5 ms·

This is what I think is going on: in a case like this, there's probably no actual crime (as defined by law), because investing is inherently risky, and therefor

This is what I think is going on: in a case like this, there's probably no actual crime (as defined by law), because investing is inherently risky, and therefore losing money is normal. You, as a scientific-minded individual with a basic knowledge of economy, will only convict the adviser if there's actual proof of mismanagement. I'd bet that, in the average case, it would be rather hard for a typical 60 y.o. woman to get evidence of that (assuming there is such a thing). If you said "yes" to the "too many frivolous suits" question, you would be easily conviced that the woman has no real argument, but is suing anyway. Also, from the "do you like crosswords" question, if you say "no" you get this: > This is a question about your cognitive style. The plaintiff lawyer believes you may be more likely to respond to the plaintiff's more emotional theme of victimhood rather than looking deeply at the legal and financial details. I read that as "we don't really have a case, but if our jury identifies with the old woman, they may rule in her favor out of compassion".

genwin 12y ago
What commonly happens is the investor gives authority to the broker to make trading decisions. Then the broker frequently trades to make commissions on each trade, until the money inevitably dwindles to the point where the customer realizes it was a scam. The broker acted legally but opposite the best interests of the client.
takeda 12y ago
I was told that I would side with defendant based on my answers, but to be honest. The fact that it is a 60 year old woman giving $200,000 to manage it makes me think I would be siding with plaintiff. The most common scenario in this situation is that investment adviser did not make her aware with risks. Someone at that age generally would not want to risk everything they had. Of course if it is obvious that she was aware of the risks associated with it and the adviser was honest then I would side with him. I believe the point of jury is to rule in a way that seems most sensible (based on ethics and not necessarily having to agree with the law).

genwin 12y ago

What commonly happens is the investor gives authority to the broker to make trading decisions. Then the broker frequently trades to make commissions on each trade, until the money inevitably dwindles to the point where the customer realizes it was a scam. The broker acted legally but opposite the best interests of the client.

takeda 12y ago

I was told that I would side with defendant based on my answers, but to be honest. The fact that it is a 60 year old woman giving $200,000 to manage it makes me think I would be siding with plaintiff. The most common scenario in this situation is that investment adviser did not make her aware with risks. Someone at that age generally would not want to risk everything they had. Of course if it is obvious that she was aware of the risks associated with it and the adviser was honest then I would side with him. I believe the point of jury is to rule in a way that seems most sensible (based on ethics and not necessarily having to agree with the law).