Sorry, But It's Not The SEC's Job To Stop Investors From Making Stupid Decisions en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sat, 27 Dec 2014 11:04:55 -0500 Henry Blodget Spydrouge Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:50:50 -0400 Hank Rearden? Points for exhibiting Ayn Rand's ultra-conservatism, but the character from Atlas Shrugged didn't strike me as passive aggressive. Ease up on the venomous tone, would you? AZAM Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:12:31 -0400 Groupon should never had been allowed to go public in the first place or at the time the firm IPO: at the time it filed for IPO because it has problems with filings and statements made that were against rules well known. This was not a “wildly profitable” firm, and compared to Google,that had issues with interview during quite period, was very profitable and lower risk. Groupon is compared to Ponzi scheme that does not have a proven business model and went public because it needed to fund the scheme. I do think the SEC and Investment banks have a role to play to prevent poor firms from tapping the public market and offer fair value to the market. Poor companies and potential fraud does not help create a vibrant market. The mere fact the SEC and Investment banks are involved lend their reputation and give credence to these firms that go public. It is not the responsibility of SEC or Investment Banks to prevent poor investment decisions. BUt their roles is to prevent their own poor decisions at the expense of the public and overall health of the financial markets. Everyone wins when good companies go public and bad ones are prevent from tapping the public market. mje Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:59:03 -0400 Investor deserve figures from the company that are true and real.. if the company says is it making a profit as of 12.31.2012, it cannot 3 months later oops! we were losing money not making money. Investors wer led to believe the company was profible then and bought the stock accordinly. where were the CPA"s? and managment who was cooking the books possibly, Investors rely on the audited financial statements to paint a true picture of the company. That is why the retail investon has left Wall Street. We have crooked bankers, companies, and pr agents like yourself who excuse malfeance in Wall Street and then blames the investor for relying on the fictional accounting. Zinjifrab Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:28:15 -0400 My only concern about JOBS-like bills is the degree of manipulation that could take place given what are likely low levels of liquidity. Will the SEC have enough manpower to monitor the trading activities to ensure that they aren't being manipulated? My hunch is no. While this isn't a new issue, especially with penny stocks, the difference is that these could be higher profile opportunities to swindle folks. But otherwise, 100% agree... SEC is about creating the level playing field; the investors are responsible for playing the game. rquist Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:26:36 -0400 Henry for once I agree with you. The SEC is responsible for disclosure by companies, they cannot blamed when investors ignore the disclosures. FredLlede Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:11:32 -0400 And turned up the lag. Hey, Spawn Killing's a legitimate way to win! FredLlede Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:09:27 -0400 Until we privatize Social Security and give them the choice of an annuity, the stock market, or treasuries. Then they'll pay attention and start figuring things out. 'Course, won't do any good unless they can seat their own systems in the exchanges and gain benefit of micro-second transactions. Stoopid investors. FredLlede Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:07:38 -0400 Exactly! If investors of mortgage backed securities didn't do due diligence and realize that GS was betting on them going down, even as they sold them, it's all the investors fault. Stoopid investors didn't break in and listen at the right keyholes. Beltway Greg Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:39:20 -0400 Depends on time horizon. Don't make me submit this question to that Vos Savant woman in Parade magazine. Nick Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:17:10 -0400 Sounds like the elderly and naive don't belong in markets. Henry Blodget Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:38:45 -0400 Yes... Thanks, Gordon. Henry Blodget Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:37:14 -0400 No--the seller stops winning the moment he or she sells the share. He or she gave up the future gains. belogical Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:57:47 -0400 I agree. However, what was once called a bad decision is likely fraud in this day and age. Gary Anderson Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:38:20 -0400 Maybe he knows something about Yahoo that you don't. :) But, clearly IPOs are simply a scam for the underwriters. So I agree with Sorkin. Nothing that helps Goldman Sachs can be good. Fairfield County Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:45:02 -0400 Yeah you are right, the banks have not been a problem at all. Oh hey, look at that. A report from the Dallas Fed on ending TBTF. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Gordon Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:35:52 -0400 it's the free market that will decide what's "shaky" and what's not. you vote with your wallet. if you think it's a bad investment - stay away. but why should you decide what's shaky? perhaps many thought MSFT or AAPL was shaky when they started. it is not yours or the governments decision to decide what is worthy of investment. let the free market allocate capital to where it thinks it should go. sometimes ventures will fail - sometimes they will succeed. but that overall systems works. phoneranger Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:35:37 -0400 Hang on. Just the same way money can be used to buy an election (see Romney2012) it can also be used to spread misinformation about an IPO's prospects. Sure Groupon was well-known and big enough that most investors went into it with eyes wide open. I think the beef with JOBS is for smaller companies where a company can basically buy the story it wants to tell from credulous market analysts and bloggers. Maybe the SEC isn't very good at what it's supposed to do but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. By someone. imdwightgooden Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:33:49 -0400 nah, rather stalk you so that you're reminded about what a little sniveling weasel you are... you gutless dirtball Hank Rearden Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:33:22 -0400 Henry, I think your argument is interesting but you're feigning support on this topic. Your discussion regarding; it's a 'market', 'no reward without risk', and 'investors whining for government protection' are all arguments that ring much too shallow coming from you. Were this truly your cause and position, could it not be applied to the housing markets, forced subprime lending, student loans, etc? Or the nascent incandescent lightbulb, and SUV or the health insurance of my choice? If only we did have a true market. Given your previous arguments and articles espousing your position on the 'good' required of a proper nanny state - this rings hollow. Dean Wormer Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:32:22 -0400 Henry, Simple question: How does helping ever-more-shaky companies go public help the efficient allowcation of capital and the growth of the American economy? Much of today's security regulations came from the great depression where every more shaky enterprises pushed ever more misstated financials on ever more leveraged general public by ever more conflicted investment/commercial banks. Did we not learn anything? Group and it's ilk have no business in the public markets selling profit-less securities. If they want to raise capital why don't they stick to private markets? You and I both know why, cause they aren't enough great fools in the private markets. No the SEC is there to mitigate, as best they can, these excesses. Gordon Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:28:32 -0400 ignore my posts you insecure self loathing little annoying bagel eater. imdwightgooden Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:25:52 -0400 yeah, how come with you that personal responsibility stops when it comes to the banks, you low brow turd? how come you never rail against the banks not having to be responsible for their own stupid lending decisions? you ignorant toady hack Gordon Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:24:35 -0400 as i understand it - Blodge still holds a few loser legacy stocks left over from the 90s. he hangs on to them as a warning - and a reminder - to stick with low cost index funds. williambanzai7 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:22:45 -0400 Actually, it is a giant video game and someone has deactivated the trigger mechanism on your console. imdwightgooden Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:22:30 -0400 henry's a lot wealthier than 99.99% of the country... you investments should be tailored to your individual circumstances plus, i'm sure that in addition to yahoo share, henry has at least a few mill in an S&P 500 fund as well as other similar fund investments Gordon Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:21:36 -0400 agreed. you can't cheat an honest man. people chase whatever is "hot" and they let their greed and stupidity take over. if their GAMBLE wins they keep all of the gains - if their gamble loses they CRY and BLAME someone else - usually the evil "Banksters" or "The Rich" or the Government. STOP BLAMING OTHERS FROM YOUR DUMB DECISIONS IN LIFE. TAKE SOME PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. whether you bought dot coms, florida condos, Madoff's ponzi - IT'S YOUR GAMBLE WIN OR LOSE. BUYER BEWARE. freddy bee Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:18:50 -0400 you talk about holding diversified, long term index funds, but you're long Yahoo. That, Henry, makes me question your ability to hand out investment advice. imdwightgooden Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:18:46 -0400 henry, good advice on recommending that people buy for the long term, buy quality, buy diversified funds, etc. 95% of the country has no business buying risky, 4-letter NASDAQ stocks like Groupon... if you want to buy tech stocks buy a NASDAQ etf... i have no sympathy if you get carried out on your shield from investing in a tech stock... everyone thinks they're gonna buy the next apple but it just doesn't work out that way... technology is always changing and today's winner is tomorrow's laggard, even amongst what are considered large cap tech companies... there's still people sitting w/50%+ losses from 2000 in companies like cisco, microsoft and dell and these were once the creme of the crop of tech stocks ivanhoho Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:18:44 -0400 The "big risks" accrue ti naive individuals. banks trade with tax payer money. hedege funds play the UNRAELIZED GAIN scam on investors. Yes, the best thing to do is close every e-trade, ib, at, and everyother daytrading account and walk away. do you ever think 9-11 had somethong to do with karma? Hmmmmmm.....just a thought. kryptic Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:17:26 -0400 Hopefully everyone who bought shares in Groupon was aware that their accounting practices are dubious and the company, even after the IPO, had a poor cashflow situation. In addition, people generally knew that the IPO wasn't really the about funding the company, it was about allowing the prior shareholders to cash out. The level of short interest in Groupon basically said people generally understood this was a shitty investment. If so, the SEC largely did its job, the problem is that professional investors bought shares in Groupon despite what they knew about the company. Nick Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:15:37 -0400 Bravo Henry. Highway Star Bunty Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:15:37 -0400 Investors rarely or never read S-3/S-8 filings at all. Pump and Dump is big business.......BIG BIZNESS....DIRTY DIRTY Games..Worser than Hunger games... Some fool from some blog will write a column and say NEXT FACEBOOK...and thus start a brush fire... POOR SHEEPLE....kababs. ivanhoho Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:11:49 -0400 In the 80's the sec and us atty sent many "financial media" publishers to prison. They wanted to protect the public Now, via criminalks, like James Cramer "the most trusted name in financai media" the public, especiall elderly and naive, are open season. Cramer and the "good folks" at cnbc have killed more naive and elderly people than Hitler and Bin Laden combined. Their new daily objective is to push every desperate retired person into the stock market so the banks can offload thir inventories to someone before a crash. Im surprised no one has..........I;m afraud to post wehat I really think Beltway Greg Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:11:11 -0400 BTW, Henry, there is not a loser every time a stock trades. If you sell at a profit to an individual who holds until he/she has a profit then you have two winners. True one day the game of musical money stops but there aren't always two losers. Astropig Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:09:11 -0400 Spot on,Henry. Some investors want the game rigged in their favor so that they never lose. Without risk,there can be no real reward and stocks are the essence of risk. Beltway Greg Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:08:37 -0400 The SEC is worthless and a waste of public money. Most of the employees, correction all, will soon be throwing their resumes over the transom at Goldman. The revolving door between the SEC and lobbying is stunning.