6 ms·

Very few people would go to a casino with their life savings with the expectation of retiring off the winnings. Most people understand the risks involved (even

Very few people would go to a casino with their life savings with the expectation of retiring off the winnings. Most people understand the risks involved (even if they are very poor at understanding the real odds, they still know they aren't good). Further, casinos would never be allowed to sell their games that way; gambling is a massively regulated industry. Now consider a company selling itself. With no rules, they are able to say anything they want about themselves. The stock market is seen by many (most?) as an investment, and therefore fairly safe (possibly even safe). How well dispersed is the knowledge that, while investing most of your money in the market is relatively safe, investing it in one dstock is horribly risky? How easy is it for a semi-reputable (much less disreputable) company to paint an overly rosey picture, appealing to somebody's hopes and dreams? I completely agree you should be able to invest. There is a real problem with how qualified investor is defined today, but I'm not convinced removing that concept is a good idea at all.

derefr 12y ago
> The stock market is seen by many (most?) as an investment, and therefore fairly safe (possibly even safe). Well, now, that seems to be what needs to change. Institutional investors rightfully treat non-AAA investment products with all the respect of used toilet-paper (with the mortgage crisis imparting the further wisdom that a AAA rating is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a product to be a safe backing investment for consumer savings.) How can we get consumer investors to see things the same way? Put big black bars across the tops of stock certificates like they have on packs of cigarettes?
ioncereadknuth 12y ago
Free markets will reward crowd funding sites that perform good due diligence.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
"Now consider a company selling itself. With no rules, they are able to say anything they want about themselves. The stock market is seen by many (most?) as an investment, and therefore fairly safe (possibly even safe). How well dispersed is the knowledge that, while investing most of your money in the market is relatively safe, investing it in one dstock is horribly risky? How easy is it for a semi-reputable (much less disreputable) company to paint an overly rosey picture, appealing to somebody's hopes and dreams?" I don't know where you extract that there are "no rules" in crownfunding stock. The stock market is crownfunding by nature. At first NY Stock market was a tree under which interested people traded part of their companies. With more than one hundred kickstarter projects backed on my belt, I have been duped in... ZERO. They are free to say whatever they want but it is very easy to catch a liar. Part of my family comes from socialist East Europe economies. In those places even very smart people like nuclear scientists or very bright philosophers were protected "for their own good" against taking risks(or doing anything on their own by the way, good competent people were dangerous if they did good things because it made the very incompetent look bad). The only problem is that "protectors" were very Mediocre people, people that spent their time banging pretty girls and drinking Vodka. Bureaucrats whose only merit were kissing asses of someone higher in the monopolistic hierarchy of power. Let me be a grown up, an adult who takes his own decisions.

derefr 12y ago

> The stock market is seen by many (most?) as an investment, and therefore fairly safe (possibly even safe). Well, now, that seems to be what needs to change. Institutional investors rightfully treat non-AAA investment products with all the respect of used toilet-paper (with the mortgage crisis imparting the further wisdom that a AAA rating is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a product to be a safe backing investment for consumer savings.) How can we get consumer investors to see things the same way? Put big black bars across the tops of stock certificates like they have on packs of cigarettes?

ioncereadknuth 12y ago

Free markets will reward crowd funding sites that perform good due diligence.

Htsthbjig 12y ago

"Now consider a company selling itself. With no rules, they are able to say anything they want about themselves. The stock market is seen by many (most?) as an investment, and therefore fairly safe (possibly even safe). How well dispersed is the knowledge that, while investing most of your money in the market is relatively safe, investing it in one dstock is horribly risky? How easy is it for a semi-reputable (much less disreputable) company to paint an overly rosey picture, appealing to somebody's hopes and dreams?" I don't know where you extract that there are "no rules" in crownfunding stock. The stock market is crownfunding by nature. At first NY Stock market was a tree under which interested people traded part of their companies. With more than one hundred kickstarter projects backed on my belt, I have been duped in... ZERO. They are free to say whatever they want but it is very easy to catch a liar. Part of my family comes from socialist East Europe economies. In those places even very smart people like nuclear scientists or very bright philosophers were protected "for their own good" against taking risks(or doing anything on their own by the way, good competent people were dangerous if they did good things because it made the very incompetent look bad). The only problem is that "protectors" were very Mediocre people, people that spent their time banging pretty girls and drinking Vodka. Bureaucrats whose only merit were kissing asses of someone higher in the monopolistic hierarchy of power. Let me be a grown up, an adult who takes his own decisions.