Entrepreneurs Watch As Crowdvesting Bill Stalls In Senate 182
cayenne8 writes "The JOBS Act bill, passed in the house, has stalled in the senate. One section of this bill, which would legalize 'Crowdsourcing' in the U.S., as it is in other countries, allowing companies and startups (like indie film makers) to solicit investments for profit over the internet. This differs from sites like Kickstarter, which allow you to only donate money, in that this bill will allow the common citizen to invest for potential profit ($10K or 10% of income for investor limits) in new ideas and companies."
Actually, it's now been passed with amendments (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/business/senate-passes-start-ups-bill-with-amendments.html?_r=1&hp [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The House bill would allow individual investors to invest up to $10,000, or 10 percent of their annual income a year, whichever is less. The Senate bill would limit those investments to the greater of $2,000, or 5 percent of either annual income or net worth, if either figure is less than $100,000.
So for those of us in the $50k-$100k category that limits the investment to $2,500-$5000 instead of $5,000-$10000.
Doubles the number of investors needed.
A bit odd, that, since 10% of yearly income, while signific
Re:Actually, it's now been passed with amendments (Score:5, Insightful)
The House bill would allow individual investors to invest up to $10,000, or 10 percent of their annual income a year, whichever is less. The Senate bill would limit those investments to the greater of $2,000, or 5 percent of either annual income or net worth, if either figure is less than $100,000.
So for those of us in the $50k-$100k category that limits the investment to $2,500-$5000 instead of $5,000-$10000.
Doubles the number of investors needed.
A bit odd, that, since 10% of yearly income, while significant, isn't exactly something that should break you financially. Seems a bit overcautious.
It's not cautious, it's designed to prevent you from profiting off of investments or funding your business outside of a major stock exchange.
Any American investments greater than 1 pittance must first be taxed by banks and stock brokers, then left in their control to fuck up.
You're not unamerican, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could mod this up.
Every action that Congress makes, especially THIS particular election cycle, is what their lobbyist buddies want first and what is good for the overall country second. The common good motive has totally gone out the window and it's totally corrupt. There was doubt before but there isn't now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
10% of your annual income shouldn't break you financially unless you are only making $20,000 per year. Then that's three months' rent.
It should probably be more like:
Re: (Score:2)
10% of your annual income shouldn't break you financially unless you are only making $20,000 per year. Then that's three months' rent.
It should probably be more like:
Or you might merge the two middle categories into a single category at 5% or 10%. Either way, such a scheme would prevent unscrupulous businesspeople from taking advantage of people who cannot afford to be taken advantage of. And that should be a cap on total spending for any given year, not a maximum per investment.
Two points:
Just curious your thoughts on all the state lotteries, both 'instant win scratch tickets' and those drawn via numbers. There is NO cap on how many tickets people buy, and we've all seen people in the gas stations dropping $60 on tickets and $10 of gas for their truck. If you talk to the workers, some of them are regulars on intervals as frequent as every morning, some just once a week, and some, well, just once. To me, having someone invest in (this company, whatever it is) in order to hopefully create a profit for themselves is a) more rewarding for society as a whole (perhaps not the state budgets...) b) More rewarding to the person doing the 'investing' (the prior scratch ticket winner), as it requires thought and far more interest than pure monetarily expectations.
Secondly, Why should one exclude 'the poor' (you're pretty-much referring to myself, but I am NOT calling myself poor... ) from taking action into a company or companies that they feel have great/good/marketable ideas? My of my friends are in the same financial 'boat' as I am, give / take, and they often have smart ideas that could be worth investing in....
Cheers,
Re: (Score:2)
Shit, left the quote on:
Two points:
Just curious your thoughts on all the state lotteries, both 'instant win scratch tickets' and those drawn via numbers. There is NO cap on how many tickets people buy, and we've all seen people in the gas stations dropping $60 on tickets and $10 of gas for their truck. If you talk to the workers, some of them are regulars on intervals as frequent as every morning, some just once a week, and some, well, just once. To me, having someone invest in (this company, whatever it is
Re: (Score:2)
high risk with money you can afford to lose (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For many people, even that amount will cause serious problems...
That may be true, but beyond assuring there is no outright fraud or dishonest dealing and/or breach of agreements/contracts, what freaking business is it of the government whether I invest my wealth wisely or unwisely?
The same logic would dictate that individuals & households should have weekly/monthly/yearly budgets & financial planning performed by the government as well, particularly for the poor, as they're typically the ones with the worst wealth-management skills.
Heck, just have the government
LendingClub - can already do this in many states (Score:3)
LendingClub, a peer 2 peer investment firm, was a Forbes 2011 most promising company. For people who have invested about 20K, 100% have not lost any money. Basically it allows people to get loans that are graded A-F, better grade, lower interest. Then you can buy into a loan from $25 - $5k. Once enough people fund the loan it goes active. Average loan is 11K for debt consolidation, average return is 6%. Not bad. They also have done over 1/2 a billion in loans.
I'm not part of the company, I was just investig
When was it made illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why was Profiting from Crowdsourcing a movie, song, or book made illegal? And when did it happen.
Re:When was it made illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:When was it made illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
That is exactly what the Senate amendments to the bill address: http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/a-look-at-the-proposed-amendments-to-the-crowdfunding-bill/12669
The gist of the amendments (which I believe just passed) tighten up the certification and disclosure rules, the requirements for investors (based on annual income), and some important arcana on who is allowed to advertise these things (e.g., no pump-and-dump schemes.) The amendments strike me as a fairly good idea-- if you're asking for a half a million dollars from random people you don't know, then, yes, you're gonna get a CPA to certify and publicize your finances.
With those amendments, the overall idea also strikes me as a good idea. Sanity seems to have prevailed, assuming the House approves the amendments.
Re: (Score:2)
Until you go broke, then you expect the bureaucrat to provide you with welfare, free healthcare, subsidized housing and so on and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
>>> I'd love to be able to raise some cash this way.
You can. See this link - http://piratemyfilm.com/ [piratemyfilm.com] (And Max Keiser's pitch: http://maxkeiser.com/2009/04/07/max-keiser-radio-pitches-piratemyfilmcom/ [maxkeiser.com] )
Re:When was it made illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Crowdsourcing in general is illegal because of hucksters tricking people out of their investment dollars.
Right. There is a long, long history of investment scams, from John Law's bank to Florida real estate to "High Yield Investment Plans. The current big scam thing is "distressed real estate". That's why we have SEC registration and mandatory disclosures. Here are some recent scams of that type. [securities...d-blog.com]
"Crowdfunding" is about selling unregistered securities to individuals. This usually ends badly.
If anything, the rules on who is a "qualified investor" and can invest in private placements should be tightened up. At present, pension funds are considered "qualified investors", which means they can invest in hedge funds. That didn't work out too well around 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's sad when uneducated persons make unwise investments, and then lose everything. I knew a guy who thought he'd won the lottery, and stupidly mailed-off the money.
Then he lost his job, which was no big deal but the unemployment eventually ran-out (2 years). NOW he's dead, because he had ~30,000 racked-up on credit cards with no incoming money, and unable to pay his bills, so he ended his life.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he lost his job, which was no big deal but the unemployment eventually ran-out (2 years). NOW he's dead, because he had ~30,000 racked-up on credit cards with no incoming money, and unable to pay his bills, so he ended his life.
Guess it didn't occur to him to maybe sell some of the shit he bought on credit, to pay that balance (partially) down? He thought ending his life was preferable to giving up whatever junk he bought. That's not stupid, that's crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right, but you need to remember it's a pretty god damn easy thing to do to second guess someone.
Re: (Score:2)
The creditors took his storage shed. That left him with nothing but his house (mostly empty). Of course he could have sold his house, paid off his cards, and then lived in an apartment. But some people don't want to give-up the house. (We're seeing that right now with people unable to pay their mortgages but refusing to leave.)
Re: (Score:2)
But some people don't want to give-up the house. (We're seeing that right now with people unable to pay their mortgages but refusing to leave.)
Much of that is probably because they feel the banks have cheated them, or are yanking them around with respect to refinancing and such.
I really can't say I blame them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, I'm not making light whatsoever to the tragic events that your friend experienced.
However, I must comment, that I don't believe it the the government's constitutional mandate to protect any individual from their own ignorance or stupidity, or just bad decisions.
I fear too much regulation over what a person does, is basically forci
Re: (Score:2)
A huge problem today is pension funds investing, period.
What a pension fund wants is some growth but stable growth and a solid indication that they aren't going to lose anything, ever. That is perfect for AAA bonds but really awful for investing in company stock in any form. Since these funds have so much money to invest - usually in big blocks - they have a great deal of influence. Which means once your company is deeply in with a pension fund or two as major stockholders the company must be run in a ma
Re: (Score:2)
By letting the pension funds in the door ... we have made sure that high-risk projects and products are just never approved.
Theres nothing wrong with "high risk projects",even in that culture.. you just have to make sure that the amount of capital invested in the "high risk project", is an amount you can afford to lose.
aka, "Never gamble with money you cant afford to lose".
This is just GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE. So if people arent doing high risk stuff, it isnt because of what you said. It's more likely because the people in control are looking for short-term gain, over larger but longer-term gain.
This is not a new phenomenon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how exactly is this different from every election campaign? You could consider every campaign contribution an "investment" (corporations certainly do), and your "return" is the policies you want enacted. And the individual investors in these political candidates almost invariably get tricked.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The laws were put into place to discourage fraud. If you want to get people to invest in your project, you need to go through a formal prospectus. Otherwise, it's easy to promise people the moon and return nothing. It goes back to the founding of the SEC in the 1930s, and additional legislation passed since then.
The success stories for Kickstarter are inspiring, but the potential for ripoffs is enormous. You need to know just what it is you're buying into. The amount of money that can be lost to fraud is c
Re: (Score:2)
When you give money into a KickStarter project, you are in the exact same boat, except you aren't allowed to treat your donated money as an investment, outside of the good generated.
If they pass this, then at least I would have a *chance* at getting a return on my money. When given the choice between a $100 "donation" and a $100 "investment", but both ways I get a video-game out of it, I'll take the investment.
Re: (Score:2)
The goal is to ensure that the "chance" you're taking is on the success or failure of the project, not whether the person pushing it is a fraud.
Because you don't always get a video game out of it: some Kickstarter projects just plain fail. That's to be expected; it's the joys of entrepreneurship, as long as they fail honestly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they're generally not going to be enforced over amounts on the order of a few thousand dollars. It costs the FBI more than a few thousand dollars to investigate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The laws were put into place to discourage fraud. If you want to get people to invest in your project, you need to go through a formal prospectus.
In most start-ups, the risk of business failure is thousands of times greater than the risk of fraud!
I would love to know whether the rules in place provide enough fraud reduction benefit to make up for the costs of the registration. You should be required to say "YOU ARE LIKELY TO LOSE ALL YOUR MONEY" to investors, anything else is unlikely to be of much benefi
Re: (Score:2)
The laws were put into place to discourage fraud. If you want to get people to invest in your project, you need to go through a formal prospectus.
In most start-ups, the risk of business failure is thousands of times greater than the risk of fraud!
The most gloomy projections [newventurelab.com] for new business survival are around 10%, and then it's a matter of semantics (in other words, business not making as much money as projected constitutes "failure"). Analysis of the 10-year survival rate of businesses [smallbiztrends.com] shows about 30%.
On the other hand, I personally receive 1 or more NEW fraudulent investment "opportunities" every day. Whoopee!
The point is that the regulations are there to keep the legitimate investments from looking like the fraudulent ones. You can still lose e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking more about "crowdvesting" than crowdsourcing. The bill is about when there's money involved.
Right now, it's possible to accept donations, but not to return profits. That seems counterintuitive, but people are more likely to give when they think there's a chance of getting money back, and that leads to opportunities for fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
So, we should force everyone be limited in what they want to do with their money based on the l
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. History has taught us this.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know which way you're going on this...care to expand on your thoughts a bit?
Re: (Score:3)
Why was Profiting from Crowdsourcing a movie, song, or book made illegal? And when did it happen.
My question as well. Follow the crowd sourcing link in TFS. It's actually not just a link to a wikipedia entry defining crowd sourcing.
As Amy Cortese writes in the NYTimes:
Under those laws, crafted largely in the 1930s, the sites would have to either limit the fund-raising to wealthy investors, who the S.E.C. deems sophisticated, or go through a registration process that would prove too costly given the small sums being sought
Re: (Score:2)
"SEC registration... too costly". Yeah okay. That figures. I won't be surprised if RIAA and the other megacorp content types try to kill the amendment to this bill. (Gotta protect their outdated model and money.)
investing in a private company is illegal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They has "internet" in the 1930s?
Al Gore wasn't even born, that impossible!
Uhm... (Score:2)
This bill is about a *lot* more than crowdsourcing, and not everyone thinks most of it is a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I've not read the rest of the bill...this one section caught my eye and I liked it...but what other parts are in there that are objectionable that you've seen?
Scam? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Of course, supporters don’t describe it that way. They say the JOBS Act — for Jumpstart our Business Startups — would remove burdensome regulations that they claim have made it too difficult for companies to raise money from investors, impeding their ability to grow and hire.
Never mind that reams of Congressional testimony, market analysis and academic research have shown that regulation has not been an impediment to raising capital. In fact, too little regulation has been at the root of all recent bubbles and bursts — the dot-com crash, Enron, the mortgage meltdown. Those free-for-alls created jobs and then imploded, causing mass joblessness. "
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/washington-has-a-very-short-memory.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss [nytimes.com]
Re:Scam? (Score:4, Interesting)
During George "duh" Bush's administration the number of regulations increased from 110,000 to 150,000 pages. The New York Times must be using a definition of the word "deregulation" that I am not familiar with, because I would call a ~50% increase in regulations the Exact Opposite of deregulation.
I cannot comment of the dot-com or enron debacles, but it is very clear to me the mortgage bubble was created by the Government, its Fannie/Freddie organizations, and the private bank monopoly known as the Fed. They colluded with one another to provide tons of cheap low-interest loans, and that fueled the rapid rise in demand for limited housing, and eventual burst of the bubble in 2007-8. If anything it was TOO MUCH regulation (Congress insisting everyone should get a mortgage, even if they were too poor to pay it back).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For what I read, very few of the loans were "mandated". Instead, there was a massive impulse to loan to anyone without proper checks, because in the end the banks were just going to sell the junk to other investors (assured by the AAA+ from rating companies that are still out there).
This article [csmonitor.com] explain why people with no ability to repay the mortgage where granted one, not because mandated loans but because the mortgaging company got its benefit from firming and selling the loan (doing a risk analysis mig
Re: (Score:2)
During George "duh" Bush's administration the number of regulations increased from 110,000 to 150,000 pages. The New York Times must be using a definition of the word "deregulation" that I am not familiar with, because I would call a ~50% increase in regulations the Exact Opposite of deregulation.
Without context, the figure is pointless. It is like claiming that my software is better than yours, because mine has 150000 LOC while yours only has 110000 LOC(*). Likewise, they could have heavily regulated certains practices that affected only to marginal parts of the economy and deregulated critical ones.
For what I read here [csmonitor.com] and in other articles, private companies were pretty much happy with signing away untenable mortgages because they were just selling them away, without sharing the risk. This lead t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but it is very clear to me the mortgage bubble was created by the Government, its Fannie/Freddie organizations, and the private bank monopoly known as the Fed. They colluded with one another to provide tons of cheap low-interest loans, and that fueled the rapid rise in demand for limited housing, and eventual burst of the bubble in 2007-8. If anything it was TOO MUCH regulation
Right. None of it had anything to do with the massive fraud the loan originators and derivatives bundlers were perpetuating.
Those fucks are so dishonest, they couldn't even forclose on the clusterfuck they created without robosigning their way to another massive fraud upon the people.
You have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to think "TOO MUCH regulation" is the reason those assholes lied their way to massive profits.
Seriously, how could you have ignored the endless reporting on what the banks and lenders were d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And I would say that someone who merely counts the number of pages has no idea what they're talking about.
I cannot comment of the dot-com or enron debacles, but it is very clear to me the mortgage bubble was created by the Government, its Fannie/Freddie organizations, and the private bank monopoly known as the Fed. They colluded with one another to provide tons of cheap low-interest loans, and that fueled the rapid rise in demand for limited housing, and eventual burst of the bubble in 2007-8. If anything it was TOO MUCH regulation (Congress insisting everyone should get a mortgage, even if they were too poor to pay it back).
False. The biggest factor was the repeal of Glass-Stegall(sp?), which made it far more possible for banks to be risky with money, including loans. And that IS deregulation.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously, you learned nothing about the economics of credit default swaps and why they were behind the financial meltdown. You just swallowed Wall Street's line that it was all those poor people conspiring against all those honest businessmen on Wall Street. Get ready to get fleeced, AGAIN.
Re: (Score:2)
At work they block most of the web, so I cannot access my usual links (for sources). Sorry. But it's pretty obvious that the Housing Bubble was caused by mortgages that were too easy to get, and the reason they were too easy to get is because the Congress and also the HUD secretary dropped the minimum qualifications to almost nothing. Everyone could get a mortgage. That created the boom. (And booms are always followed by busts.)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW if Glass-Steagall were still in effect, would it have prevented the housing bust in 2008? No. We'd still be in the same situation..... maybe a little better but not by much, because when you have a major market like housing collapse, there will be wide-ranging damage.
Oh and here's a link I just found that shows how Bush REGULATED, not deregulated:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off [reason.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I see. You're one of those who think Clinton and Obama are angels on earth. I suspected. In reality they are no better than the Republicans (puppets of their corporate funders). Especially Obama who I think is a pro-war, pro-corporatist neocon.
Re: (Score:2)
Good flamebait, he is not even adressing anything about the Democrats. He is merely stating the fact that Glass Steagall WORKED.
So stop being a angry troll and get some sunlight.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you are not able to actually counter his points, and so you have to resort to trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up, its a good quote.
Re: (Score:2)
I was not aware that the poster, nor the NYT in any way said they were.
Outdated information (Score:5, Interesting)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57402589-92/jobs-act-clears-senate-one-step-from-becoming-law/ [cnet.com]
The JOBS Act has passed the Senate. In a 73 to 26 vote today, an amended version of H.R. 3606, which opens startup investing to individuals ("crowdfunding") and gives young companies more flexibility in filing to enter the public stock markets, cleared what is probably its last major hurdle before becoming law.
I'm really surprised that it passed the Senate as the JOBS act is chock full of poorly thought out deregulation.
It's so bad that the head of the SEC has come out against it [washingtonpost.com] and State securities regulators are against the bill [reuters.com]
If this bill becomes law, it'll directly lead to the next wave of investor fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, you may be talking about some of the people who best know the world of investment finance, but they also have a vested interest in opposing deregulation: it removes some of their power. They no longer have oversight over something, and that is generally a scary proposition for people in power.
This doesn't mean they're wrong, merely that you have to evaluate their statements in the context of their positions. As you should do for investment bankers who might be in favour of the change.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, you may be talking about some of the people who best know the world of investment finance, but they also have a vested interest in opposing deregulation: it removes some of their power. They no longer have oversight over something, and that is generally a scary proposition for people in power.
Those aren't the only organizations against the bill. The AARP even thinks it is a bad idea.
They don't want their rich old members getting fleeced because companies no longer have to release a prospectus whose contents are accountable to the SEC.
http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/blogs/wp-content/ourfinancialsecurity.org/uploads/2012/02/AARP-small-business-letter-FINAL.pdf [ourfinancialsecurity.org] (PDF)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Caveat Emptor......
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, what a pile of shit. Not one thing in your post is remotely accurate. The only people who don't do due diligence on an investment are idiots who wouldn't do it anyway, even if there wasn't government regulation.
And there's very good reason for having these regulations, as history paints a very bleak picture of fraud and scams without them.
This bill is a terrible idea (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill reduces oversight, regulation, and investor protection measures when companies want to raise investment capital. Please read the following:
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/20/cfa-institute-against-the-jobs-bill/ [baselinescenario.com]
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/21/jobs-disaster-looms/ [baselinescenario.com]
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/22/last-ditch-attempt-to-save-a-little-bit-of-investor-protection-in-the-united-states/ [baselinescenario.com]
One of the biggest cause of the recent financial crisis was too little regulation of the financial industry. I do *not* want to do it again in 5 years.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the biggest cause of the recent financial crisis was too little regulation of the financial industry. I do *not* want to do it again in 5 years.
Don't worry... in 5 years we still won't be recovered enough for another crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
This bill reduces oversight, regulation, and investor protection measures when companies want to raise investment capital. Please read the following:
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/20/cfa-institute-against-the-jobs-bill/ [baselinescenario.com]
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/21/jobs-disaster-looms/ [baselinescenario.com]
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/22/last-ditch-attempt-to-save-a-little-bit-of-investor-protection-in-the-united-states/ [baselinescenario.com]
One of the biggest cause of the recent financial crisis was too little regulation of the financial industry. I do *not* want to do it again in 5 years.
The only crisis you don't want to have happen is the one you don't see coming... If this is as plain-faced as many out there think it is, what is the worry? Wait for the momentum to pick up, then bet big against crowd-vesting. Then, sit back and watch your millions roll in!
Re: (Score:2)
That's an awful fucking answer. For one, you don't know if this guy is rich enough to do so. Odds are he isn't. Second, if he's not, even if he can see it coming a mile away, that doesn't mean he isn't going to be fucked over by it just the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to believe that the deregulation of the banks was A if not THE major cause of the collapse we saw in 2008, however the question isn't whether all regulation is bad or all regulation is good. That's the way the debate is framed in our rock-stupid political discourse and our current dumbass presidential campaign.
The *real* debate should be what regulation is appropriate in what situation. When you talk about over-regulation of small business most people have a good point. Small business can't brin
Re: (Score:2)
Small business might not be able to bring down the economy, however, many small businesses together might be able to. Remember the dot-com bubble?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who claims that regulation kills jobs and is a scam is trying to get you to let them scam you.
Re: (Score:2)
And I dare you to prove it is so using the actual meat of the rules, rather than just the number of them. If 2,000 rules were added that don't really affect anything, and 3 rules were removed that were huge parts of regulation, what was the net effect?
Sounds like an awful idea (Score:2)
The idea that someone can become an investor - and start thinking they are going to have input into the operation of their investment - without having any knowledge of what they are investing in is a sure road to disaster.
Unfortunately, the disaster isn't just for stupid investor that puts some money into something relatively blindly and then regrets it. Oh no, if it was just that the limits on how much money might be OK. No, the trouble starts when J.B. Moneybags shows up on the doorstep of what he inves
Ordinary Americans Shouldn't be Allowed to Invest (Score:2)
Until Americans get much, much better at basic mathematics and risk management in general, it is foolish to allow the average person to invest in a venture capital manner -- and history is a guide as too why.
During the years 2000 - 2007 millions upon millions of Americans took out first, second, and third mortgages to invest in real estate -- a tangible product that historically is a good investment. They all signed loan documents containing something called "The Truth in Lending Act" disclosure that says i
otherwise called the "FACEBOOK" bill (Score:2)
I smell a bubble (Score:2)
Wrong JOBS Act, wrong target (Score:2)
If they want to make it pass, add the provisions from the bill that made long-term unemployed a protected class - like the identically named but worker-individual friendly predecessor.
Adding the crowdsourcing provision is only a distraction when the problem rests with businesses throwing every roadblock to hiring.
Sign me up! (Score:3)
I'm just thrilled at the possibility that I could get in on the ground floor with somebody's great investment opportunity. I'll wire all my money to Nigeria right away.
Re:Boom & Bust (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Better for them to go bankrupt giving their money to overseas scammers running shell companies in the US that will launder money out of the country than giving it to overseas scammers running shell companies in Nigeria.
Wait.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying it'll be successful? (Remember, laundered money is taxed money.)
Re: (Score:2)
How to get rich in four easy steps:
1. Start off rich
2. Invest your money wisely
3: ???
4. Profit
Wealthy investors can invest without regulation (or at least, limited regulations) because the SEC assumes that wealthy people know how to handle their money.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if they sold it like that, they couldn't vote for it. So it's instead sold as "We're going to protect you from scammers by making it impossible for you to invest in small startup companies! Don't worry, we'll invest in them and keep all of the rewards for ourselves."
You just keep buying those CD's now.
Remember
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. And I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with scams of this very nature that were an epidemic on the country around the 1920s and 1930s.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/quotes-of-2008-we-are-in-a-state-of-shocked-disbelief-1220057.html [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Greenspan was in disbelief because he was a blind follower of a bankrupt philosophy.
One of the many major problems of Objectivism is that power corrupts. People won't always act rationally and they will steamroll people just because they can.
Re: (Score:2)
People won't act rationally simply because they are people. There are numerous psychological hangups and attachments that get in the way of us making purely rational decisions. And these hangups have been studied exhaustively, so that many of the rich are able to exploit them.
Re: (Score:2)
statism provides more opportunity for 'steamrolling' than the non aggression principle ever could.
What 'non-aggression' principle? You completely missed his point. Those who can will steamroll over people just because they can, whether they be in private industry or not, and whether they have government support or not.
The power of freedom of association and mutually voluntary exchange is not to 'steamroll' people. That is an exclusive domain of violence.
Are you honestly trying to say that the rich and powerful will not fuck people over simply because they can? If so, then you're clearly not an Objectivist, you're a retard.
Re: (Score:2)
If the average joe is not allowed to get investment in his company, then how do companies with wealthy venture capital investors work? What's the difference?
There is a small flock of lawyers on either side of the table figuring out how to avoid having their side get (overtly) screwed in the deal, by way of very specific ownership contracts. Since it's not practical to have a lawyer sitting next to the computer everywhere a crowd-vesting purchase is about to be made (it will be a purchase of a share of the profits, not a donation like we currently see with crowdsourcing) it does not seem practical to let "just anyone" solicit funds for ventures of questionable
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's already legalized. It's called Credit Default Swaps.
Re: (Score:2)
Say whatever you want; the reporting requirements for offering stock are NOT a bad thing.