainly because the public information is provided by the company. By the way, the SEC has looked into Zynga. >I'm not going to go in circles with you on this any longer. Good. I'm sure it's been exhausting for you, looking up all these finance terms on Google. Between the arrogance and personal attacks, you're not adding much here.