7 ms·
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH brilliant! Let's break this dumb idea down shall we. > These rules could reinvent the way companies raise money by allowing them to bypass the
by confluence 13y ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH brilliant! Let's break this dumb idea down shall we.
> These rules could reinvent the way companies raise money by allowing them to bypass the traditional costs of going public, which usually involves hiring costly investment bankers and accountants.
So instead of breaking the seat belt monopoly to reduce costs (work with me here), we'll just make it so that kids no longer have to wear seat belts anymore. It's absolutely brilliant in its sheer audacity. You get to keep your campaign contributions from the rent-seeking financial cartels, whilst simultaneously providing VCs with their retail lambs for the slaughter. The fact that they do this, whilst selling the idea as a positive act for the public has me slack jawed. That takes balls.
> Congress is looking for a loophole to allow smaller companies to get an exemption from the strict rules controlling the sale of securities to individuals. Congress is hoping that by using Internet crowdfunding, small and promising companies could gather capital needed to grow and expand from a wide pool of investors.
So we invent seat belts, and people stop dying. After a while people forget why we had seat belts in the first place. Let's take away the seat belts, because look, no one has died in a really long time.
Furthermore, why on earth would MORE risky companies need LESS disclosure. That makes no sense. If you were thinking halfway straight, you'd realize that it's the small ones that are the most subject to corruption, pump and dump scams and extensive stock promotion. Penny stocks CLEARLY indicate that this is the case. We need MORE disclosure not less. Costs are entirely derived from the IPO cartel. Break that you morons. Oh wait, you can't, because 20% of next year's campaign contributions come from your financial bosses.
> With the new rules, the SEC is looking to open the concept of crowdfunding to the public, while still offering investor protection. The new elements of the rules would cap any company's ability to raise money through crowdfunding to $1 million every 12 months. For investors with an annual net income or net worth of less than $100,000, every 12 months they can invest up to 5% of that, or $2,000, whichever is more. Those with an annual income or net worth exceeding $100,000 can invest up to 10% of that every 12 months. Securities bought through portals would have to be held a year before being sold.
Good luck regulating this. Capital limits are always exceeded by the determinedly stupid.
- streetcat 13y agoTwo things: 1) I would assume that you can invest at the same level of risk at existing public company (e.g. micro cup, or investing in options), the this point is mute. 2) core pillar of modern finance is portfolio theory . I.e. how to mitigate a specific company risk by investing in portfolio of companies (which is what VCs are essentially doing). Hence, this would also imply here (regardless of the amount of audit employed). So really a risk of a single company is a non issue.
- confluence 13y agoTwo things 1) Those are esoteric. People don't do them. However the dotcom boom shows us that they will fund bullshit stock issues. 2) MPT is bullshit. Systems fail in a cascade fashion, not independently. Furthermore investors do not diversify.