4 ms·

I was briefly answering a two sentence Las Vegas analogy. Please do expand on the many details my tweet sized comment omitted if you wish.

clavalle 12y ago
My comment is meant as a correction, not an expansion. What you said was wrong. >Rather than remove the exemption, the SEC has effectively removed the disclosure requirement. The rule did not protect naive investors from themselves, it protected them from fraud and the economy from bubbles. That is just simply not true at all.
- whybroke 12y ago
  No, what you said is just simply not true at all. Interesting how making completely vacuous denials devoid of any support utterly fails to advance a conversation. Perhaps you will explain what the point of wasting time typing them is. Or let me guess, the reason is "here's a down vote".
  - clavalle 12y ago
    A 'conversation' built on falsehoods is no conversation at all. I am less interested in finding some sort of constructive area with you as I am keeping you from misinforming the people who might read your comment and accept it as true. That is not a waste of time. If you must have detailed sources and point by point rebuttals, rather than 'vacuous denials' (who's wasting time now?) here you go: > Rather than remove the exemption, the SEC has effectively removed the disclosure requirement. Title III created the Securities Act of 1933 Section 4A which states, among other things that "s to reduce the risk of fraud with respect to such transactions, as established by the Commission, by rule, including obtaining a background and securities enforcement regulatory history check on each officer, director, and person holding more than 20 percent of the outstanding equity of every issuer whose securities are offered by such person" Along with all sorts of information regarding the business including "(I) the income tax returns filed by the issuer for the most recently completed year (if any); and (II) financial statements of the issuer, which shall be certified by the principal executive officer of the issuer to be true and complete in all material respects;" And "financial statements reviewed by a public accountant who is independent of the issuer, using professional standards" And "the name and ownership level of each existing shareholder who owns more than 20 percent of any class of the securities of the issuer; " And "not less than annually, file with the Commission and provide to investors reports of the results of operations and financial statements of the issuer, a " And on and on and on. http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf So, there is a significant discosure requirement despite your assertion to the contrary. > The rule did not protect naive investors from themselves, it protected them from fraud That much, at least, is true, but it suggests that the new rules will not which is false as shown above. > and the economy from bubbles. This also suggests that the new rules will form bubbles. While that is always a risk, the amount each business can raise and the amount prospective shareholders will be able to invest in these entities is limited, so I don't think this adds significant risk of new or bigger bubbles. Now the record is straight and those that read these comments will have immediate access to the truth. It might not leave much room for whatever conversation you were planning on having but it is a worthy use of time nonetheless.

clavalle 12y ago

My comment is meant as a correction, not an expansion. What you said was wrong. >Rather than remove the exemption, the SEC has effectively removed the disclosure requirement. The rule did not protect naive investors from themselves, it protected them from fraud and the economy from bubbles. That is just simply not true at all.

whybroke 12y ago
No, what you said is just simply not true at all. Interesting how making completely vacuous denials devoid of any support utterly fails to advance a conversation. Perhaps you will explain what the point of wasting time typing them is. Or let me guess, the reason is "here's a down vote".
- clavalle 12y ago
  A 'conversation' built on falsehoods is no conversation at all. I am less interested in finding some sort of constructive area with you as I am keeping you from misinforming the people who might read your comment and accept it as true. That is not a waste of time. If you must have detailed sources and point by point rebuttals, rather than 'vacuous denials' (who's wasting time now?) here you go: > Rather than remove the exemption, the SEC has effectively removed the disclosure requirement. Title III created the Securities Act of 1933 Section 4A which states, among other things that "s to reduce the risk of fraud with respect to such transactions, as established by the Commission, by rule, including obtaining a background and securities enforcement regulatory history check on each officer, director, and person holding more than 20 percent of the outstanding equity of every issuer whose securities are offered by such person" Along with all sorts of information regarding the business including "(I) the income tax returns filed by the issuer for the most recently completed year (if any); and (II) financial statements of the issuer, which shall be certified by the principal executive officer of the issuer to be true and complete in all material respects;" And "financial statements reviewed by a public accountant who is independent of the issuer, using professional standards" And "the name and ownership level of each existing shareholder who owns more than 20 percent of any class of the securities of the issuer; " And "not less than annually, file with the Commission and provide to investors reports of the results of operations and financial statements of the issuer, a " And on and on and on. http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf So, there is a significant discosure requirement despite your assertion to the contrary. > The rule did not protect naive investors from themselves, it protected them from fraud That much, at least, is true, but it suggests that the new rules will not which is false as shown above. > and the economy from bubbles. This also suggests that the new rules will form bubbles. While that is always a risk, the amount each business can raise and the amount prospective shareholders will be able to invest in these entities is limited, so I don't think this adds significant risk of new or bigger bubbles. Now the record is straight and those that read these comments will have immediate access to the truth. It might not leave much room for whatever conversation you were planning on having but it is a worthy use of time nonetheless.